This is a long article but it is well worth the read.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/627/focus.htm

The article you have referenced contains important and mostly verified information. However, the title you have given the thread generates misundersanding in implicating "Jews" in alleged crimes by zionist terrorists. This form of bigotry turns away many people who need to confront this and other disturbing aspects of the creation of modern Israel. The world thirsts for truth, but if ethnic hatred is injected with the most desperately needed information, it is poisoned.

Arabs are victims of a parallel bigotry, wherein they are considered complicit and/or capable of the same acts as Palestinian or Islamist terrorists, which is counterproductive to say the least..

Give me a more relevant and accurate title and I'll change it.

Putting zionist in the place of jews may be one option.

Exactly: Just as the author of the article you referenced properly did.

I have heard that Native Americans used chemical weapons more than 200 years ago, grinding up hot peppers and mixing them with charcoal to form a kind of pepper smoke bomb. They would then raid a rival tribe, wedge their doors shut while they were sleeping, light the charcoal, and throw the smoke bomb through the roof.

The writer is president of Palestine Land Society, London.
for me, that practically destroys his credibility... but to others, at least admit that that makes the article subjective to some degree


other points...
at the least, this article is lies with political agendas.
at the most, it shows that Israel's hands are not completely free of sin. what can i say... war is ugly business.
and at the midpoint, some of it may be true...but how much?

that reminds me of a quote from the Bible (by Jesus):
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
...
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I thought that during a siege or something during the outbreak of the black plague some dudes started hurling infected corpses over the city walls. Sorry I couldn't be more exact...

The next occurence you have is against Native American indians by various European settlers, giving them warm blankets, that sort of thing.

Originally posted by spidergoat
I have heard that Native Americans used chemical weapons more than 200 years ago, grinding up hot peppers and mixing them with charcoal to form a kind of pepper smoke bomb. They would then raid a rival tribe, wedge their doors shut while they were sleeping, light the charcoal, and throw the smoke bomb through the roof. How do you wedge shut the door of a teepee?

Originally posted by otheadp
for me, that practically destroys his credibility... but to others, at least admit that that makes the article subjective to some degree.I'm sorry you feel that way. You know that really is an unfair attitude. It's a mistake to jump to conclusions about a person's honesty and objectivity based merely on their background. Some people try to rise above such things. Stereotyping inevitably means you will be wrong some of the time. To be consistent would you also say that anything Ariel Sharon says about Palestinians is not credible?

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I'm sorry you feel that way. You know that really is an unfair attitude. It's a mistake to jump to conclusions about a person's honesty and objectivity based merely on their background. Some people try to rise above such things. Stereotyping inevitably means you will be wrong some of the time. To be consistent would you also say that anything Ariel Sharon says about Palestinians is not credible?

to someone palestinian? sure. they treat it as lies anyway.
and it's not about "stereotyping" or "bias".
it's called 'conflict of interest'. he is not a completely objective party. in this case he is far from that. therefore his "findings" and "opinions" cannot, by definition, be objective.

How do you wedge shut the door of a teepee?

Not all native Americans were nomadic, or semi-nomadic. Some tribes were completely agrarian, and lived in communities with longhouses, pit houses, pueblo community houses and such. Iroquous longhouses were up to 100 feet in length.

Originally posted by Spyke
Not all native Americans were nomadic, or semi-nomadic. Some tribes were completely agrarian, and lived in communities with longhouses, pit houses, pueblo community houses and such. Iroquous longhouses were up to 100 feet in length. Thanks for that. Forgive my ignorance but not being American I don't know much about the history of native Americans.