Mein Kampf discussion

[Rock]

WestyHeadBanger!
Are you kidding me with number 7? its a book that explains racial theories, its so sad that still millions of white people around the earth read this book, like deep inside they just want to feel like they developed further, often because they lack something in normal life, they use that to make them feel better, its sad, its stupid, I see this way of thinking everywhere, specially when nerds get drunk, its sick, it should be forbidden forever to even think like that, freedom of speech my ass.


But does nobody like The Old Man and the sea anymore? or Sinue the egyptian.

[ElPietro]

I think no book should be forbidden. Reading books like these show the human condition, whether it applies over a large demographic or a single person.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Rock
WestyHeadBanger!
Are you kidding me with number 7? its a book that explains racial theories, its so sad that still millions of white people around the earth read this book, like deep inside they just want to feel like they developed further, often because they lack something in normal life, they use that to make them feel better, its sad, its stupid, I see this way of thinking everywhere, specially when nerds get drunk, its sick, it should be forbidden forever to even think like that, freedom of speech my ass.

I've read 'Mein Kampf'--well, the first 500 pages or so. It's not nearly as badly written as usually suggested, though it is somewhat disjointed and often venomously hateful. It offers a window into the mind of a man whose actions continue to exert a profound influence on the world even to this day.

[Rock]

Mein Kampf is not a book, its just a diary of propaganda, its bull**** and it should just be burned, because so many use it for their own satisfaction, I really dont understand why anybody wants to read Hitlers Diary, he was just a short ugly ****, he wasnt no evil genious or something, he was a puppet anyhow, so sad that people want to make into something great, the whole he was mean, but so so so so smart idea sickens me.

[WestyHeadbanger]

Originally posted by Rock
Mein Kampf is not a book, its just a diary of propaganda, its bull**** and it should just be burned


Burned huh??

Now that is some serious irony, when you consider one of the main ways the Nazis persecuted the Jews was in burning their literature and art.

Mein Kampf was a good book, coulda done with a car chase or 2 tho.

[Rock]

WestyHeadBanger, yeah some real irony, man why cant people use som real arguments, its like when your discussing the death penalty with someone and they say : ooh..but then the state is a murderer too", yeah...sure.

I think its scary that I am the only one who objects, its like dont critize nothing that to do with freedom of speech now, thats a major tabu.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by Rock

I think its scary that I am the only one who objects, its like dont critize nothing that to do with freedom of speech now, thats a major tabu.

Rock from I read you said you see people quote Mein Kumf (sp?), nmaybe thats why you object more. I think alot of people here don't know what it is even. Where I live its pretty much all white and no jews. I am not sure if I have even met one, a jewish person that is. I would know if I met someone black. It is starting to change here though, unfortunately some of the influx may not be a good represantaion of the culture.
Either way. You may be bothered by because you see the effects of it, and have a more well rounded veiw. But I am still against banning books

[Rock]

I agree a bit with you, but its not a book, its just foolish rambling propaganda for whites who feel the need to glorify their skin color.

[maverick]

Originally posted by Rock
Mein Kampf is not a book, its just a diary of propaganda, its bull**** and it should just be burned, because so many use it for their own satisfaction, I really dont understand why anybody wants to read Hitlers Diary, he was just a short ugly ****, he wasnt no evil genious or something, he was a puppet anyhow, so sad that people want to make into something great, the whole he was mean, but so so so so smart idea sickens me.

We all may hate Hitler, but he was a briliiant military strategist. Albiet, he lost WW2 because of 2 critical errors: attacking the USSR, and moving the bulk of his forces in Normandy close to Dover, where there was a massive build up of fake military forces designed to fool the Nazis into thinking the Allies were attacking from that point because its was the narrowist point between England and France.

[PowerManDL]

He wasn't that brilliant. Its basic military strategy to never fight a war on two fronts......if he hadn't dicked over the Soviets he might have had a fighting chance.

[Berserker]

His health was failing and he was in a rush. He put himself before the fatherland.
But you have to give him credit, he took a country that was ravished with inflation and in ruins from WW1, and took it to a real power. He understood that people like to hate.

[Jane]

I'll give Hitler as much credit for his military strategy as I give a serial killer for flawless execution of elaborate murders and continual evasion of the police. That's some real skill there, you gotta admit.

[/sarcasm]

And learn from this, people. No one messes around with Mother Russia and gets away with it. :nod:

[Berserker]

You could invade Russia now with a handful surplus tanks and a bread truck, for distraction.

[PowerManDL]

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh SNAP!

[Gyno Rhino]

Bah, you people are missing the Hitler part..

He wasn't that brilliant a MILITARY leader. He just knew how to surround himself with brilliant military leaders. But what he truly, undeniably was was the most powerful orator and charismatic leader that has stepped up to the plate in the last few centuries. I don't think that that is arguable with too many counter examples.

[Rock]

"When the people is poor, old bread will do"

But why do we need his diary? it will lead to racism.

[Berserker]

Surrounding yourself with the right people is a talent in itself. I agree his strength was uniting the people. Played on fears, gave them someone to hate and blame.
Interesting fact was his father was a jew, and hitler wasn't german by birth, Austrian.

[Gyno Rhino]

His diary will not lead to racism. Pretty much anyone that reads his ramblings will come to the conclusion that he was a sad, lonely man that was searching his entire life for a meaning, and the only thing that he ever found was a love for hate and power: the only two things he ever really knew. Sure, every once in a million somebody may read it and think of joining the neo-Nazi movement, but the majority of the population that eye his work simply pity the pathetic bunch of crap he formed in his head.

[Pup]

Originally posted by Rock
"When the people is poor, old bread will do"

But why do we need his diary? it will lead to racism.

That's like saying everyone who reads the art of war will think they are sun tzu...if we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it bro, what good will it do humanity to forget about hitler and have another one rise in 200 years and do the very same thing, not a damn bit of good.

...and i agree with glen, there has not been a military leader that charismatic in ages.

[Berserker]

I was waiting for the art of war to pop up. Some of its good. Some obvious. Some only good if you want to wage war. Short book worth reading.

[Rock]

Gyno and Pup, the history works more of a reminder of "what we can be" over here, in europe people are more sensivitve to ideologies, his ramblings should burned.

[WestyHeadbanger]

Originally posted by Rock
WestyHeadBanger, yeah some real irony, man why cant people use som real arguments, its like when your discussing the death penalty with someone and they say : ooh..but then the state is a murderer too", yeah...sure.

I think its scary that I am the only one who objects, its like dont critize nothing that to do with freedom of speech now, thats a major tabu.


Well Rock it's hard for you to look like you're against NAZIs when you sound as extremely right wing as them, you want to burn books, against freedom of speech and an advocate for the death penalty. I suppose when you read 1984 it didn't scare you, you just thought it would be cool to have a government which did all the thinking for you. I don't think it's scary that you are the only one who objects I think that it reveals your ignorance, if you bothered to ask me why I read it and I told u it was because I am a student history teacher, and that WW2 was the defining event of the 20th century bar none, and that every skerrick of information be it from Hitler or whoever is neccessary to understand how this war shaped our future and why it should never happen again then you may not have objected. I don't know anyone who read Mein Kampf to assert their supposed white superiority because I hang out with intellectuals not gangs.

The thing about a book such as Mein Kampf is, if you are literate enough to read and understand the ramblings of Hitler then chances are you are smart enought to understand that Hitler was a madman. Hitler was a powerful orator and a charismatic leader but an author he was not.......if this book influences anyone I'd be amazed, much of it is a regurgitation of many things that have been written in the past by smarter and more racist men than Hitler and is not impressive.

[_-_v_-_]

more racist men than Hitler

Personally, I consider Hitler to be the apotheosis of racism.

[ElPietro]

Let's listen to rock and burn it all. Let's just pretend WWII never happened. Whenever I hear a racist I instantly turn into one. :rolleyes:

[Rock]

You guys gotta come up with better arguments than that, Mein Kampf has nothing to do with any event that happend under World War II, nothing, Hitler didnt manage to overthrow the gouverment and got 2 years of jail, he wrote down some jibberish.

Of What importance does Mein Kampf has to our historical memrobilia?, nothing!!!! nada, nein klein.


History is a source, source to many things, good and evil.
You are a history student, what good can Mein Kampf be to you, are there particular events and dates described in the book that are really necessary to learn about?,
Do you need mein kampf to understand that the short little inbreed fok was a madman?

I am not saying that it will have any effect on you guys, but so many people will misuse it, so its better for them not to be able to be inspired or use it, then for you guys to read it.

[galileo]

censorship is another form of prejudice.

[Rock]

I think its sad that you dont see the reality, people all over the world are using this book to reach out to new potensial nazis, and by the way in norway the book is illegal and every copy of it here has been terminated.

[ElPietro]

So do you not think they wouldn't just write some new material Rock? If someone is racist the fact that this book exists or not isn't going to change anything. Not talking or reading about some problem doesn't make it go away. I think it's sad that you actually believe that.

[Rock]

What I mean is that it will create new nazis, a guy might stumble over it, read it and like it, like in higher learning, some lonley outcast, stumbles over it....and there you...sniper on the roof.

[Tryska]

*opens door for rock and smiles*

[Rock]

ooooh, I am impressed, what a lady, :) :) !

[Praetorian]

Originally posted by Rock
and by the way in norway the book is illegal and every copy of it here has been terminated.

are you stupid???? seriously...are you? WTF is this bull****. Mein Kampf is not illegal here in norway. We live in a western free democracy....almost nothing is illegal here, when it comes to books, that is.
The librarian (sp?) at my school gave me an edition of mein kampf that was published in 1942...i read it. It aint illegal...The thing about that book is that Hitler says the same ***** over and over again....but he says some smart things too...just read it and you'll see.

[ElPietro]

No wait dont! You might turn into a nazi! :rolleyes:

[Rock]

Its illegal to purchase a copy of Mein Kampf, acording to my history teacher, Hasan, so no I am not stupid.

Well, ElPietro maybe because 99% of the white guys/girls at my school are racists, like when the immigrants leave the room, they say ahh finally the **** is gone and stuff, racism is far greater here in europe than the states, so yes over here you can turn a guy into a nazi so easy.

[Relentless]

something to consider, Rock:

1) Norway is a small country and yeah there's a lot of racism... but it's not ENTIRELY about race... it's cultural arrogance. From my own experience many Norwegians think they're better than EVERYBODY. They're mostly wrong. :D

2) hiding something away or 'banning' it doesn't make it go away; it just forces it underground where it's harder to monitor

3) no one gets 'turned into' a Nazi; if you have political/social views that are compatible with fascism then you will tend towards fascist ideologies... the nazi party was just a political party when it started, yah?

[Black_Curtain]

Well everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and has the right to gather as many opinions as possible to make one.
Mein kaamf isn't really that bigga deal - it is most likely that someone will hear racial theories at one point of his life, so let it be through a not-so-well written book.

[Shankerr]

I would read it, if for nothing else than to see inside the thoughts of a psycho

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Callahan


3) no one gets 'turned into' a Nazi; if you have political/social views that are compatible with fascism then you will tend towards fascist ideologies... the nazi party was just a political party when it started, yah?
I would say this was the case for Mussolini's brand of fascism, which originally had little to say on the subject of race. Fascism proper was more concerned with role of the state and private enterprise. National Socialism was more of an outgrowth of the age old German concept of 'Volk' and the Pan-Germanism of people like Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and had little to say on the subject of government. So, in some ways facism and national socialism had their origins in fundamentally different spheres. Fasism and national Socialism are not one and the same, though most people tend to lump them together for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure about 'Mein Kampf' being illegal in Norway. I know for a fact it is illegal to possess it in Sweden, however.

And I have to agree with Centaurion that Hitler makes some quite cogent observations (and of course many ludicrous observations) about a number of subjects (his ruminations on the role of cities in modern life are very interesting, for example), though it is entirely likely that most of these were regurgitations of other writers, probably from popular pamphlets that were common place in Germany at that time. I would not discount the fact that some of the ideas expressed in 'Mein Kampf' are original to Hitler. He was a very intelligent man, but his knowledge base tends, at least in his writings, to be disjointed and facile. The enormity of Hitler's crimes make it almost impossible to view him objectively. When faced with such tremendous evil, the common response is to dismiss everything he had to say and label him a mad genius, or merely a vehicle for the the longstanding hatred the Germans had for the Jews. Neither, though, is an accurate appraisal of who he was. One must also remember that the Hitler who wrote 'Mein Kampf' was not the one who had commissioned the deaths of over 11 million. That still lay in the future.

[ElPietro]

The only problem, is Rock's argument is the same argument censorship proponents use, only they apply it to everything. So we shouldn't watch violent movies, because they'll make us violent. We shouldn't read books about illegal activity, or other crap like that. If you apply that logic to one thing, then it should be applied to all things, and I strongly disagree with it. You are free to choose your actions, saying reading a book made you become a nazi, or watching some action flic made you want to go out and buy guns and shoot a place up is just a poor excuse for bad judgement.

I have not read Mein Kampf, however, I feel that it could even be encouraged, to be read in schools, so students can get an insight into the mind of a man who had such a large impact in our history. If anything it will help understand our past, and also will show the thoughts of a racist or bigot, which I'd think if you were a non-racist, would be apalling anyway, so it could serve to promote multicultural empathy, not racism.

[3rdtimesacharm]

If you want to talk about "bad" books, lets discuss THE ELDERS OF ZION

[Black_Curtain]

Yeah that's one book which is much more dangerous since many many people believe it tells true facts.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Very scary.

[body]

if the BIBLE had not been wrote, would we had the holely wars in the middle ages?
if the koran had not been wrote, would sept 11th happened?

These books probably (may be through mis-interpration) have caused far more suffering.

So should we ban them?

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Callahan

2) hiding something away or 'banning' it doesn't make it go away; it just forces it underground where it's harder to monitor


Cal gave it head.. Err, I mean hit it on the head. This is the thing that censors just aren't getting into their narrow mind. Look at sexual expression in America if you want a clue of what censorship achieves. By not showing someone something up front, you end up leaving it to them to discover behind your back. THAT is one of the contributing factors to misunderstandings. If your mother showed you Mein Kampf, said "Read this, and we'll talk about it.", ended up discussing it with you and coming to the conclusion you SHOULD.. Well, that's a hell of a lot better than stumbling across some ramblings in a dark alley by misguided yet influential people.

LOOK at the disgusting number of 11yr old girls losing their virginity in middle school. It is soooo sad. If someone would just TALK to them about it, EDUCATE them, then this kind of moronic crap might be curbed. INSTEAD, they just see glimpses or hear talk of sex in media, from friends, whatever. Instead of getting a good background in the subject, they just hear a tiny bit. Then their mind takes over. It isn't curiousity that killed the cat, it's the blindfold that led the poor bastard into the doghouse.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, then YOU ARE EVIL.

[nate allan]

Originally posted by body
if the BIBLE had not been wrote, would we had the holely wars in the middle ages?
if the koran had not been wrote, would sept 11th happened?

These books probably (may be through mis-interpration) have caused far more suffering.

So should we ban them?


Excellant Point! I was going to ask the same thing.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by body
if the BIBLE had not been wrote, would we had the holely wars in the middle ages?
if the koran had not been wrote, would sept 11th happened?

These books probably (may be through mis-interpration) have caused far more suffering.

So should we ban them?

I agree with nate allan, great point. I was thinking the same thing as I was perusing this thread.

[GonePostal]

Rock I see your POV on this book. But banning it does little good though. This is what makes "us" different from "them". We can tolerate and even emapthize with their ideals. If we start summarily dismissing and banning these ideas we tread down a very slippery slope. Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for our freedom.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Freedom of speech, it's a beautiful thing, and generally does way more good, than harm.

[DoubleGulp]

I read Mein Kampf because, like it or not, it's part of history. I didn't read it cause I'm a white guy looking for trouble.


its just foolish rambling propaganda for whites who feel the need to glorify their skin color.

That's a pretty big generalization there. All white people who read it just want to glorify their skin color? You need to talk to more than a couple of neo-nazis who read the book, dude.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by body
if the BIBLE had not been wrote, would we had the holely wars in the middle ages?
if the koran had not been wrote, would sept 11th happened?

I would argue yes. While it is inarguable that the Bible provided a pretext for the Crusades, and the Quran one for September 11th, these events were, in my opinion, due not to a single factor, but to a complex tapestry of history, ideology, and humanity's eternal nature which is equal parts greed and intolerance.

Further, I don't know that in this instance a comparison can be made between these books. "Mein Kampf' wasn't, as was the case with the Quran and the Bible, presenting new ideas. One might be able to make some comparisons to a book like 'Foundations of the Nineteenth Century', Wagner's polemical writings, and other things of that sort, but 'Mein Kampf'? No.

Personally, I think the Holocaust, or something similar, would have have occurred even without Hitler.

[Gyno Rhino]

Banning those novels would only cause more violence in their name.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Firstly, I like to point out that I read and and I'm Jewish.

It's not only for people who idolise Hitler. Like others have mentioned, it's a part of our history, and it's also interesting to read what went through the mind of one of the most infamous human beings ever.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Again, the issue here is that a ton of people are buying books that contain untrue facts, and are passing them off as true. Like with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". It's all about Jewish conspiracies.

[Tiare]

Originally posted by Rock
Well, ElPietro maybe because 99% of the white guys/girls at my school are racists, like when the immigrants leave the room, they say ahh finally the **** is gone and stuff, racism is far greater here in europe than the states, so yes over here you can turn a guy into a nazi so easy.

Hmm, wonder if 99% of the white guys/girls at your school are racists because of the banning of books like "My Story"

I agree rock, that Mein Kamph is not a particularly good book and it posts some disturbing views.

Hitler was not a genius, he was a charismatic person that found an easy target (Germany was in real pain following the WWI accords and people in pain are easy targets, and Hitler gave the German people the feeling that they were not trash but rather that they should be proud).

Germany needed a proud leader, too bad Hitler filled the role.

[3rdtimesacharm]

I think he was a genious. He was a loonie also, but he had amazing charisma, understood what the people wanted, knew who to surround himself with etc.

Not many people can pull off the atrocities he did.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
I think he was a genious. He was a loonie also, but he had amazing charisma, understood what the people wanted, knew who to surround himself with etc.

Not many people can pull off the atrocities he did. '

That is a good thing....

[WestyHeadbanger]

Rock: You tell me my arguments are weak and then use a movie to explain your disjointed and ill-informed argument.

U cant go round burning books......y dont u buy alot of copies of it and burn those. If Mein Kampf were banned it would be another win for those who seek to deny the existance of the Holocaust. I hate to say it Rock but Europe is entangled in a web of denial and your viewpoint seems to be filtered through this. It is very scary, learn to think for yourself.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Gone Postal.

Certainly not, especially for for the 12 million who perished during WWII.

[Belial]

Originally posted by Tiare


Hmm, wonder if 99% of the white guys/girls at your school are racists because of the banning of books like "My Story"


"My Struggle"

[PowerManDL]

I hardly think that your deadlift is applicable to this thread.

[Belial]

*sputters*

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Gone Postal.

Certainly not, especially for for the 12 million who perished during WWII.
It's not a good thing that men/women who cause mass genicide and general death are a rarity?

[TxRebel]

Originally posted by Rock
whites who feel the need to glorify their skin color.

first of i am not racist but hitler was a great leader...how many people could ralley so many together..He made the german people was a supiror race and he was austrian....to me that is a little ironic.......and last there is nothing wrong with glofying your skin colors ever race does it but it seems tabu for whites...On campus we have an all black club but god forbid someone try to do that with all whites becuase that makes it racist.....

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by TxRebel


first of i am not racist but hitler was a great leader...how many people could ralley so many together..He made the german people was a supiror race and he was austrian....to me that is a little ironic.......and last there is nothing wrong with glofying your skin colors ever race does it but it seems tabu for whites...On campus we have an all black club but god forbid someone try to do that with all whites becuase that makes it racist.....
Those clubs should allow all types of members to join. Well that is how it is on my campus. It is called a "chinese" "west indian" or what ever club but everyone is welcome to join.

[TxRebel]

o they say everyone is welcome but the moment you walk it to the room the people make it so uncomfrtable that you want to leave that second........Its all a big trick......and reverse racism

[WillyTheGreat]

I agree with WestyHeadBanger.

Burning books? IDIOT.

Censorship? IDIOT.

It's not propoganda, it's a story about his life. Do you want to ban The Prince because it contains ways to trick people?

There've been extremely good points in here how this one book ain't going to change anything. If one is so stupid to be a supremacist, this ain't going to change it. And I GUARAN-DAMN-TEE you that no idiot will even be able to read this book. If they want to become racist, there are much shorter and simpler pamphlets and books that can assist them to become a parasite in society.

[Reinier]

I think that this in a way contradicts the arguments you used against me when i sayd i wanted to see the whole of all the bin laden tapes instead of like 10 seconds and that i wanted some saddam speaches with subtitling on tv.

now your all like, its part of history and politics etc and then you sayd it would only create supporters we dont want

[BadKarma]

In the U.S. we're already taking steps to ensure that we curtail the liberty so many have fought for. Why not ban books, too?
This way we can all become slaves sooner.:rolleyes:

[Reinier]

i agree this book should be legally available, but nobody agreed with me on a similar issue

[Rock]

Ok, I give up, I was thinking it can do more damage, than it can do good, but you have proven me wrong.

[Rock]

But even though, I have to admit that Reinier has an extremely good point, the other part today, we dont hear what they really say, only what other people claim they say.

[Berserker]

As for the countries that Mein Kampf is illegal, what other books are?
I also thinks is Bullsh*it that you can be proud to be everything but white.
I agree that most people who get influenced by Mein Kampf had it in them. There is always the possibility of someone with an empty life getting influenced, happens all the time with cults.
Interesting point about the holcust happening with or without Hitler, maybe. He saw that the time was ripe. The people wanted to hate. After Hitlers death the Jews weren't exactly welcomed home. There has been tension between Jews and Christians for 2002 years.
For the record against banning, but I wouldn't make it required reading either. I have no desire to see into any madmans mind.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by body
if the BIBLE had not been wrote, would we had the holely wars in the middle ages?
if the koran had not been wrote, would sept 11th happened?

These books probably (may be through mis-interpration) have caused far more suffering.

So should we ban them?

The Qu'ran had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. That is typical media-fed bull****. Everyone seems to understand the Qu'ran and Islam and they've never read the book or even understand the slightest thing about the religion.

[Reinier]

:withstupi

[3rdtimesacharm]

Actually Belial, literally translated it's my fight.
:)

Gone Postal, it's a very good thing, but it just proves that he indeed was a genius.
He politcally socialized a huge nation.

[Belial]

"Kampf" auf Deutsch means "struggle, conflict, fight" But the literal translation accepted by literary types is "my struggle".

[Praetorian]

ooooooooooops

[3rdtimesacharm]

ya, I was just trying to be difficult.

However, I've heard professors refer to it as "my fight", but ok.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


The Qu'ran had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. That is typical media-fed bull****. Everyone seems to understand the Qu'ran and Islam and they've never read the book or even understand the slightest thing about the religion.

The attackers were Muslim extremists. The Muslim religion is based on the Koran (English spelling). Therefore, the Koran did have something to do with September 11th.

There are crazies that read the Koran and morph it into a self serving document. Just as there are those who do the same thing with the Bible.

[3rdtimesacharm]

I know why he's pissed, because it sounds like you're blaming the Koran for the Sept 11th tragedies. Which happens to be a huge slap in the face for non-extremist Muslims. Even though I personally have aproblem with the religion, I sympahtise with Staurday fever.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
I know why he's pissed, because it sounds like you're blaming the Koran for the Sept 11th tragedies. Which happens to be a huge slap in the face for non-extremist Muslims. Even though I personally have aproblem with the religion, I sympahtise with Staurday fever.

Well I certainly am not doing so. The Muslim religion is a beautiful, peaceful religion, as are the majority of those who follow it. What is your personal problem with the Muslim religion?

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by NateDogg


The attackers were Muslim extremists. The Muslim religion is based on the Koran (English spelling). Therefore, the Koran did have something to do with September 11th.

There are crazies that read the Koran and morph it into a self serving document. Just as there are those who do the same thing with the Bible.

I strongly disagree. I'll try to back myself by painting the picture. Most arab boys (and girls) are orphans, and homeless. Their parents were killed in some war or battle, there has been war and battle every day of their lives. And the result is that they're starving and homeless and completely ignorant. They can't read, write, do math, anything.

In comes a guy who claims to be Muslim, but by his very practice and lifestyle is NOT. He tells these young starving ignorant children that if they work for him and learn from him that he will feed them and take care of them. And what starving, homeless, ignorant child is going to refuse that?

So this kid grows up, still ignorant and unable to read. But in the last 10 years he's learned 2 things. Firstly, he's learned how to make and use weapons. Secondly he's learned Islam from a guy who himself doesn't follow Islam. And because of the care this guy has shown, the kid takes his every word for granted. "If he says this is Islam, this is Islam." He has never read the Qu'ran, mind you, but he believes what he has been told is verbatim and from the Qu'ran.

So you tell me, are you a Muslim simply because you say you are, or are you a Muslim because you live the way Muslims are told to live by the very book that defines a Muslim?

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by NateDogg


The attackers were Muslim extremists. The Muslim religion is based on the Koran (English spelling). Therefore, the Koran did have something to do with September 11th.

There are crazies that read the Koran and morph it into a self serving document. Just as there are those who do the same thing with the Bible.

They also had brown hair. So brown hair had something to do with it. They all had two legs too, now that I think of it. The point is they are extremists, the cause is irrelevant as, I'm sure that they would have just found something else. Religion I think in general is a root cause for extremism, however, this is across the board. How many deaths have resulted due to religious ferver. Maybe we should ban religion altogether. :eek:

[NateDogg]

If you can prove that the attackers never read the Koran, then you have a point. If not, then it's all speculation. It's speculation on my part and yours. I have always thought that Islamic terrorist ideals were distortions of the Koran. I could be wrong though.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by TxRebel
o they say everyone is welcome but the moment you walk it to the room the people make it so uncomfrtable that you want to leave that second........Its all a big trick......and reverse racism
boo that sux yeah those clubs are always suspect. Some of the clubs here are like that some aren't =)

[3rdtimesacharm]

Saturday, where are you getting sucha far fetched example.

Sure, it happens, but you're saying that that's the case with mose muslims.

Look at the suicide attackers of Sept 11th, they gave from rich background and were well educated.

Nate, I have aproblem with the religion because if you look at the world today, look how mnay conflicts involve that religion.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by ElPietro


They also had brown hair. So brown hair had something to do with it. They all had two legs too, now that I think of it. The point is they are extremists, the cause is irrelevant as, I'm sure that they would have just found something else. Religion I think in general is a root cause for extremism, however, this is across the board. How many deaths have resulted due to religious ferver. Maybe we should ban religion altogether. :eek:

Um...it is a fact that they were Muslim, and it is a fact that they wre extremists. You just stated yourself that religion is the root cause for extremism. However, you didn't say that brown hair was...why is that? I agree, there are extremists in every religion...what's your point?

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Nate, I have aproblem with the religion because if you look at the world today, look how mnay conflicts involve that religion.

It's not the religion though, it is a very distorted version of it.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Which happens to be practiced and preached by millions....

[3rdtimesacharm]

Those millions don't think it's destorted.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by NateDogg
If you can prove that the attackers never read the Koran, then you have a point. If not, then it's all speculation. It's speculation on my part and yours. I have always thought that Islamic terrorist ideals were distortions of the Koran. I could be wrong though.

I believe they ARE distortions of the Qu'ran. But there are two types of terrorist. The well-educated, intelligent terrorist who claims to be a Muslim but does not follow the Qu'ran, which defines what a Muslim is. And the uneducated, gullible terrorist who fits the role in the scenario I used earlier.

It's quite simple. Muslims give praise to Moses, as they do to all of Allah's prophets, and hence they follow the Ten Commandments. And of course, one of those says "Thou shalt not kill." So if you're a Muslim only by living the way the Qu'ran says (which I believe), you are not a Muslim if you kill people.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Those millions don't think it's destorted.

The millions who do not distort the Koran, I ASSURE you, condemn the attacks and other violence associated with distorted versions of the Koran.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


I believe they ARE distortions of the Qu'ran. But there are two types of terrorist. The well-educated, intelligent terrorist who claims to be a Muslim but does not follow the Qu'ran, which defines what a Muslim is. And the uneducated, gullible terrorist who fits the role in the scenario I used earlier.

It's quite simple. Muslims give praise to Moses, as they do to all of Allah's prophets, and hence they follow the Ten Commandments. And of course, one of those says "Thou shalt not kill." So if you're a Muslim only by living the way the Qu'ran says (which I believe), you are not a Muslim if you kill people.

I agree with this. :)

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by NateDogg


Um...it is a fact that they were Muslim, and it is a fact that they wre extremists. You just stated yourself that religion is the root cause for extremism. However, you didn't say that brown hair was...why is that? I agree, there are extremists in every religion...what's your point?

My point is they are psycho regardless. They could have been told pretty much anything and they would probably have been able to be corrupted. Regardless of religion, you have to be pretty *****ing "special" in the head, to want to fly a commercial airplane into a building. I doubt religion made these guys "special."

But then I digressed to another point on religion in general, as currently muslim is the faith that is in poor favour in the west, but I think almost all religions have been responsible for slaughter in the past.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Nate, I have aproblem with the religion because if you look at the world today, look how mnay conflicts involve that religion. [/B]

WHOA. Go back to CNN. You obviously know absolutely nothing about Islam, so debating this with you is pointless. You are WRONG and you lack the ability to analyze.

[NateDogg]

Originally posted by ElPietro


My point is they are psycho regardless. They could have been told pretty much anything and they would probably have been able to be corrupted. Regardless of religion, you have to be pretty *****ing "special" in the head, to want to fly a commercial airplane into a building. I doubt religion made these guys "special."

But then I digressed to another point on religion in general, as currently muslim is the faith that is in poor favour in the west, but I think almost all religions have been responsible for slaughter in the past.

I agree with this as well. I guess maybe "cause" is a poor word to use here. I believe that the distorted religion did have a hand in the attacks, but I do not believe it was the cause in and of itself.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Which happens to be practiced and preached by millions....

Preached? I'm not an advocate of college by any means, but maybe some education would do you some good.

[Saturday Fever]

OK, this is way off the thread's topic, and I'm not saying these "terrorists" are even Muslim, but since that's how the media is splashing it around, I will humbly attempt to maybe shed some analytical thought on this. You say "they" are in all the conflicts these days and that's the reason you don't like the religion.

Well then I'd like for you to name one conflict specifically that "they" are involved in, and I'm going to give you a true to life, non-CNN look at the conflict, and then you can decide for yourself whether it's because of "them" or not.

[Rock]

Reinier still has a schlonkeny good point

[Praetorian]

Islam itself is one of the most peaceful religions ever. For example when christians hunted the jews in the middleages, most muslims didnt bother. The jews fleed to Spain, where they got important positions in the muslim system. Why!? Because, i dare say, that the entire Islam is based upon the principle that it is Allah who judges, and not us, humans. Most muslims say that "Why should i judge a jew or a christian or a buddist or a hinduist...!? They will be judged by Allah and get what they deserve after this life". Islam in its true form is PEACEFUL. Look at Mohammed and the society he created, which is looked upon as the "ideal" muslim society, it united both religion and politic in a peaceful way.

Keep that in mind when discussing islam.



Originally posted by Saturday Fever
It's quite simple. Muslims give praise to Moses, as they do to all of Allah's prophets, and hence they follow the Ten Commandments. And of course, one of those says "Thou shalt not kill." So if you're a Muslim only by living the way the Qu'ran says (which I believe), you are not a Muslim if you kill people.

Actually what they are "doing" is Jihad - Holy War, which is something totally different. You are a Westener brought up in a anti-muslim country, therefore you will never fully understand what lies in that one little word ; Jihad. And what kind of emotions that simple word stirs in these "terrorists". Just think what kind of a situtation they are in. I dont believe that NOONE would just take suicide, but these persons do in the form of suicide-bombs and etc. People just dont wake up one morning and say "YEAH, i feel like blowing up WTC and also blow myself to pieces". They dont. They do that because they are pressed into a position where theres no other way out, or thats what they feel. And believe me, that feeling is strong. No mother would like to see their only son go out and blow himself up...just think what those people feel when they go all suicidy.

I am in no way defending terrorism...but you have to look at the mentallity of it and what actually makes these people do what they are, instead of comming with ignorant generalizations.

[Berserker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Centaurion
[B]Islam itself is one of the most peaceful religions ever. For example when christians hunted the jews in the middleages, most muslims didnt bother.

They probably would have if the jews crucifed Muhhamed.

As far as Islam being peaceful I have heard conflicting things, some that its not tolerant of other relegions. Which ones are though? I do beleive that religion is one of greatest dividers among people, and the cause of many wars. Even though many relegions share a similar values.

[Saturday Fever]

You are a Westener brought up in a anti-muslim country, therefore you will never fully understand what lies in that one little word ; Jihad.


I am a Muslim. :) And you're preaching to the wrong person. I will happily explain to anyone any current situation that the media has pinned on muslims in a more accurate and unbiased way.


Fight against them by means Of it (the Quran) a great fight Surah Al-Furqan (Ch. 25, V,53)

And that is jihad as presented in the Qu'ran. And here is a very good interpretation that true Muslims (as I have defined above) accept as correct:



These are the very words of the Quran which throw light on the nature of Jihad. It must be fought by means of the Quran and the Quranic message alone. Again, to tame one's rebellious nature into complete submission to God is another form of Jihad which is in fact the greater Jihad, according to the Holy Prophet of Islam.


So just as they have distorted the Qu'ran, they (and you through no fault of your own) have also distorted the meaning of jihad as it is defined by the Qu'ran.

[Saturday Fever]

They probably would have if the jews crucifed Muhhamed.


I doubt it. Doing so would have been a complete disregard for what he'd taught.

[body]

okay, if the muslim extremist did not read the quran.

how many people read the bible in the middle ages when the holey wars where going on.

remeber illeteracy and very few books where around then.

as for reading the quran, well i have read very little of the bible either.

[body]

as for banning mien kamp.

welll racist material is easy to get hold of. the interent is full of racist sites. But i will not suggest banning it, as where will i get my training advice from?

[Berserker]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


I doubt it. Doing so would have been a complete disregard for what he'd taught.

Can't speak for Muslims, Jesus spoke of forgivenss and that didn't stop the Christians. Its hard for people to follow anything to the letter, emotions and politics get in the way.

[Gyno Rhino]

*chuckle* I think some of this argument is misdirected.

I don't think that ANYONE here (at least I hope not) feels that the basis of Islam promotes things like 9/11.

I don't think that ANYONE here (again, hopin' not) feels that the basis of Christianity promotes things like 9/11.

BUT, to say that alot of the conflicts today have nothing to do with religion, including Islam, is wrong. Many of those conflicts DO have to do with religion. But as ElP is saying, it doesn't really matter. If it wasn't the Quran that some psycho is distorting, it would be the Bible. Or another book. If those books weren't around, that doesn't mean that things like 9/11 wouldn't happen. It just means that things like 9/11 would happen with a DIFFERENT distorted basis. No one here is saying that the basis of Islam or the basis of X religion causes global suffering/horror. BUT, some distorted incarnations do. And again, it doesn't matter what is distorted, only that SOMETHING is. If there were no religions, we'd probably have people running around bombing buildings because of the "Clifford: The Big Red Dog" books.

The horror of things like 9/11 is a CORRUPT HUMAN instance, not one inspired by the basis of peaceful religion.

[Saturday Fever]

Very well said.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
*chuckle* I think some of this argument is misdirected.

I don't think that ANYONE here (at least I hope not) feels that the basis of Islam promotes things like 9/11.



Well, as I stated before I don't think it directly responsible, but I do think they are aspects to Islam which engender intolerance. I find it hard to believe anyone that has actually read the Quran could believe otherwise. I don't really have any interest in debating the subject, however.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Blood&Iron


Well, as I stated before I don't think it directly responsible, but I do think they are aspects to Islam which engender intolerance. I find it hard to believe anyone that has actually read the Quran could believe otherwise. I don't really have any interest in debating the subject, however.

I know what you mean, I think.. BUT, I don't feel that those things are part of only Islam. I think the danger of intolerance is inherent in ANY form of organized religion, period. Just my dime.

[Saturday Fever]

Which aspects would those be? Why would you even make such a comment and then follow it up with "I don't really have any interest in debating the subject" unless you knew what you were typing was untrue?

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Which aspects would those be? Why would you even make such a comment and then follow it up with "I don't really have any interest in debating the subject" unless you knew what you were typing was untrue?
Maybe because I HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT FURTHER. I avoid discussion of religion and politics, period. But since you ask, I'll say one need only open the Quran to see what I'm talking about. From the first page, the tone is markedly different from the Torah or the New Testament.

One need only compare the rhetoric of Jesus and Mohammed and their respective actions to see the difference (And I am no Christian; I think only slightly more highly of Judaism and Christianity than I do of Islam.) One was a poor carpenter, the other a military leader. When faced with attack, Jesus counciled his followers to 'turn the other cheek', whereas Mohammed said:

Al Baqarah 2:188
'Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways, know that God is forgiving and merciful'

Surely, you take issue with the translation, or argue it is mere metaphor. Or make reference to the passages that council understanding. None of these holds any weight in my view.

[Praetorian]

u've taken it out of content

[Rock]

the bible says slay all homosexuals, women are not clean while having pms ect, but its all stone age logic, just like circumsition, its funny how we can believe with stuff because we are supposed to.

[Saturday Fever]

That's very interesting, considering you are not even quoting anything close to what Al Baqarah 2:188 says. Let me give you about 6 arabic-to-english translations of that verse, and you tell me which one you cut and pasted:


And do not eat up your property among yourselves for vanities, nor use it as bait for the judges, with intent that ye may eat up wrongfully and knowingly a little of (other) people's property.

or was it...


And do not consume your property among yourselves by falsification, nor make offerings of it to the authorities so that you may devour a part of the property of people sinfully, while you are knowing.

or possibly...


Do not eat up one another's wealth to no good purpose, nor try to bribe authorities with it so you may consume a share of [other] people's wealth viciously while you realize [what you are doing].

or better yet...


And eat up not one another's property unjustly (in any illegal way e.g. stealing, robbing, deceiving, etc.), nor give bribery to the rulers (judges before presenting your cases) that you may knowingly eat up a part of the property of others sinfully.

or it could be...


And eat not up your property among yourselves in vanity, nor seek by it to gain the hearing of the judges that ye may knowingly devour a portion of the property of others wrongfully.

or lastly...


And do not swallow up your property among yourselves by false means, neither seek to gain access thereby to the judges, so that you may swallow up a part of the property of men wrongfully while you know.

Go back. Check your sources. What you dug up is not from Surah Al-Baqarah 2:188.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
That's very interesting, considering you are not even quoting anything close to what Al Baqarah 2:188 says. Let me give you about 6 arabic-to-english translations of that verse, and you tell me which one you cut and pasted:
...
Go back. Check your sources. What you dug up is not from Surah Al-Baqarah 2:188.
It's interesting that as someone who should be intimately familiar with the Quran, you choose to bring up a simple mistake in the way I referenced the quoatation rather that address the quotation itself (I was merely trying to do you a service.) My copy translates 2:188 as:


Do not devour one another's property by unjust means, nor bribe the judges with it in order that you may wrongfully and knowingly unsurp the possessions of other men'


So my quotation is, so far as I can tell, actually 2:191, which comes a paragraph or two after the above quote.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


That's 2:189. Or one translation thereof. I will address the quotation you made when you can provide me with where it is. If you just look at Al-Baqarah 2:188 by itself, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it? Do you see where I'm going with what you pasted?
It's 2:191.

BTW, 2:188 makes fine sense to me.

[Saturday Fever]

And if you read Al-Baqarah 2:190 first, you'll see that what you pasted is taken completely out of context. And when it's taken the way you pasted it, surely it sounds violent.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
And if you read Al-Baqarah 2:190 first, you'll see that what you pasted is taken completely out of context. And when it's taken the way you pasted it, surely it sounds violent.
I see nothing to negate or give context to the quote. I'll type the whole Al-Baqarah out if necessary. Here

From 2:189 to 2:196


2:189
They question you about the phases of the moon. Say: 'They are seasons fixed for mankind and for the pilgrammage.'

Righteousness does not consist in entering your dwellings from the back. The righteous man is he that fears God. Enter your dwellings by their doors and fear God, so that you may prosper.

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways, know that God is forgiving and merciful.

2:193
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight noen except the evil-doers.

A sacred month for a sacred month: sacred things too are subject to retaliation. If anyone attacks you, attack him as he attacked you. Have fear of God, and know that God is with the righteous.

Give generously for the cause of God and do not with your own hands cast yourselves into destruction. Be charitable; God loves the charitable.


I see nothing that in any way give context to the quote. If you're going to bring up the fact that it says don't attack others unless they attack you, you'd be wise to first read my original post.

[Saturday Fever]

Actually, since something is lost in translation, it might be of assistance to you that the "fighting" and "slaying" being spoken of is spiritual or intellectual. There are also numerous translations that will tell you to "Fight for Allah" that when read in english sounds like, "ball up a fist and hit someone in Allah's name." However, the meaning is not as it sounds when translated.

[PowerManDL]

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors."

That part might....however, any holy book that would espouse violence to that degree.............is not a good thing, since there are too many ******s that would *only* see the violence and neglect the little part about "don't start *****."

[Saturday Fever]

And since you seem to be disregarding what is lost or gained in translation, and have stated that the Bible and Jesus was peaceful and "turn the other cheek" perhaps take a look at how many times and languages the Bible has been translated to and from. Nevermind that the english language didn't even exist at the time. A case in point would be the way everyone has labeled her the "virgin" Mary. If you look back at languages and what language was used in that region at that time, you'll learn there was no word for "virgin" and the word used in fact was "unbetrothed."

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Actually, since something is lost in translation, it might be of assistance to you that the "fighting" and "slaying" being spoken of is spiritual or intellectual. There are also numerous translations that will tell you to "Fight for Allah" that when read in english sounds like, "ball up a fist and hit someone in Allah's name." However, the meaning is not as it sounds when translated.
Wow, I'm glad I ignored the voice telling me not to waste my time and spent all this time typing things out. You really shed some new light on the subject. I've never heard anyone argue this before.


Originally posted by Blood&Iron


Surely, you take issue with the translation, or argue it is mere metaphor. Or make reference to the passages that council understanding. None of these holds any weight in my view.

[PowerManDL]

Blah...the Bible was written in Greek, Coptic, and a couple of others over a very long period of time....its even harder to get an accurate feel than it is of the Koran.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
And since you seem to be disregarding what is lost or gained in translation, and have stated that the Bible and Jesus was peaceful and "turn the other cheek" perhaps take a look at how many times and languages the Bible has been translated to and from. Nevermind that the english language didn't even exist at the time. A case in point would be the way everyone has labeled her the "virgin" Mary. If you look back at languages and what language was used in that region at that time, you'll learn there was no word for "virgin" and the word used in fact was "unbetrothed."
Please show me any translation of the New Testament that espouses violence to this degree. No, really.

OF course, it would not heighten my opinion of the Quran, merely lower my opinion of the Bible.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by PowerManDL
"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors."

That part might....however, any holy book that would espouse violence to that degree.............is not a good thing, since there are too many ******s that would *only* see the violence and neglect the little part about "don't start *****."

It is not meant in the way it sounds in English. We simply lack the words. When it says "fight" it doesn't mean fight the way two kids fight on a playground or two nations fight over some land.

Compare it instead to the way Christians go out of their way to push Christianity on people. "Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you" would more accurately be interpreted as "When you are confronted by the People of the Book (jews or christians, though not only them), show them the error of their ways and show them what is right."

As far as "do not attack them first" goes, it's pretty simple. It is not your job to make someone submit to Allah, and he looks down on that.

Too much is lost in translation for someone to just grab text and paste it and say "Look!"

[ElPietro]

I don't think using "lost in translation" is a valid excuse. If something peaceful, is translated into something promoting violence I would expect the religious leaders to somehow police translations so that things aren't taken completely out of context. The book is the book, and if the meaning is wrong then it's the responsability of the religious group producing it to make sure it's message is genuine.

This is partly why I particularly don't understand those that follow religious text and dogma to the letter, as anything that is thousands of years old has probably been mistranslated numerous times, not to mention the fact that the world was obviously a different place back then.

For all we know, the bible could be Hardy Boys Mystery Novel Vol. 1. :)

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by Blood&Iron

Please show me any translation of the New Testament that espouses violence to this degree. No, really.

OF course, it would not heighten my opinion of the Quran, merely lower my opinion of the Bible.

Please show me any translation of the Qu'ran that espouses violence. Your flawed reading/interpretation doesn't count.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by ElPietro
I don't think using "lost in translation" is a valid excuse. If something peaceful, is translated into something promoting violence I would expect the religious leaders to somehow police translations so that things aren't taken completely out of context. The book is the book, and if the meaning is wrong then it's the responsability of the religious group producing it to make sure it's message is genuine.

This is partly why I particularly don't understand those that follow religious text and dogma to the letter, as anything that is thousands of years old has probably been mistranslated numerous times, not to mention the fact that the world was obviously a different place back then.

For all we know, the bible could be Hardy Boys Mystery Novel Vol. 1. :)

Lost in translation is a valid excuse when one can't analyze. I recall a class I took in my brief stay at college named "Early Childhood Development." Young children lack the ability to reason or deduce logic. If you told a small child to "Fight for me" they would take "fight" literally as they know it and they would engage in a fight. As that child grows he/she can reason that "Fight for me" might mean, "Take my side" or many other things.

So what do I mean when all you know I've said is "Fight for me"? It's a combination of the translation, the ability to analyze, and what context it was taken out of.

(and I certainly don't mean this to be demeaning, let alone to you, ElP)

[3rdtimesacharm]

Saturday, since you clearly didn't bother reading my posts the first time, let me reiterate my statements.

Firstly, look at the conflicts around the world, many involve the muslim religion. That is a fact, and I would love to see you try and prove my wrong on this one, tough guy. You want examples. Well, alright then. There's the Middle East. I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about the Palestinian Muslims, or the Saudi Muslims who blow themselves up on buses, in malls, cafes, etc. How bout In India and Pakistan, how about what happend on Sept. 11th. AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. These conflicts are not debatable, they involve Muslims, nothing to do with CNN, but nice try.

Not only that, but the millions of people who we consider extremists, do not consider themselves extremists and to them they are not misinterpreting the Koran, the other Muslims are the ones doing so. Just like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Saturday, YES, PREACHED. And for you to stoop so low and imply I'm not attending or I haven't attended higher education is a lame cop out for you because you are unable to debate with me. I'm actually currently attending a pretty well known university and majoring in Political Science.


Have a nice day.

[PowerManDL]

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways, know that God is forgiving and merciful."

The "slay them" part might be a linguistic nuance. However, when it goes on to say that bloodshed is better than idolatry, and to put those that attack you to the sword, in the same passage....I have trouble believing that its a simple language barrier.

[ElPietro]

I agree with children it can easily be misread. But if children are raised on a religion, they aren't simply given a book and told to read it themselves. There are religious leaders, parents, teachers that help them through it, and highlight the important points, and clarify the metaphoric content as well. That is sort of the purpose of a religious organization, to adhere to a single interpretation of the religious text, and to preach it to all their disciples. So that's sorta my point, even if you misread it, you should be guided along the way if you are with a religious group.

This I think is where there is risk, as extremists will create their own offshoots, and then they will raise children in this "new" interpretation. However, as I said before, and Glen put into better words, it's just a reason for zealots to be zealous, if not this, then something else would take it's place.

The reason I made the "ban religion" comment earlier, partially mockingly, but partially not, is that religion is slightly different than a mere excuse. So this is sorta qualifying my above statement, and yes I am rambling now. But what I mean with religion being slightly different, is that it cannot be disproven or shown false, it is completely based 100% on faith. So if someone believes, there is no way you can change that person. They "believe" that killing may be morally right in their case, and are made even more dangerous, by not having to fear death, as the expect reward in the afterlife. So religious zeal, is much more dangerous than perhaps other extremes, where fear of retribution is still a factor, instead of a motivator.

[PowerManDL]

Memes are more virulent than any physical disease.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Memes are more virulent than any physical disease.
YOu read 'The Lucifer Principle'?

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
Saturday, since you clearly didn't bother reading my posts the first time, let me reiterate my statements.

OK, I'll reply inline.


Firstly, look at the conflicts around the world, many involve the muslim religion. That is a fact, and I would love to see you try and prove my wrong on this one, tough guy. You want examples. Well, alright then. There's the Middle East. I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about the Palestinian Muslims, or the Saudi Muslims who blow themselves up on buses, in malls, cafes, etc.

You realize Israel belonged to the Palestinians before and during WW2. You realize it was taken from them and given to the jews with the full backing of a nation that just used an atomic bomb. So where did this problem originate, with muslims?


How bout In India and Pakistan

That's a land dispute and has nothing to do with muslims.


how about what happend on Sept. 11th. AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. These conflicts are not debatable, they involve Muslims, nothing to do with CNN, but nice try.

They are not muslims, as I've said before.


Not only that, but the millions of people who we consider extremists, do not consider themselves extremists and to them they are not misinterpreting the Koran, the other Muslims are the ones doing so. Just like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere near a million terrorists in the world. And as far as muslims go, they don't think any more highly of those people than you do.


Saturday, YES, PREACHED. And for you to stoop so low and imply I'm not attending or I haven't attended higher education is a lame cop out for you because you are unable to debate with me. I'm actually currently attending a pretty well known university and majoring in Political Science.


Have a nice day.

Muslims don't preach. There is no man between a muslim and Allah telling you how to worship, who to worship or what to worship. There are Imams but they are far from a preacher. And muslims certainly don't go out and try to "sell" you their religion. And the education I was referring to was making uneducated comments on a topic you apprently know little about.

[ElPietro]

I have another question, and am genuinely curious on the thoughts of others on this as it's related to this thread. First to introduce my question, I would like to say that this is completely objective, although, it may sound anti-semetic, which it isn't really, and I most certainly am not.

My question is, why is it that throughout history, most religious violence, or just ill will, seems to be directed at the jewish faith/nation? I know there are multiple countries that have tried to get Jews out of their country. Obviously Germany is one, I think france also, along with perhaps other european nations. Isreal has probably been in a constant state of war ever since I can remember as well, against palestine, and other arab nations. I know there is animosity in general between muslims and Jews, but that doesn't explain other european nations also having bad will towards them. Is there an explanation for this? If you decide to answer this question, please try to be objective, I don't want a sob story of unjust persecution and the like. I am not saying that they deserve the history they have had, I am merely wondering why they seem to always be the ones that are targeted.

[PowerManDL]

Haven't yet, B&I, but it looks like a damn good read.

[Praetorian]

could it be the fact that they are blamed for the death of Jesus?

[Saturday Fever]

I'm going to word my response better.

[3rdtimesacharm]

hahahahhahaha.

I didn't blame the conflict on Muslims Saturday, I said they were INVOLVED.

Not only that but read your history, Israel never belonged to the Palestinians, especially since there was never a Palestine. However, I do not feel like getting into this one because I have a feeling it will go on for pages and pages. however, if you want sources I'll be happy to give you hundreds.

I wasn't stating that there are a million terrorists, I was stating that there are millions of people who agree with people like Bin Laden, Arafat, etc with their philosphies. Most dn't blow themselves up, but many have, and thousands more are ready to do so.


Are you kidding me when you say that the suicide bombers of 9/11 were not Muslim!? Not only is it a fact that they were, but with a name like Muhammed Atta one is def. not a Mormon.

Good Day.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by ElPietro


My question is, why is it that throughout history, most religious violence, or just ill will, seems to be directed at the jewish faith/nation? I know there are multiple countries that have tried to get Jews out of their country. Obviously Germany is one, I think france also, along with perhaps other european nations. Isreal has probably been in a constant state of war ever since I can remember as well, against palestine, and other arab nations. I know there is animosity in general between muslims and Jews, but that doesn't explain other european nations also having bad will towards them. Is there an explanation for this? If you decide to answer this question, please try to be objective, I don't want a sob story of unjust persecution and the like. I am not saying that they deserve the history they have had, I am merely wondering why they seem to always be the ones that are targeted.
Books have been written about this subject...

IMO, the simple explanation is that they came from a distinct geographical location, with distinct phenotypes, and the fact they practiced a religion to which they made little effort to convert others. Both of these contributed to them being seen as outsiders.

There is a striking parallel in the history of the Romany (better known as Gypsies, who came originally from Northern India) and how they have been treated in Europe (and are treated to this day in Eastern Europe.)

[Saturday Fever]

So a name makes you Muslim? That's interesting. You're the one not reading posts now, apparently. If being a muslim means you follow the Qu'ran (which it does) then those people are not muslim. They may believe they are, say they are, and have names like muslims. But if you don't follow the teachings of the very book that makes you a muslim, you are NOT a muslim.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Haven't yet, B&I, but it looks like a damn good read.
It's good. I remember being blown away by it the first time I read it (about 8-9 years ago), but briefly skimming through recently, it seemed a bit extreme in tone (But then, in many ways, I'm very liberal, so take that with a grain of salt.)

[3rdtimesacharm]

B&I.

I'll try to give a brief explanation.

It used to be that all Jews were pious. there was no modern orthodoxy, reform, or conservative movements. Jews dressed in black, wore Kippas, tefillin, etc. AND they lived together, often in seclution from the rest of the population. Because of this there would be lot of negative stereotypes of Jews. As well, there have been many other religions persecuted too, with even bigger numbers than the Jewish populatiohn, but the Jews survived, unlike many other religions that have vanished.



There's way more to it than that, but....

[3rdtimesacharm]

SATURDAY, my point is that they follow the Koran!!!!

They, however, interpret it differently than you.

Like I said before, they feel that you interpret it the wrong way, and you feel that they do as well...


YOU SEE MY POINT.

[Saturday Fever]

Originally posted by Blood&Iron

Books have been written about this subject...

IMO, the simple explanation is that they came from a distinct geographical location, with distinct phenotypes, and the fact they practiced a religion to which they made little effort to convert others. Both of these contributed to them being seen as outsiders.

There is a striking parallel in the history of the Romany (better known as Gypsies, who came originally from Northern India) and how they have been treated in Europe (and are treated to this day in Eastern Europe.)

I think it's about that simple. They are the same people. They look alike, at one point they spoke the same language. Jews followed the Torah, the pagans followed nothing. They had their land disputes like any people of the times. Also, when Mohhamed was fleeing Mecca, the jews offered him safe haven and later betrayed him to the pagans when he would not be manipulated by them. Stupid things that some people just refuse to forget.

[3rdtimesacharm]

I didn't mean B&I, I meant ElP, sorry.

B&I, said it well though.

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by 3rdtimesacharm
B&I.

I'll try to give a brief explanation.

It used to be that all Jews were pious. there was no modern orthodoxy, reform, or conservative movements. Jews dressed in black, wore Kippas, tefillin, etc. AND they lived together, often in seclution from the rest of the population. Because of this there would be lot of negative stereotypes of Jews. As well, there have been many other religions persecuted too, with even bigger numbers than the Jewish populatiohn, but the Jews survived, unlike many other religions that have vanished.



There's way more to it than that, but....
El Pietro was the person asking the question.


Anyway, what you've said is what I was getting at, but you've stated things much more clearly than I.

[GonePostal]

Ok a few things.

Fact: The terrorists of 911 and else where "claim to be muslims (or what ever faith)".
Sat you feel that since they don't "follow" the Koran they are not really Muslim. Well that is your definition of Muslim that you imply on them. They (and many others) feel they are following Allah's wishes. If they truely did not believe this why would they give their lives to such a cause? Anyone would be hard pressed to find a person that will be willing to die for something they don't believe in.
Secondly I have issue with your definition of Muslim. I do not have a large knowldege base on all this Muslim or the Koran, I'll admit that. Regardless just because you "percive" them not to follow the Koran does not mean they don't. Given that POV one could argue that you are not truely a Muslim (not attacking your faith in any form what so ever just a hypethectial). Because if I take the definition of a Muslim from strictly a Orthidox POV you probably won't fit it or many "Muslim". (If you do hey I'm wrong but not many people do.)

Lastly If the Koran or any Holy book for that matter is not taken literally then it almost has no value. People and our POV are liquid and not static while these books are supposed to be static. A beacon of light that never faulters. So if we start interpreting and drawing conclusions by assumption we can not be sure if that is the right meaning or not. (This assumes you have a properly translated text or even better you can read the native language that is written in)

[body]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever



You realize Israel belonged to the Palestinians before and during WW2. You realize it was taken from them and given to the jews with the full backing of a nation that just used an atomic bomb. So where did this problem originate, with muslims?



I thought the isrealites where around before the muslim was around?

so are you sure the palestinians where there before 1AD. or however old the jewish faith is?

[3rdtimesacharm]

Body, he's completely wrong on that issue.

[Saturday Fever]

Given that POV one could argue that you are not truely a Muslim (not attacking your faith in any form what so ever just a hypethectial). Because if I take the definition of a Muslim from strictly a Orthidox POV you probably won't fit it or many "Muslim". (If you do hey I'm wrong but not many people do.)

What ever drew you to this conclusion, I'm curious?

And body, when I discussed the Palestinians, I wasn't talking about 1AD. Jews have been around much, much longer than that. Up to the point when Israel was given to the jews by Great Britain following WW@, it was occupied by the Palestinians.

[WillyTheGreat]

I also thinks is Bullsh*it that you can be proud to be everything but white.

Like what? I'm sure you're talking about being "black" and I think that's perfectly fine because black people who are not in or were not born in Africa do not have an ethnic identity besides the fact of them being black and you gotta give them something to be proud of after taking away everything else.

Otherwise, people do not take pride in some vague sh-t like being "white". They take pride in their culture or in their ethnicity. Problem is, white people (who are proud to be white) most of the time have lost their original culture and ethnicity and have nothing to cling to. Also, since whites have so much more often been prone to supremacist ideologies, being proud of your whiteness (which is complete bull**** because there is nothing to be proud of...like, what? "I'm proud of my blond hair and blue eyes...but, oh, wait, that fool over there who has brown hair and black eyes...ya, well, he's proud of being white too".

Also, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus...it was the Romans.

[body]

Originally posted by WillyTheGreat


Like what? I'm sure you're talking about being "black" and I think that's perfectly fine because black people who are not in or were not born in Africa do not have an ethnic identity besides the fact of them being black and you gotta give them something to be proud of after taking away everything else.

Otherwise, people do not take pride in some vague sh-t like being "white". They take pride in their culture or in their ethnicity. Problem is, white people (who are proud to be white) most of the time have lost their original culture and ethnicity and have nothing to cling to.
*****like ide amin in uganda in the 1970's?, robert mugabe in zimbawe in present day?********
Also, since whites have so much more often been prone to supremacist ideologies, being proud of your whiteness (which is complete bull**** because there is nothing to be proud of...like, what? "I'm proud of my blond hair and blue eyes...but, oh, wait, that fool over there who has brown hair and black eyes...ya, well, he's proud of being white too".
********so is gay pride, black pride things wrong as well, we have had both gay pride and black pride in the UK. for those two to occur, then i can't see no reason to have white pride.*********

Also, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus...it was the Romans.

[ElPietro]

Do you fools realize "white" is not a race? Neither is black. There are plenty of white people proud of their heritage. If a swedish guy is proud and only shops at Ikea ;) he is proud that he's swedish, not that he's white. Being born outside of your country has nothing to do with it, and I think that is a stupid point. You can be culturally raised anywhere, so that point makes no sense, and you can take pride in your past regardless of where you were born or live.

I think the exception has been the whole "black and proud" point, mainly due to the fact that in the past during slave accepted times, africans were not categorized by their culture or country, they were just "black" so they were treated as slaves. So they were not given cultural individuality, despite the fact that they had it. So maybe now, people of colour are almost accustomed to being grouped into one nationality.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


And body, when I discussed the Palestinians, I wasn't talking about 1AD. Jews have been around much, much longer than that. Up to the point when Israel was given to the jews by Great Britain following WW@, it was occupied by the Palestinians.

Wrong, reread your history.


I like how you avoided my other post btw.

[Saturday Fever]

Who occupied the area then? Please enlighten. And I've replied to all of your posts, regardless how idiotic they've been.

[Saturday Fever]

From www.jajz-ed.org.il/50/time/48.html



NOVEMBER 29, 1947

UNITED NATIONS DECISION TO ESTABLISH A JEWISH STATE

Jews and Arabs alike opposed British rule and the situation continued to deteriorate. In 1946 the Anglo-American Inquiry Commission recommended the immediate immigration of 100,000 refugees. It also recommended revoking the Lands Law, as set down in the White Paper. The British rejected these suggestions and refused to implement them. The Jewish community intensified their opposition. The 11 member United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) resolved that both Arabs and Jews should be granted full independence and that Jerusalem should be internationalized. On the night of November 29, 1947 the U.N. General Assembly took a vote on approving the Palestine Partition Plan.

Every household in the entire country was glued to the radio as the President of the General Assembly called on each of the member nations to state its position on partition: in favor, against or abstaining. The result of the roll call was 33 in favor, 13 opposed and 11 abstaining. [b]By a large majority the decision was taken to partition the country into two states.[b/] And so, 50 years after the First Zionist Congress, the establishment of a state for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel gained international approval. This was the debt paid by the family of nations to the Jewish People for the terrible slaughter of six million Jews.

The approved version of the Plan was a far cry from Lord Balfour’s Declaration. Not only had the eastern section of the Land of Israel (east of the Jordan River) been torn away, but now the western side was also divided and in addition Jerusalem, the Eternal Capital of the Jewish People, was declared international territory. Nevertheless, the Jews celebrated by singing and dancing in the streets until daybreak.

The Arabs did not accept the plan. For them it was a day of mourning. Not long after the U.N. decision was approved, Arab rioters massed near Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem and proceeded to the Jewish commercial center, where they looted the stores and set them on fire. The British army did not intervene apart from preventing the Jews from salvaging whatever could be saved. Riots also broke out in other cities, especially those with mixed populations. Many residents of border neighborhoods abandoned their homes. Jews in more isolated neighborhoods fled to other Jewish neighborhoods, and many Arabs left for nearby Arab countries. Outbreaks of violence also occurred against Jews in Arab lands.

When the Arab attacks began the Hagana decreed that no settlement was to be abandoned, no matter how small. It was necessary to maintain a presence at all costs, since the borders of the state would be determined not by the Partition Plan but by the cease fire lines.


So the one area I was mistaken in was with regards to Britain being in favor of the area being stripped from Palestinians and given to Jews.

[3rdtimesacharm]

hahahha, the funny thing is I've already gotten 5 private messages from people ridiculing your lack of knowlege.

BTW, you never responded to this one, smarty:

SATURDAY, my point is that they follow the Koran!!!!

They, however, interpret it differently than you.

Like I said before, they feel that you interpret it the wrong way, and you feel that they do as well...


YOU SEE MY POINT.

[3rdtimesacharm]

I don't see how that text proved anything you have been claiming, except make Arabs look even worse, especially in this part:

" The Arabs did not accept the plan. For them it was a day of mourning. Not long after the U.N. decision was approved, Arab rioters massed near Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem and proceeded to the Jewish commercial center, where they looted the stores and set them on fire. The British army did not intervene apart from preventing the Jews from salvaging whatever could be saved. Riots also broke out in other cities, especially those with mixed populations. Many residents of border neighborhoods abandoned their homes. Jews in more isolated neighborhoods fled to other Jewish neighborhoods, and many Arabs left for nearby Arab countries. Outbreaks of violence also occurred against Jews in Arab lands. "

[3rdtimesacharm]

I don't see how that text proved anything you have been claiming, except make Arabs look even worse, especially in this part:

" The Arabs did not accept the plan. For them it was a day of mourning. Not long after the U.N. decision was approved, Arab rioters massed near Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem and proceeded to the Jewish commercial center, where they looted the stores and set them on fire. The British army did not intervene apart from preventing the Jews from salvaging whatever could be saved. Riots also broke out in other cities, especially those with mixed populations. Many residents of border neighborhoods abandoned their homes. Jews in more isolated neighborhoods fled to other Jewish neighborhoods, and many Arabs left for nearby Arab countries. Outbreaks of violence also occurred against Jews in Arab lands. "


I actually did a search on WBB, because I knew this issue must have been touched upon already. I found a very interesting thread by Allen, it starts off like this:

I think it's important to squash any myths out there, so...



One of the biggest myths related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict is that Israel and the whole of Mandatory Palestine before it; "was stolen from the Arabs as a result of imperialist machinations and settled by alien Jews."

The FACT is that until the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Empire during World War I, there was no geopolitical entity called Palestine, no Arab nation lived on this land and no national claim was ever made to the territory by any group other than the Jews. Palestine, which was named so by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in an attempt to wipe out any Jewish connection, was simply a general name used for the area for historical purposes.

1867 - Mark Twain, when visitng Palestine wrote:

"... [a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but
is given wholly over to weeds - a silent mournful
expanse....A desolation is here that not even
imagination can grace with the pomp of life and
action...We never saw a human being on the whole
route....There was hardly a tree or a schrub
anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast
firends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the
country." (The Innocents Abroad)

Between the expulsion of the Jews by Rome in 70 to 132 CE and the defeat of
the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Palestine was occupied by fourteen conquerors
over thirteen centuries. The following table shows the approximate historical
periods of the various rulers of Palestine:

1. Israel Rule (Biblical Period)
1350 BC to 586 BC
2. Babylonian Conquest
587 BC to 538 BC
3. Israel Autonomy
(under Persian and Greco-Assyrian suzerainty)
538 BC to 168 BC
4. Revolt of the Maccabeans
168 BC to 143 BC
5. Rule of the Hasmoneans and their successors
143 BC to 70 AD
6. Jewish Autonomy
(under Roman and Byzantine suzerainty)
70 AD to 637 AD
7. Rule of Arab Caliphates

Mecca
637 AD to 661 AD
Umayyides
661 AD to 750 AD
Abbaside
750 AD to 870 AD
Fatimides
969 AD to 1071 AD
8. Seljukes Rule
1072 AD to 1096 AD
9. Crusaders
1099 AD to 1175 AD
Ayyubids
1175 AD to 1291 AD
10 . Mamelukes Rule
1291 AD to 1516 AD
11. Ottomans (Turks)
1516 AD to 1918 AD
12. British Mandate
1918 AD to 1948 AD


Thus, during the whole period of recorded history Palestine was never rules by the Arabs
of Palestine. The rule of the Arab Caliphates, which was a foreign Muslim rule, extended
for a period of 432 years - Jewish rule extended over a period of some 2000 years.

The inhabitants of the region consisted of their conquering soldiers and their slaves and only during
the Muslim conquest of the area were these diverse ethnic inhabitants compelled to accept Islam
and the Arab tongue or be put to the sword. The Jews in fact are the sole survivors of the ancient
inhabitants of Palestine who have maintained an uninterrupted link with the land since the dawn of
recorded history.

ARABS RECOGNIZE JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY

This fact was recognized in 1919 at the Allied Peace Conference in Paris to which
representatives of the Middle East Arab and Jewish Peoples were invited. At this conference,
Feisal, son of King Hussein, who headed the Arab delegation, agreed that Palestine should be
earmarked as the specific area in which Jewish sovereignty was to mature.

He announced acceptance of the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 197 and concluded an agreement
with the World Zionist Organization, confirming that "all measures shall be adopted as will
afford the fullest guarantee of carrying into effect the British Government's Balfour
Declaration." These sentiments were expressed by Emir Feisal in a letter to prof. Felix
Frankfurter, Justice of the United States Supreme Court;

"Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted by the
Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as modest and
proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through, we
will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home." (March 3, 1919)

This letter followed the agreement signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizman.
Its first article stated:

"The Arab States and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be
controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and
Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective
territories."

JEWISH AREAS REDUCED

Two promises were indeed made by Britain - one to the Arab peoples and the other to the Jews -
but completely reconcilable ones.

The interesting historical fact is that between World War I and the United Nations partition of
Palestine in 1947, British promises to the Arabs were over-fulfilled while their promises to the
Jews were constantly violated and whittled down. Far from being the victim of imperialism, the
Arab were handsomely rewarded by it when their sovereign states were established from above
by the carving up of the former Turkish Empire. This took place without the direct involvement of
the Arab peoples in the form of national movements as had been the case for example in Europe
in the end of the 19th century.

The development of the part of historic Palestine allocated by the major Powers for Jewish
sovereignty took a different course. The area originally designated and agreed to by Hussein and
Feisal, was first reduced by four-fifths, on which the British established the Emirate of Transjordan
(now Jordan). It was then reduced further by United Nations partition plan that designated a
substantial portion of this remaining fifth of Palestine as an independent Palestinian Arab state.
Thus in 1948, the State of Israel which came into being consisted of less than 8,000 square miles.
Against this, five Arab States - SYRIA, LEBANON, SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN and IRAQ
covered an area of 1,200,00 square miles.

It was on the remaining one-fifth that the British Mandate of Palestine was established, and Britain
was charged by the League of Nations with the task of fostering the development of the Jewish
national home through unrestricted Jewish immigration and land settlement. It should be pointed
out here that at that time over 70% of the country was Crown lands transferred from the outgoing
Ottoman Empire to the incoming British Mandatory Authority. the remaining 30% of land were
largely swamp and barren hillside: It was in these areas that Jewish settlement began through land
purchase of absentee Arab landowners. nowhere did the Jews seek to displace any indigenous
population.

The distribution of land in 1949 in the part of Palestine now Israel, between Arabs and Jews was
as follows:

8.6 % of the land was owned by Jews.
3.3% of the land was owned by Israeli Arabs.
16.5 % of the land was owned by Arabs who fled.
70% of the land was the property of the British Mandatory Government now the property
of the State of Israel

Under the Mandate, of the Jewish population continued to grow but while their immigration was
progressively restricted, that of Arabs from the surrounding countries (Syria and Jordan) was
completely free. As a result, attracted by the Jewish development of the country, the Arab
population increased rapidly and had attained majority by 1947.

PALESTINE ARABS NEVER A NATION

Palestine Arab nationalism to whatever degree it is a conscious ideal today, is a product of recent
political currents. Until the 1920's no such national community had even existed in Palestine. This
is why both the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate charged the Jews of the
National home with guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants. No mention was
made of other national rights of the other inhabitants. No mention was made of other national
rights as it recognized that the only national claim to the area was that made by the Jews. But the
fiction of Palestine Arab nationality is still being exploited. If the Palestinians were in fact a
separate nationality, then their anger over the past 40 years would have been directed as much
against Jordan and Egypt as against Israel, for it was the invading armies of these countries which
captured in the 1948 war a substantial portion of the territory under the United Nations partition
plan to the Palestine Arabs. This included the West Bank, which was occupied by the Jordanian
Army and added to their Kingdom, and the Gaza Strip, which was seized by the Egyptians.

The one people that have in fact maintained its historic and religious connection with the area
called Palestina, over a period of 2,000 years, is the Jews. Their right to the land is not only based on history and sentiment but is claimed by the physical process of the work invested in
transforming it into an area capable of supporting life. it is the fruits of this work that motivate
mythological Arab claims to the Land of Israel.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Your post actually makes you sound foolish, because the fact was, the Arabs living in the area known as Palestine (for lack of a better term), refused to share land with the Jews, but the Jews were ready to accept to share land with these Arabs. Don't forget the Jews don't have many Jewish countries they could seek refuge in, no Saudi Arabia, no Lebanon, no Iran, etc.


In any event, I really didn't want to get into this, but....

[Saturday Fever]

Who lived there when the land was given to the Jews? And then go back and read what I said. Whether Britain claimed the land is really irelevant.

[3rdtimesacharm]

Actually a lot of Jews lived on the land before it was "given" to the Jews. There were 3 big waves of immigration during the late 19th century and 20th century.

Learn the history of the region before you shoot your mouth off.

T

[Saturday Fever]

:rolleyes:

[3rdtimesacharm]

Wow, articulate.

[WillyTheGreat]

I love how ElPietro practically repeated everything I said...great job!

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever


What ever drew you to this conclusion, I'm curious?

And body, when I discussed the Palestinians, I wasn't talking about 1AD. Jews have been around much, much longer than that. Up to the point when Israel was given to the jews by Great Britain following WW@, it was occupied by the Palestinians.
I'm just saying your using your own definition of muslim and making it law for all intents and purposes. An orthodox definion of muslim would exclude many "muslims" from truely being muslim. That is why and where I drew my conclusion from.

[Budiak]

Yeah....How'd I know that this would turn into this discussion?


What happened to a discussion about Mein Kampf?


I've been looking for a copy, though I think it'd be safer to buy from a used bookstore, with cash, as did an old history teacher of mine bought the Commie Manifesto simply for research purposes because he sought a job in government and such a purchase would raise a few red flags.

*Rimshot

[Gyno Rhino]

This will be closed if it reverts to a discussion about Israel and Palestinians and nonsense. Start a new thread, or shut your pieholes.

[Rock]

he said piehole!!!

The Shclonkeymaster has spoken, now do as he says!

[Gyno Rhino]

Hehehe, I keep editing my profile today.. ;)

[Blood&Iron]

Originally posted by Budiak
Yeah....How'd I know that this would turn into this discussion?


What happened to a discussion about Mein Kampf?


I've been looking for a copy, though I think it'd be safer to buy from a used bookstore, with cash, as did an old history teacher of mine bought the Commie Manifesto simply for research purposes because he sought a job in government and such a purchase would raise a few red flags.

*Rimshot
You've watched 'Seven' too many times.

Even if they were keeping track of who buys certain books (which, given the current government, wouldn't surprise me in the least) what information could they obtain if you buy the thing with cash?

Barnes&Noble carries it.

[body]

Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
This will be closed if it reverts to a discussion about Israel and Palestinians and nonsense. Start a new thread, or shut your pieholes.

don't ban the book its wrong.

personally it may have been more interseting to read at school than shakespear or chaucer.

as for those who say doing these things influence you. If i watch a gardening programme or read a book it on it. I would not go out and mow the lawn.

To be honest I would have probably got board reading it, if the other said it was not well written. i much rather read a scientific text.

[curljockey22]

Mein Kampf sucked, NO PICTURES!!!

[Budiak]

Die thread, DIE!!

[Budiak]

Die thread, DIE!!