Found this picture online:

http://palestine.91.free.fr/EvolPal-16.jpg

http://palestine.91.free.fr/

Is it right?

Hey sam.

I hope all is going well

i thought palestine never existed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly you!!It Makes the entire threaf irrelevant, conveniently.


~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Hey sam.

I hope all is going well

i thought palestine never existed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly you!!It Makes the entire threaf irrelevant, conveniently.


~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Let me be PC then:

the British mandate of Palestine.

Palestine has never been a nation ....ever!

Baron Max

Palestine has never been a nation ....ever!

Baron Max

So what is the West Bank? And Gaza?

And where do the people who lived in the the area in the first map in the OP belong?

So what is the West Bank? And Gaza?

Not a nation! Never has there, ever, in all of history, been a recognized nation of "Palestine". That area has always, throughout history, been under the control of outside empires and/or nations.

And where do the people who lived in the the area in the first map in the OP belong?

I don't know, and mostly don't fuckin' care! It's not unlike the Native Americans in the USA ....do you think the USA should belong to the injuns?? Or how 'bout the Australian Aborigines? Should Aussieland belong to the Aboriginies just because they lived there? Should Italy be given back to the Romans? How 'bout Brazil? Should we give Brazil back to the natives of the jungle just because they lived there first?

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Not a nation! Never has there, ever, in all of history, been a recognized nation of "Palestine". That area has always, throughout history, been under the control of outside empires and/or nations.



I don't know, and mostly don't fuckin' care! It's not unlike the Native Americans in the USA ....do you think the USA should belong to the injuns?? Or how 'bout the Australian Aborigines? Should Aussieland belong to the Aboriginies just because they lived there? Should Italy be given back to the Romans? How 'bout Brazil? Should we give Brazil back to the natives of the jungle just because they lived there first?

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Do you feel guilty about all the Injuns Baron?

Does it trouble your Christian soul?

Do you feel guilty about all the Injuns Baron? Does it trouble your Christian soul?

Not one fuckin' bit! And I'm part injun, too. Some of the women of my injun side couldn't run fast enough!! They got fucked!

Baron Max

Not one fuckin' bit! And I'm part injun, too. Some of the women of my injun side couldn't run fast enough!! They got fucked!

Baron Max

So what is your nonopinion of the map in the OP?

So what is your nonopinion of the map in the OP?

Bullshit propaganda, that's all. A bunch of people in the old days lived in mud huts and maybe called themselves "Palestinians" ....but they were just nothing more than "A bunch of people who might have called themselves "Palestinians"."

There was no Palestine, never has been, and probably never will be. Whoever made up that map did so based on little more than biased propaganda in favor of the "Palestinians" ....even tho' they don't even know who the fuck or what the fuck "Palestinians" are or were.

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Bullshit propaganda, that's all. A bunch of people in the old days lived in mud huts and maybe called themselves "Palestinians" ....but they were just nothing more than "A bunch of people who might have called themselves "Palestinians"."

There was no Palestine, never has been, and probably never will be. Whoever made up that map did so based on little more than biased propaganda in favor of the "Palestinians" ....even tho' they don't even know who the fuck or what the fuck "Palestinians" are or were.

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

So where should the people who called themselves Palestinians live?

Considering how long they have been doing it? (Isn't Philistia in the Bible?)

So where should the people who called themselves Palestinians live?

If they could ever learn to be nice guys, then they could live right where they are!! Israel has tried and tried to allow the Pals to integrate into their society, their nation, but all the Pals want to do is blow up Israeli women and children!!

Fuck 'em if they can't live with others peacefully, then fuck 'em!

Considering how long they have been doing it? (Isn't Philistia in the Bible?)

I don't care if they've lived there for 400 gazillion years, if they continue to blow up women and children then they should not ever, never, be tolerated anywhere on Earth!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

If they could ever learn to be nice guys, then they could live right where they are!! Israel has tried and tried to allow the Pals to integrate into their society, their nation, but all the Pals want to do is blow up Israeli women and children!!

Fuck 'em if they can't live with others peacefully, then fuck 'em!



I don't care if they've lived there for 400 gazillion years, if they continue to blow up women and children then they should not ever, never, be tolerated anywhere on Earth!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Why do you think the Palestinians are blowing themselves up?

Why do you think the Palestinians are blowing themselves up?

Because they're stupid mutha-fuckers who don't deserve to live in any place with any civilized humans!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Because they're stupid mutha-fuckers who don't deserve to live in any place with any civilized humans!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

I thought you said:

But if that's the way the people of the society want it, then how can you call it "fucked up"? Shouldn't the members of a society make the laws and rules that they wish to follow? If not, who should decide for them?

And:


When do we butt out and let other societies determine their own destinies? When do we decide that it ain't none of our business? Would we want others in the world to come here to the USA and tell us what to do and how to do it?

So why do you get to decide the rules for Palestinians?

So why do you get to decide the rules for Palestinians?

And why do you, Sam????? Hmm?

Baron Max

And why do you, Sam????? Hmm?

Baron Max

I'm not the one invading and killing people Baron, you are.

I'm not the one invading and killing people Baron, you are.

Geez, I haven't invaded or killed anyone in, gee, in several days!

Baron Max

Geez, I haven't invaded or killed anyone in, gee, in several days!

Baron Max

So why do you get to decide the rules for the Palestinians?

So why do you get to decide the rules for the Palestinians?

I don't ...and I've never said that I do.

Baron Max

I don't ...and I've never said that I do.

Baron Max

Of course you did. You refuse their right to recognise their own land as their own.

Of course you did. You refuse their right to recognise their own land as their own.

But it isn't their land, Sam!! That land has belonged to numerous empires all through history ....but never, ever, did it belong to a bunch of people called "Palestinians".

The "Palestinians" never, ever own that land ....never, ever ....in all of human history!! Just because they make claims to it ain't got shit to do with anything!

Baron Max

But it isn't their land, Sam!! That land has belonged to numerous empires all through history ....but never, ever, did it belong to a bunch of people called "Palestinians".

The "Palestinians" never, ever own that land ....never, ever ....in all of human history!! Just because they make claims to it ain't got shit to do with anything!

Baron Max

Whosez?

Whosez?

Sorry, Sam, I don't know how to respond to an actual comment of yours that isn't linked in some way to an anti-American or anti-Israeli website.

Besides, I don't even know what "whosez" means?? Is that Indian, Hindu, Paki, Pashtun, or any of the multitudes of languages spoken in that poverty stricken nation of yours, India?

Baron Max

Found this picture online:

http://palestine.91.free.fr/EvolPal-16.jpg

http://palestine.91.free.fr/

Is it right?

disgusting. i thought more of you sam. this map make it look like the jews in israel are a cancer or something spreading.
nothing more then propaganda. usually used by anti semitics.

disgusting. i thought more of you sam. this map make it look like the jews in israel are a cancer or something spreading.
nothing more then propaganda. usually used by anti semitics.

So is the map wrong?

So is the map wrong?

i think that is what you call an evil person. someone who does evil things on purpose.

i think that is what you call an evil person. someone who does evil things on purpose.

Huh? Is the map wrong?

he's off his meds.

he's off his meds.

Why can't all Jews be like you? :)

Huh? Is the map wrong?

i was speaking english wasnt i? i said, this map makes it look like jews in israel are a cancer or something.
wrong? wrong you ask me? your view over jews in israel is depriving them of all human essence they have, that you dare even post that map, then ask me with blunt naivety if its wrong? it is as true as the historical evidence that jews use kids to make mazots for passover. and you, and zak, with this comparison can go to hell as long as i care.

wrong she asks....

Why can't all Jews be like you? :)

i resent that hidden antisemitic remark.

i was speaking english wasnt i? i said, this map makes it look like jews in israel are a cancer or something.
wrong? wrong you ask me? your view over jews in israel is depriving them of all human essence they have, that you dare even post that map, then ask me with blunt naivety if its wrong? it is as true as the historical evidence that jews use kids to make mazots for passover. and you, and zak, with this comparison can go to hell as long as i care.

wrong she asks....

I'll take that as a no.

I'll take that as a no.

fuck you.

fuck you.

Very mature, extremely well thought out response.

Congratulations.

Very mature, extremely well thought out response.

Congratulations.

i came to the conclusion that nice language you cant understand, so i started using the kind of language you can understand.

obviously, it worked!

The maps shown in the starting post to this thread are reasonably accurate. While Baron Max seems biased against the so-called Palestinians, he is correct when he states that the area has been under the control of foreign empires for most of the last 2000 years.

The ancient Hebrews might have been the last people living there who actually ruled over the territory. The Ottoman Empire (or its predecessor) ruled that area for 800 to 1200 years prior to WW1, and the British ruled it from the end of WW1 to 1947/1048. The Romans ruled over it from about the time of Christ until perhaps 400-500 AD. I do not know who ruled there between the Romans & the Ottoman Empire, but who ever it was, it only lasted a few hundred years.

It is interesting to note that the current rulers would never have been given the control they now have if the Europeans had realized the importance of the oil in Arab countries.

Those who call themselves Palestinians today are pawns in a power struggle.

The Arab countries need an external enemy & a cause to distract their average citizens from the bad deal they have. Since oil became an incredible source of wealth, the rulers & the elite in Arab countries have been very wealthy due to the oil money. The average citizen in those countries has very little. The disparity in wealth between the elite and the lower classes is far worse than in countries like the US & UK.

Note from the maps in the starting post that the Palestinians had control over far more territory when the UN divided the area up between them & the Jews than they ever had before or since. They were better off then (1947) than at any time in the previous 1000 or so years.

In late 1947 or early 1948, 4-5 Arab countries invaded, claiming to be functioning on behalf of the Palestinians. When that war ended, Jordan was in control of a large junk of what had been assigned to the Palestinians (West Bank territory). A few years later, they officially annexed it to Jordan. Compare the Gaze Strip to the amount of land originally assigned to Palestinian control by the UN in 1947 (maps 2 & 3). Those Arab countries invaded for purposes of their own, not to help the Palestinians.

I do not remember any Arabs (other than Palestinians) advocating the passing control of the West Bank to the Palestinians. If Israel had not won control of it in 1967, it would still be part of Jordan, and the Palestinians would be in charge of only the Gaza Strip. The Israelis would not have control of West Bank territory to trade with the Palestinians in retrun for peace.

Arafat never wanted peace with Israel. If he settled for a large junk of land (which the Israelis were willing to cede to him), he would have to run a country & be subject to accounting of the money spent. He would have to worry about jobs for his subjects & the establishment of an infrastructure (schools, power, transportation, et cetera). Once there was peace between the Palestinians & the Jews, the other Arab countries would have stopped subsidizing him. As long as there was conflict, he had money from external sources and political power without much, if any, accountability.

I sympathize with the Palestinians, the Native Americans, the Inca & Aztec nations. All must face the realities of history and learn to make the best bargain they can. Due to Arafat and the leaders of various Arab countries, the Palestinians have gotten far less than they could have if they had negotiated realistically with Israel. Of course they only have to win once to take it all and annihilate the Jews, which seems to be the goal of most Palestinians. I wonder if the other Arab countries would allow them to rule the area if they did win.

The maps shown in the starting post to this thread are reasonably accurate. While Baron Max seems biased against the so-called Palestinians, he is correct when he states that the area has been under the control of foreign empires for most of the last 2000 years.

The ancient Hebrews might have been the last people living there who actually ruled over the territory. The Ottoman Empire (or its predecessor) ruled that area for 800 to 1200 years prior to WW1, and the British ruled it from the end of WW1 to 1947/1048. The Romans ruled over it from about the time of Christ until perhaps 400-500 AD. I do not know who ruled there between the Romans & the Ottoman Empire, but who ever it was, it only lasted a few hundred years.

It is interesting to note that the current rulers would never have been given the control they now have if the Europeans had realized the importance of the oil in Arab countries.

Those who call themselves Palestinians today are pawns in a power struggle.

The Arab countries need an external enemy & a cause to distract their average citizens from the bad deal they have. Since oil became an incredible source of wealth, the rulers & the elite in Arab countries have been very wealthy due to the oil money. The average citizen in those countries has very little. The disparity in wealth between the elite and the lower classes is far worse than in countries like the US & UK.

Note from the maps in the starting post that the Palestinians had control over far more territory when the UN divided the area up between them & the Jews than they ever had before or since. They were better off then (1947) than at any time in the previous 1000 or so years.

In late 1947 or early 1948, 4-5 Arab countries invaded, claiming to be functioning on behalf of the Palestinians. When that war ended, Jordan was in control of a large junk of what had been assigned to the Palestinians (West Bank territory). A few years later, they officially annexed it to Jordan. Compare the Gaze Strip to the amount of land originally assigned to Palestinian control by the UN in 1947 (maps 2 & 3). Those Arab countries invaded for purposes of their own, not to help the Palestinians.

I do not remember any Arabs (other than Palestinians) advocating the passing control of the West Bank to the Palestinians. If Israel had not won control of it in 1967, it would still be part of Jordan, and the Palestinians would be in charge of only the Gaza Strip. The Israelis would not have control of West Bank territory to trade with the Palestinians in retrun for peace.

Arafat never wanted peace with Israel. If he settled for a large junk of land (which the Israelis were willing to cede to him), he would have to run a country & be subject to accounting of the money spent. He would have to worry about jobs for his subjects & the establishment of an infrastructure (schools, power, transportation, et cetera). Once there was peace between the Palestinians & the Jews, the other Arab countries would have stopped subsidizing him. As long as there was conflict, he had money from external sources and political power without much, if any, accountability.

I sympathize with the Palestinians, the Native Americans, the Inca & Aztec nations. All must face the realities of history and learn to make the best bargain they can. Due to Arafat and the leaders of various Arab countries, the Palestinians have gotten far less than they could have if they had negotiated realistically with Israel. Of course they only have to win once to take it all and annihilate the Jews, which seems to be the goal of most Palestinians. I wonder if the other Arab countries would allow them to rule the area if they did win.

Interesting viewpoint.

Source?

SamcdKey: Source?

The view of Arafat is my personal opinion, but to me it seems very consistent with his actions. Similarly, my view of Arab leaders using the Palestinians as pawns is an opinion. Opinons about the motivations of others are, of course, subjective opinions. I consider my opinions here to be very consistent with the actions of Arafat and various Arab leaders.

If the Arab countries who went to war with Israel in 1948 were motivated by concern for the Palestinians, I would expect some pressure on Jordan to turn control of the West Bank territory over to the Palestinians. Jordan formally annexed that territory to Jordan about 3-6 years after the 1948 war, indicating that they had no intention of truning it over to the palestinians.

It does seem resaonable to believe that almost all politicians are movtivated by a desire to obtain, keep, or increase their power and wealth. Ghandi and some politicians of the 19th century seemed to be motivted by ethics, patriotism, and nobler motives, but there seem to be few so motivated in the last 100 or so years.

Aside from the above opinions, I think that most of my post is based on recorded history.

There are Palestinians in the Old Testament. God commands Joshua and the Israelites to kill them all. Guess Joshua didn't do a very good job.

Israel's just trying to finish up it's obligation to the Lord God.

Found this picture online:

http://palestine.91.free.fr/EvolPal-16.jpg

http://palestine.91.free.fr/

Is it right?

I noticed this on top of the diagram: "Contrôle civil et militaire".

Puis, bon question: C'est-a-dire que c'est contrôlé par l'administration Israelienne, ou vraiment que les habitants originalles ont été déplacé?

And, more to the point: would the territorial arrangements have been the same if there had never been any violence against Jewish citizens and immigrants in 'Palestine' prior to 1948?

Bon soirée,

Geoff

SamcdKey: Source?

The view of Arafat is my personal opinion, but to me it seems very consistent with his actions. Similarly, my view of Arab leaders using the Palestinians as pawns is an opinion. Opinons about the motivations of others are, of course, subjective opinions. I consider my opinions here to be very consistent with the actions of Arafat and various Arab leaders.

If the Arab countries who went to war with Israel in 1948 were motivated by concern for the Palestinians, I would expect some pressure on Jordan to turn control of the West Bank territory over to the Palestinians. Jordan formally annexed that territory to Jordan about 3-6 years after the 1948 war, indicating that they had no intention of truning it over to the palestinians.

It does seem resaonable to believe that almost all politicians are movtivated by a desire to obtain, keep, or increase their power and wealth. Ghandi and some politicians of the 19th century seemed to be motivted by ethics, patriotism, and nobler motives, but there seem to be few so motivated in the last 100 or so years.

Aside from the above opinions, I think that most of my post is based on recorded history.

Quite right. The Palestinians have been the pawns in this thing from the get-go: human pawns used for the advantage of the neighbouring Arab states. Arafat got rich off them, and then was good enough to expire, making his descendants also wealthy. They were the victims of their coreligionists, and their own ideology.

Geoff

I noticed this on top of the diagram: "Contrôle civil et militaire".

Puis, bon question: C'est-a-dire que c'est contrôlé par l'administration Israelienne, ou vraiment que les habitants originalles ont été déplacé?

And, more to the point: would the territorial arrangements have been the same if there had never been any violence against Jewish citizens and immigrants in 'Palestine' prior to 1948?

Bon soirée,

Geoff

So its all the Palestinians fault ?

And all because of what they did to "Jewish citizens and immigrants" before 1948? During the Nakba, perhaps? Makes perfect sense.

In April 1936, the Arab leadership in Palestine, led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni, declared a general strike to protest against, and put an end to Jewish immigration to Palestine. The revolt was driven primarily by Arab hostility to Britain's permission of restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases which Palestinian Arabs believed was leading them to becoming a minority in the territory and future nation-state. They demanded immediate elections which, based on their demographic majority, would have resulted in a democratic Arab government.

The strike was called off in October 1936 and the violence abated for about a year while the Peel Commission deliberated and eventually recommended partition of Palestine. With the rejection of this proposal, the revolt resumed during the autumn of 1937, marked by the assassination of Commissioner Andrews in Nazareth. Violence continued throughout 1938 and eventually petered out in 1939. The decision of the French to crack down on Arab leaders in Damascus may have been a significant factor in stopping the conflict.

The British responded to the violence by greatly expanding their military forces and clamping down on Arab dissent. "Administrative detention" (imprisonment without charges or trial), curfews, and house demolitions were among British practices during this period. More than 120 Arabs were sentenced to death and about 40 hanged. The main Arab leaders were arrested or expelled. Amin al-Husayni fled from Palestine to escape arrest.

The mainstream Jewish military organization, the Haganah (Hebrew for "defense"), actively supported British efforts to quell the largely peasant insurgency, which reached 10,000 Arab fighters at their peak during the summer and fall of 1938. Although the British administration didn't officially recognize the Haganah, the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads. A smaller Haganah splinter group, the Irgun organization (also called by its Hebrew acronym Etzel), adopted a policy of retaliation and revenge (including against civilians).


Silly people, why couldn't they just accept what the superior white men told them?

I mean if the Arabs all immigrated by the thousands and started buying up land with the intention of creating an Islamic state, its not like anyone would object, right?

Quite right. The Palestinians have been the pawns in this thing from the get-go: human pawns used for the advantage of the neighbouring Arab states. Arafat got rich off them, and then was good enough to expire, making his descendants also wealthy. They were the victims of their coreligionists, and their own ideology.

Geoff

Yeah all those Arab states are totally responsible for funding them. I mean, its pretty obvious that Israel is totally a peaceful secular state.

i resent that hidden antisemitic remark.

she was joking. we are friends.

she was joking. we are friends.

Ahh, well that makes it all better, don't it?! We can all just say anything that we want as long as we have "friends" who will apologize for us? How nice.

I'm gonna' start right away insulting all the members, swearing like a sailor, ...., then just have one of my friends post saying "Oh, he was just joking. We are friends." Oooooh, I like it!

Baron Max

she was talking to me anyhow, smartguy.
did i hurt your feelings? should i kiss your boo boo to make it better?
awwwwwwwwwww

she was talking to me anyhow, smartguy.

It's a public forum ....what's written is not personal messaging.

did i hurt your feelings? should i kiss your boo boo to make it better? awwwwwwwwwww

Hmm? How old are you????

As obviously young as you are, I apologize for me comments ...they were actually intended for someone more mature.

Baron Max

There are Palestinians in the Old Testament. God commands Joshua and the Israelites to kill them all. Guess Joshua didn't do a very good job.

Israel's just trying to finish up it's obligation to the Lord God.

where do this people come from?

So its all the Palestinians fault ?

Is it none of theirs? What would have happened if the Arab armies had won? Would Palestinians of the present day mind so much? Or would it be attributed to the fatalism of Sura 9; that triumphalism that is toted so highly in some circles of the ummah? "Massacre? So what? The filthy Jews had it coming, of course."

Perhaps it would be to the benefit of all to recognize the inherent discrimination in the ummah before passing judgement too harshly on the Israelis.

And all because of what they did to "Jewish citizens and immigrants" before 1948? During the Nakba, perhaps? Makes perfect sense.

I wish you were. The Nakba was in 1948. Violence against Jewish immigrants was going on for about three decades prior to that. Did you not examine my links?

Silly people, why couldn't they just accept what the superior white men told them?

Silly Jews, why couldn't they just accept the fact that they were entitled to live only as second-class citizens at best? Don't they know they perverted God's message? I mean, what's up with that? And now they want equality before the law on the basis that they're - what? human beings too? Oh, puh-leeze.

I mean if the Arabs all immigrated by the thousands and started buying up land with the intention of creating an Islamic state, its not like anyone would object, right?

Why, given the life-experiences of non-muslims in islamic territories, of course not, particularly when they call for islamic law. Doesn't everyone know "islam" means "peace" and that "dhimmitude" means "free candy for kufr"? :rolleyes: Then again, I guess the silly kufr have tens or hundreds or thousands of years' reflection on the rights of non-muslims in an Islamic state to colour their understanding. Darn history.

Actually, wasn't I told there weren't any real islamic states, anyway? That all those nations weren't really islamic? Ah well. Maybe they'll get it right...one day...eventually...inshallah.

Best,

Geoff

Yeah all those Arab states are totally responsible for funding them.

An excellent point: the neighbouring Arab states use them to drive their anti-semitic or specifically anti-Israeli policies, and yet let other Arab states foot the bill.

And by Arab states footing the bill, of course one means: the US, the EU, Israel. Those Arab states.

I mean, its pretty obvious that Israel is totally a peaceful secular state.

Yes; if only the Israelis wouldn't take the rocket attacks - and before that the suicide bombers, and before that the massed armies, and before that the raids and massacres and dhimmitude and sharia and riots and murders and propaganda and, well, islamism - the wrong way.

Silly Israelis. They corrupted the message of God, you know! They deserve subjugation. Can't just let them run around loose.

Geoff

Why, given the life-experiences of non-muslims in islamic territories, of course not, particularly when they call for islamic law. Doesn't everyone know "islam" means "peace" and that "dhimmitude" means "free candy for kufr"? Then again, I guess the silly kufr have tens or hundreds or thousands of years' reflection on the rights of non-muslims in an Islamic state to colour their understanding. Darn history.

Actually, wasn't I told there weren't any real islamic states, anyway? That all those nations weren't really islamic? Ah well. Maybe they'll get it right...one day...eventually...inshallah.

Best,

Geoff

Yeah unlike Israel (see OP), the peaceful secular state.

Too bad those nomads(Islamists and Christians all alike) haven't imbibed the values of democracy from them.

Islamists seek to form Islamic theocratic states, obviously.

i resent that hidden antisemitic remark.

wtf? rofl

http://funbumper.com/images/misc19.jpg

Yeah unlike Israel (see OP), the peaceful secular state.

How peaceful would Israel be, having never been attacked...constantly? I suppose we'll never know, which is unfortunate.

Too bad those nomads(Islamists and Christians all alike) haven't imbibed the values of democracy from them.

Nomads?

And if the society is jake with dhimmitude, how is democracy going to help?

It's not unlike the Native Americans in the USA ....do you think the USA should belong to the injuns?? Or how 'bout the Australian Aborigines? Should Aussieland belong to the Aboriginies just because they lived there? Should Italy be given back to the Romans? How 'bout Brazil? Should we give Brazil back to the natives of the jungle just because they lived there first?

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Should the world powers stop future land grabs by force. If so, what should be the cut off date after which small nations will no longer be allowed to take land and remove or dominate the previous inhabitants of the land?

I thought the General idea of International law and something like the United Nations was a good idea. Land grabs caused a lot of bloodshed. Somebody might feel that stopping land grabs interferes with with natural selection. Strong people should kill the weak and take their land. I don't think so. War wastes a lot of resources. I still hope that humans can learn to apply their competitive spirit towards accomplishing tasks that improve the world for the entire species rather than engaging in Zero Sum competition in which resources are used to make one group gain at the expense of another group.

If what Israel has done to the Palestinians is OK, then what Hitler did to the Jews was also OK. It is a matter of degrees.

You are right about what happened to the Native Americans. I would not give the USA back to them, but I do believe that what was done to them was wrong. I am descended from people who probably killed Native American women and children in King Philip s war. It was wrong, but that was then, this is now standards of morality have changed.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians happened after WW2. The condemnation of Hitler was a turning point in global morality. The things that Hitler did were considered semi acceptable behavior by most prior to WW2 and considered clearly unacceptable after WW2.

The Israeli complaint that "why are you all picking on us" when we don't stop ethnic cleansing and brutality in Darfur and hundreds of other places is Valid. But Israel gets more attention because Jerusalem is there and because Israel is sucking at the US tax payers wallets more than any other foreign nation is. Also Antagonizing the entire Arab people by subsidizing a nation takes land from Arabs was a stupid foreign policy that was not in America's interests.

No, America should not give land back now, but anybody that took land after 1960 needs to be prepared to give back the land they took.

It's a public forum ....what's written is not personal messaging.

Baron Max

if i see the joke (being the butt of it), what the hell is the problem?
jesus christ, pc has gone too far, especially with you right wingers!

i suppose ill just complain every time you attempt some humor.

Hi all,

So maximus for some reaons does not liek palestinians, check this out

Not a nation! Never has there, ever, in all of history, been a recognized nation of "Palestine". That area has always, throughout history, been under the control of outside empires and/or nations.
.........................

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

refering to the words in RED

Why maximus,




Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Even more explitives from amximus above, why maximus


If they could ever learn to be nice guys, then they could live right where they are!! Israel has tried and tried to allow the Pals to integrate into their society, their nation, but all the Pals want to do is blow up Israeli women and children!!

Fuck 'em if they can't live with others peacefully, then fuck 'em!



I don't care if they've lived there for 400 gazillion years, if they continue to blow up women and children then they should not ever, never, be tolerated anywhere on Earth!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

Because they're stupid mutha-fuckers who don't deserve to live in any place with any civilized humans!

Fuck the Palestinians!

Baron Max

And it goes on and on.

did a palestinian attack you or one of your lvoed ones, or perhaps you had a wife who was palestinian and she did you over, what is this obsessive hate with the palestinians maximus... what have they done wrong to you personally.

you attack sam because in your warped mind you think she is anti israeli or Anti American, but i dont see that in her at all. just because you dont like the policies fo some nations does not mean you are anti that nation in its entirety.


The maps shown in the starting post to this thread are reasonably accurate. While Baron Max seems biased against the so-called Palestinians, he is correct when he states that the area has been under the control of ................


.............

...................

I sympathize with the Palestinians, the Native Americans, the Inca & Aztec nations. All must face the realities of history and learn to make the best bargain they can. Due to Arafat and the leaders of various Arab countries, the Palestinians have gotten far less than they could have if they had negotiated realistically with Israel. Of course they only have to win once to take it all and annihilate the Jews, which seems to be the goal of most Palestinians. I wonder if the other Arab countries would allow them to rule the area if they did win.

Dinasour

tghis is very well put.. Something i have been trying to explain for a few weeks now.

The arabs dont want a solution to Isareal / aplestine as they will have nothing to blame for thier incompetence.
~~~~~~~~~
best Zak

Evolution of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Australian_states_history.gif)
Size comparison (http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/australi.htm)

Of course, I think if the Palestinians still want a two state solution, Israel should return all territories annexed in the '67 war. In exchange for full peace and diplomatic recognition.

No, America should not give land back now, but anybody that took land after 1960 needs to be prepared to give back the land they took.

Why do you pick 1960 as a date? What did the US annex just before 1960? Hawaii was 1959, but I thought they joined voluntarily? :p

No, America should not give land back now, but anybody that took land after 1960 needs to be prepared to give back the land they took.

I agree with the cutoff date; but does the rest of the world? It's very well to debate it amongst ourselves, but nations always set their own standards, right or wrong. In the real world, Israel sees some of that territory as a protective buffer, and they're not wrong to, either.

Geoff

For the most part my choice of 1960 as a date is an arbitrary choice. WW2 ended the legitimacy of nations grabbing land just to grab land. But how long did it take for the majority of the worlds literate people to embrace this new idea that something was wrong with conquest just for ethnic or personal enrichment? I think that by 1960 this new idea had been accepted.

I thought that there is no way China can be forced to give back Tibet and I forgot which date in the 1950s that China conquered Tibet. I just looked it up; it was 1950. The UN and the world's nations can force small nations to give back their conquests but the world's nations are unlikely to have the will to force large nations like china to give back their conquests.

I forgot about Irian Jaya /West Papua . That was murky. Indonesia gave back East Timor but it would be hard to get Indonesia to give up Irian Jaya. Maybe I should choose 1965 to let Indonesia Keep Irian Jaya. I don't think it is ethical to let Indonesia keep Irian Jaya, but Indonesia is a large country. If I push the date to 1970 the Israel gets to keep the West Bank accept that Israel never claimed to have annexed the West Bank.

I could see Israel giving up the non Jerusalem portions of the West Bank if that gave Israel peace, but I don't think Israel would be willing to give up the West banks water even if doing so would create peace with the Palestinians. Also if giving back the West ban creates peace with the Palestinians at the price of creating Civil war among the Israelis then the peace with the Palestinians was not worth it. Most Israelis would give back the west bank for peace with the Palestinians if they could be sure that the Palestinians would become peaceful. But some Israelis would become might become enraged to the point of becoming violent against other Israelis if Israel tried to give back the West bank.

Also, there will never exist a Palestinian government strong enough to stop some Palestinians who will never accept the outcome of the 1948 war from attacking Israel. So, even though the majority of Israelis would give back the West bank for a guarantee of peace from the Palestinians, since no Palestinians will ever be able to guarantee anything more than relative peace, the West bank will never be given back to the Palestinians unless the World coerces Israel.

she was joking. we are friends.

my point still stands.

Found this picture online:

http://palestine.91.free.fr/EvolPal-16.jpg

http://palestine.91.free.fr/

Is it right?It's Judeofascist extermination. The Israelis deserve everything they get/will get. No tears for Jewish apartheid.

It's Judeofascist extermination. The Israelis deserve everything they get/will get. No tears for Jewish apartheid.

im not surprised genji figured it out what the massage of this map means. to make Israelis look more like a disease then people.

and propaganda works, just like in the 1930-1940 etc.

im not surprised genji figured it out what the massage of this map means. to make Israelis look more like a disease then people.

and propaganda works, just like in the 1930-1940 etc.I just want to see the death toll evened out. The Israelis have a death deficit that is glaring in comparison to the battered, caged Palestinian population. Israel is a disease, a mighty expensive one too. The world needs an anti-biotic from this hateful, violent and illegal fungus once and for all, by any means necessary.

I just want to see the death toll evened out. The Israelis have a death deficit that is glaring in comparison to the battered, caged Palestinian population. Israel is a disease, a mighty expensive one too. The world needs an anti-biotic from this hateful, violent and illegal fungus once and for all, by any means necessary.

yeah, i know you got the massage, no need to spell it out. just for the record in 48 israel lost about 1 percent of its total population. not that its mean anything to you , that israelis died, they arent humans you know.

wtf? rofl

http://funbumper.com/images/misc19.jpg

how ironic. you gave me an infraction for saying something similar.
can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

fuck you.Typical amoral zionist.

yeah, i know you got the massage, no need to spell it out. just for the record in 48 israel lost about 1 percent of its total population. not that its mean anything to you , that israelis died, they arent humans you know.Not even close to the number of dead Israelis I would hope for. They are human, of course, I LOVE animals so they have to be. They're just bad humans.

ps: No, I haven't had a massage.

Typical amoral zionist.

so only zionist curse?

ps: No, I haven't had a massage.

made a typo, and you should try it, its great!(english as you probably know, is not my mother language and i havent read or spoke english for about 5 years, so im allowed to make typo mistakes)

Not even close to the number of dead Israelis I would hope for. They are human, of course, I LOVE animals so they have to be. They're just bad humans.

all of them right? it doesnt really matter to you which one will die?

how ironic. you gave me an infraction for saying something similar.
can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

Hey, you take this way too seriously.
You can give me an infraction any time you want tho.

And please stop acting like a big baby. Stop the whining and bitching, it’s embarrassing.

Hey, you take this way too seriously.
You can give me an infraction any time you want tho.

And please stop acting like a big baby. Stop the whining and bitching, it’s embarrassing.

you gave me an infraction and im the baby? as if give a damn about that infraction :p

from where im standing you were just looking for giving me an infraction. again.

you gave me an infraction and im the baby? as if give a damn about that infraction :p

from where im standing you were just looking for giving me an infraction. again.

Yeh, you're the baby.

You make me laugh, seriously.

Yeh, you're the baby.

You make me laugh, seriously.

i make you laugh? :) good. i read somewhere its healthy.

I thought that there is no way China can be forced to give back Tibet
So what would you do if China occupied Mongolia (after the olympics, for diplomatic reasons)... push the date to 2010? :p

Also, there will never exist a Palestinian government strong enough to stop some Palestinians who will never accept the outcome of the 1948 war from attacking Israel. So, even though the majority of Israelis would give back the West bank for a guarantee of peace from the Palestinians, since no Palestinians will ever be able to guarantee anything more than relative peace, the West bank will never be given back to the Palestinians unless the World coerces Israel.
Israelis would probably be happy with a Palestinian government that deals with extremist groups the way Israel deals with groups like Kach - outlaw them, infiltrate them if possible, arrest members if necessary. A mutual extradition treaty would probably help too.

Independence without peace could lead to worse than the current situation for both sides.

So what would you do if China occupied Mongolia (after the olympics, for diplomatic reasons)... push the date to 2010? :p


Israelis would probably be happy with a Palestinian government that deals with extremist groups the way Israel deals with groups like Kach - outlaw them, infiltrate them if possible, arrest members if necessary. A mutual extradition treaty would probably help too.

Independence without peace could lead to worse than the current situation for both sides.

Hi Zep,

hows it going?

or we could go for the one state solution giving the palestinians equal voting power!

~~~~~~~~~~~
As always
zak

Hey Zak, it's going well, you?

I specified in my previous post that this would be if the Palestinians still wanted a two state solution. A one state solution could work. Or an EU type solution where the citizens of different states can live and work in other states; that way countries like Jordan and Lebanon, and eventually most of the middle east, could join, although hopefully they'd become properly democratic and stable first. Unfortunately none of the governments seem interested in that kind of integration.

It worked well in Europe: Germany and France were mortal enemies during WWII, yet a few decades later they were the founding states of what is now the European Union. And the millions of German refugees kicked out of Eastern Europe can return and live in countries like Poland and Latvia since they've joined the EU (and Poles and Latvians can live in Germany) - there are restrictions on movement to and from newly added countries, but only for a few years.

I think that the Prophet Mohammed’s actions should be used as an example. However he treated the Jews that used to live in Saudi Arabia - that should be exactly how the Palestinians are treated. That’s Gods' way – right? After emulateing the Prophet Mohammed’s actions, the Muslims living there should be told over and over that their religious belief is not the most correct, they should be offered a chance to convert to becoming a Jew and offered an opportunity to live in a Jewish State under Jewish Law or pay a heavy non-Jew tax.

Yeah, that sounds fair :bugeye:


Thank lack-of-God our US forefathers had the sensibility to take God out of public affairs,

monotheism . . .. . . . yuck;)

Michael

Au contraire, the forefathers authorized a national day of prayer, and don't forget "all men/women are CREATED equal."

The only stricture on religion espoused by the forefathers is that Congress shall make no law establishing religion. You were saying?

I can scarcely imagine the outcry from the implementation of Michael's plan. Oh my. And yet - oughtn't one judge others by their own rules? Isn't that right?

Geoff

Dear IAC,

What do you think about The Jefferson Bible ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486449211/ref=pd_kar_gw_1/103-8337360-7310202)


Why do you think he wrote one himself?
You should give it a read :)


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814



Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Thomas Jefferson was the greatest of the founding fathers!

Dear IAC,

What do you think about...

It's somewhat interesting that all of those letters/quotes were written long after the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet he, nor anyone of that period, tried to change those documents in any way.

Baron Max

Thomas Jefferson was the greatest of the founding fathers!

No, he was only one of many. To call him the "greatest" is to do a major disservice to the others. They were all great men, in a heartfelt struggle to form a new nation that went on to become the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth today.

Baron Max

Baron Max,

I think it's safe to say, some were more influential than others. Of the 55 - many would be hard pressed to name a handful and I am sure Thomas Jefferson would be one of those handuful.

Michael

I can scarcely imagine the outcry from the implementation of Michael's plan. Oh my. And yet - oughtn't one judge others by their own rules? Isn't that right?

Geoff

You mean like Muslims living in UK/US/India etc following their laws and paying their taxes in addition to their own? :rolleyes:

You mean like Muslims living in UK/US/India etc following their laws and paying their taxes in addition to their own? :rolleyes:If this was so, why were so many Xians refused to convert as the Islamic State would have finacially collapsed?

Really it suggests the tax burden was on the non-Muslim - doesn't it?
You would agree ultimately it's a pathetic attempt at winning converts - I mean if the message doesn't sell, then everyone knows money will always do the trick.

If this was so, why were so many Xians refused to convert as the Islamic State would have finacially collapsed?

Really it suggests the tax burden was on the non-Muslim - doesn't it?
You would agree ultimately it's a pathetic attempt at winning converts - I mean if the message doesn't sell, then everyone knows money will always do the trick.

So there are more non-Muslims in Islamic countries?:confused:

The taxes on the Muslims were less accessible to the government so less likely to be misused, does not mean they were less. Plus non-Muslims were not required to join the military and unlike the tax on Muslims there were no taxes on women and children.

is this true sam?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359094,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/1006258/1_wa.jpg
Warning sign on Indian train

is this true sam?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359094,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/1006258/1_wa.jpg
Warning sign on Indian train

Jews don't dress like this in India. However Muslims and Christians do.:mad:

Its a Bombay to Goa train so they've put in a Christian (for Goa) and a Muslim (possibly for terrorists).:rolleyes:

Jews don't dress like this in India. However Muslims and Christians do.:mad:

Its a Bombay to Goa train so they've put in a Christian (for Goa) and a Muslim (possibly for terrorists).:rolleyes:

and seriously?

and seriously?

Believe me I'm familiar with all the caricatures. Most Muslims wear a skull cap for prayer and Christians are caricatured with English hats.

Jews are a very integrated into Indian communities, most people don't even think of them as a separate religious group.

Believe me I'm familiar with all the caricatures.

Jews are a very integrated into Indian communities, most people don't even think of them as a separate religious group.

im sure.
but you havent answered the question.

im sure.
but you havent answered the question.

What question?

India is probably the only country in the world where Jews have lived for over 2000 years without discrimination. And have had no problems with Hindus, Muslims or Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

Which is another reason why I detest the results of the cold war in India and why we Indians cannot afford to ignore the results of the war on terror.


Anti-Semitism in India has manifested itself through the rhetoric of Islamist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba, who have declared Jews and Hindus to be enemies of Islam

The Lashkar-e-Toiba was first involved in the Mujahideen militance against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s and early 1990s. Subsequently, it began operations in the Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and has been involved in the fight against Indian presence there.

Do the Indians connect Abraham with a Brahmin?

Do the Indians connect Abraham with a Brahmin?

No but its an interesting idea.

Why is it an interesting idea if you "know" it to be false?

Why is it an interesting idea if you "know" it to be false?

What is practised at present may have different roots in the past, don't you think?

What question?

India is probably the only country in the world where Jews have lived for over 2000 years without discrimination. And have had no problems with Hindus, Muslims or Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

Which is another reason why I detest the results of the cold war in India and why we Indians cannot afford to ignore the results of the war on terror.

and today they have demonizing signs of jews. if its true of course-that was my question.

and today they have demonizing signs of jews. if its true of course-that was my question.

Jews in India are integrated with the local populations and have adopted their dress and languages. So it makes no sense that the pictures would be of Jews, no one in India would think so.

Absolutely.

I read that the now dried up Sarasvati River, on which the Rama empire riverport city of Lothal was built (during the Ice Age), was named after Sarah, the wife of Abraham (Brahmin).

Rama was a son of Cush.

And Sam, almost anyone would look at that cartoon and see anti-semitism, your spin won't help on this one.

Absolutely.

I read that the now dried up Sarasvati River, on which the Rama empire riverport city of Lothal was built (during the Ice Age), was named after Sarah, the wife of Abraham (Brahmin).

Rama was a son of Cush.

Actually Kush was a son of Rama.

But the goddess Saraswati is the consort of Brahma.

Thats interesting.:)

And Sam, almost anyone would look at that cartoon and see anti-semitism, your spin won't help on this one.

Maybe anyone outside India.

The concept of anti-Semitism does not exist in India, ask any Indian Jew.

It is being imported by foreign terrorists, but I doubt they run the government of India, which is in charge of the Railways.:p

Jews in India are integrated with the local populations and have adopted their dress and languages. So it makes no sense that the pictures would be of Jews, no one in India would think so.

indiands are that ignorant of judaism? if they dont know how they dress, how did they know how to draw them and, what is the purpose then?

You say the Jews blend right in, so why does the cartoon have Jew in traditional Jewish garb? You can't have it both ways.

You say the Jews blend right in, so why does the cartoon have Jew in traditional Jewish garb? You can't have it both ways.

my point exactly.

indiands are that ignorant of judaism? if they dont know how they dress, how did they know how to draw them and, what is the purpose then?

You say the Jews blend right in, so why does the cartoon have Jew in traditional Jewish garb? You can't have it both ways.

Is it traditional Jewish garb?

I have no idea what traditional Jewish garb is. The one Jewish ceremony I attended in Mumbai with a friend, everyone was in Indian clothes.

I doubt anyone in India would associate the garb with Jews. I'm pretty well read and I certainly did not.

Is it traditional Jewish garb?

I have no idea what traditional Jewish garb is. The one Jewish ceremony I attended in Mumbai with a friend, everyone was in Indian clothes.

I doubt anyone in India would associate the garb with Jews. I'm pretty well read and I certainly did not.

you never saw how orthodox jews dress? or any other jews over the inernet?
you quote a lot of sources in the past, which displayed jews.

i think you are just playing naive here.

isn't this traditional Jewish garb?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/coventry/features/fesitvals/images/jew-traditional-dress150.jpg

Ahahahaha.

Yes, that is, and so was the other, c'mon Sam, don't try to fly that stuff!!

isn't this traditional Jewish garb?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/coventry/features/fesitvals/images/jew-traditional-dress150.jpg

im not sure if youre kidding or not. i dont see much difference.

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/1006258/1_wa.jpg

You mean like Muslims living in UK/US/India etc following their laws and paying their taxes in addition to their own? :rolleyes:

By "their own" I assume you mean Indian taxes? No, I was considering more of a domestic perspective, which is similar to the experience of jizya.

Best,

Geoff

The other guy looks like a Muslim to me:

http://www.nubar.com/realstock_images/r123101-2-28.jpg

Sam, if you were given a picture of the guy on the left in the cartoon, would you guess he is Jewish, Dravidian, or Pakistani?

The taxes on the Muslims were less accessible to the government so less likely to be misused, does not mean they were less. Plus non-Muslims were not required to join the military and unlike the tax on Muslims there were no taxes on women and children.

They weren't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannisary

Also, I think I may have a reference to indicate that there were indeed taxes on women and children - and, moreover, that failure to pay those taxes resulted in slavery and/or "confiscation" of same. I believe it's in "Sword of the Prophet".

Best,

Geoff

Looks like they are wearing Jewish prayer shawls even have the stripes in blue.

http://yad-vashem.org.il/exhibitions/With_Sanctity_and_Valour/img/after/1486_488.jpg

The other guy looks like a Muslim to me:

http://www.nubar.com/realstock_images/r123101-2-28.jpg

muslim use talith?

They weren't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannisary

Also, I think I may have a reference to indicate that there were indeed taxes on women and children - and, moreover, that failure to pay those taxes resulted in slavery and/or "confiscation" of same. I believe it's in "Sword of the Prophet".

Best,

Geoff

It says so right in your reference:

Sultan Murad of the fledgling Ottoman Empire founded the units around 1365. It was initially formed of Dhimmi (non-Muslims, originally exempted from the military service), especially Christian youths and prisoners-of-war, reminiscent of Mamelukes. Sultan Murad may have also used futuwa groups as a model.

Anyway weren't the Ottomans the most tolerant of Christians?

They may have attempted to integrate them for all you know.


In states ruled by Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية; Ottoman Turkish cizye) is a per capita tax imposed on free non-Muslim adult males who are neither old nor sick nor monks [1], known as dhimmis, in exchange for being allowed to live, practice their faith, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy as well as being "entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression and being exempted from military service"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

It says so right in your reference:

Yeeees - it says "composed of Dhimmis" in my reference. So your argument is...?

Anyway weren't the Ottomans the most tolerant of Christians?

They may have attempted to integrate them for all you know.

No, unless "tolerant" has as many meanings as irdibuhunna seems to. If you yank people's sons away from them to fight against others of their faith, while simultaneously milking them as a tax base (another notable Ottoman habit), then "tolerant" is not the word that comes to mind.

Geoff

I also point out:

"in exchange for being allowed to live"

and

"compensation for not being slain".

"The Religion of Peace."

Yeeees - it says "composed of Dhimmis" in my reference. So your argument is...?



No, unless "tolerant" has as many meanings as irdibuhunna seems to. If you yank people's sons away from them to fight against others of their faith, while simultaneously milking them as a tax base (another notable Ottoman habit), then "tolerant" is not the word that comes to mind.

Geoff

Well they were not required to, but that does not translate as forbidden to.

Does it say they were coerced?

Anyway some more info from the above wiki link on Jiziya:

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule and the funds were collected for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah. There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.[12] Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were mendicant monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. Though jizya was mandated specifically for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[13] Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.

In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their non-Muslim religion. They could not serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory charity paid by Muslims.

So it looks like the Ottomans made an exception by having non Muslims in the military, which is in keeping with their general practice of tolerance towards them.

Well they were not required to, but that does not translate as forbidden to.

Does it say they were coerced?

No, but I have refs that do indeed say that. If the Ottomans show up on your doorstep and demand your sons, I'd say that translates as coercion.

So it looks like the Ottomans made an exception by having non Muslims in the military, which is in keeping with their general practice of tolerance towards them.

Again...tolerance meaning forcing them into the army and using them as a tax base.

With that kind of tolerance, who needs dhimmitude?

Geoff

I also point out:

"in exchange for being allowed to live"

and

"compensation for not being slain".

Well if I pay taxes in exchange for being allowed to live in the US, does that mean I will be put to death if I am not?

Anyway most of these conditions are laid down by jurists not clerics and are politically not religiously motivated.

Heh - I like the "mandatory charity" mention. Is that like "mandatory tolerance"? :D

Geoff

No, but I have refs that do indeed say that. If the Ottomans show up on your doorstep and demand your sons, I'd say that translates as coercion.



Again...tolerance meaning forcing them into the army and using them as a tax base.

With that kind of tolerance, who needs dhimmitude?

Geoff

What refs? Written by whom?

Tell me one country which does not use its citizens as a tax base and which exempts the old, sick and monks, as well as women and children.

Remember, Muslims, women, children, monks, old, sick etc are not exempt from zakat.

The non Muslims were paying for the privilege of living under a peaceful Muslim theocracy.

Geoff the Jannisarry were drawn from the ranks of christian children taken from the balkans once every four years or so. See Devsirme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirmeh)

The non Muslims were paying for the privilege of living under a peaceful Muslim theocracy.

Where are the Eastern Christians? Where did the Jews go when running from every holocaust? Including the last one?

Well if I pay taxes in exchange for being allowed to live in the US, does that mean I will be put to death if I am not?

Ah, no, but we're talking about the Ottoman Empire here (and about the ummah in general), not the US.

Anyway most of these conditions are laid down by jurists not clerics and are politically not religiously motivated.

Well, that makes it all better then, especially since no jurist would make any legal decision based on religious law. Whew! Any idea when mosque and state are going to be separated in the philosophy of Total Regulation of all Life and Existence?

Geoff

What refs? Written by whom?

Tell me one country which does not use its citizens as a tax base and which exempts the old, sick and monks, as well as women and children.

Remember, Muslims, women, children, monks, old, sick etc are not exempt from zakat.

I do, and shall surely do so, but my references are not here and the Dolphins are watching. Can't say any more.

Best

Geoff

Geoff the Jannisarry were drawn from the ranks of christian children taken from the balkans once every four years or so. See Devsirme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirmeh)

That sounds more like a political than a religious strategy.

In a system without separation of church and state.

Ah, no, but we're talking about the Ottoman Empire here (and about the ummah in general), not the US.



Well, that makes it all better then, especially since no jurist would make any legal decision based on religious law. Whew! Any idea when mosque and state are going to be separated in the philosophy of Total Regulation of all Life and Existence?

Geoff

The Fiqh has very little basis in the Quran (or Hadith) where legal opinions are concerned. Most of it is borrowed from Christian and Judaic laws as well as tribal Arab practices.

In a system without separation of church and state.

As compared to what other practices in the other regions of the world at the time?:confused:

You see it as you are inclined, I was merely giving Geoff the name for what he was refering to.

Heh - I like the "mandatory charity" mention. Is that like "mandatory tolerance"? :D

Geoff

Oh I don't know, I've always considered my taxes as mandatory charity anyway.:D

You see it as you are inclined, I was merely giving Geoff the name for what he was refering to.

I'm putting it in the perspective of the time and the place and what is generally known about the Ottomans.

Justice is poetic after all.


The devshirmeh was similar to a system used by earlier Islamic dynasties, such as the Abbasids who used slaves to build armies — especially guard troops — intended to be loyal to the ruler and thus provide a steady pool of manpower that was outside of local politics, but in many cases they ended up supporting or staging coups.

The descendants of these slaves would form the Mamluk dynasties. Despite the intentions of the Abbasid rulers, the Mamluks would eventually grow in power, reducing the Caliph to a virtual puppet.



There are accounts, however, of Muslim families attempting to smuggle their offspring into the levy, which was strictly forbidden. Although the devshirmeh made boys into the Sultans' state slaves, some considered it an honor as it conversely led to a highly privileged position in Ottoman society, but inevitably led to their conversion to Islam (a price many adult Christians paid voluntarily for social promotion). The system also had specific limits on who and how many could be taken. The seizure of sons whose absence would cause hardship and difficulties was not permitted.

Another aspect is that recruiting Christians for the military and administration counterbalanced the grip of the old Turkish nobility, which was largely channelled to education, law, Muslim religion and the provincial cavalry, in the spirit of division of tasks and rights of the millet system which benefitted the cohesion of the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empire.

Well, I have many other ways to waste time at lunch and they are all quite pressing. I leave the field momentarily to Sam's persistence, and the readers with this final comment lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya:

Al-Zamakhshari, a Mu'tazili author of one of the standard commentaries on the Qur'an,[21] said that "the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."[21]

Abu Yusuf, an eighth century Hanafi jurist states in his Kitab al-Kharaj that "The wali [governor of a province] is not allowed to exempt any Christian, Jew, Magian, Sabean, or Samaritan from paying the tax, and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, because their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the jizya.[22] He also cautions that "[n]o one of the ahl al-dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. [. . .] It is proper, O Commander of the Faithful--may Allah be your support--that you treat leniently those people who have a contract of protection from your Prophet and cousin, Muhammad--may Allah bless him and grant him peace. You should look after them, so that they are not oppressed, mistreated, or taxed beyond their means." [23]

So: death, but at least no beating. Woo hoo!

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that certain directives of the Qur’an were specific only to Muhammad against peoples of his times, besides other directives, the compaign involved asking the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.[24][25]

Yes. Tolerance.

What do commentaries have to do with anything?

I'm sure you've seen Fox News.

Commentary is free, available to anyone with the time and inclination.:D

Fortunately it does not translate to anything but commentary.

sam has no shame. i think shes just likes to argue for the sake of arguments.

You guys have absolutely no idea of what the various parts of Muslim writings mean.

Just because its there, does not mean anything. Opinion is free, commentary is free, anyone can discard it or accept it. A legal opinion is not law, a commentary is not law. Writing was a fairly new concept around the time Islam came to Arabia. People preserved everything that was written down, all perspectives were entertained and noted down. For 400 years they developed citations and explored the various aspects of social life and all the possible combinations and permutations of law based on available knowledge from the tribes, Judiasm, Christianity, Greeks etc. They kept a lot of divergent and diverse perspectives and had discussions based on these. That does not mean they accepted any of them.

They kept everything they discussed and other people in the next thousand years commented on what they had written. But thats all it is, perspectives and opinions.

As compared to what other practices in the other regions of the world at the time?:confused:

Ah! Tu tuoque. Tasty. So mosque and state are separated today? Oh, joy! The jizya no longer exists...except where it does.

In present-day Palestine, say.

The general plan of Hamas also includes the imposition of a special tax, called al-jeziya, upon all of the non-Muslim residents in the Palestinian territories. This tax revives the one applied through all of Islamic history to the dhimmi, the second-class Jewish and Christian citizens.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44202&eng=y

To which I add:

In Bethlehem, there is a Christian institute called "La Crèche" (The Manger), which cares for newborns abandoned by their parents. "They are the offspring of illegal relations cut off violently by the sharia, the Islamic law that reigns supreme in the refugee camps," the institute's directors explained to Elisa Pinna. "Their number is growing. None of these children can be adopted by couples outside the country. It is prohibited; the Palestinian Authority doesn't want it. They must remain here, in Bethlehem. They must remain Palestinian and Muslim."

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=38551&eng=y

Better dead than kufr? Hmm. Another topic, perhaps. But indicative.

Geoff

Just because its there, does not mean anything. Opinion is free, commentary is free, anyone can discard it or accept it. A legal opinion is not law, a commentary is not law.

Law is derived from it, Sam. I don't presume you can actually be trying to refute the religious connect to "secular" law in the ummah?

Geoff

You guys have absolutely no idea of what the various parts of Muslim writings mean.

Just because its there, does not mean anything. Opinion is free, commentary is free, anyone can discard it or accept it. A legal opinion is not law, a commentary is not law.

yet if its sounds peaceful we can take it literally right sam?

A town in southern Quebec just made a law prohibiting the burning of women, the stoning of them, that women can own property, that they can walk by themselves, have jobs, and no face covering in public.

Ah! Tu tuoque. Tasty. So mosque and state are separated today? Oh, joy! The jizya no longer exists...except where it does.

In present-day Palestine, say.



To which I add:



Better dead than kufr? Hmm. Another topic, perhaps. But indicative.

Geoff

So the democratic republic of Israel has made it easier on the non Muslims ?

Which is why they are greatly reduced in number now?

Just because a society follows a different social system, does not make it better or worse. The Christians in Palestine did not leave until after Israel was formed. Why?

And as for the children remaining Palestinian?

Nothing to do with 80 years of war and decimation of the population?

yet if its sounds peaceful we can take it literally right sam?

I avoid quoting the Fiqh or Hadith for that very reason. If I do quote the Fiqh I quote the opinions of the earliest Islamic jurists, who formulated the earliest definitions of the terms.

Later jurists are more likely to have been influenced by the changes brought about by the arrival of the Asians.

A town in southern Quebec just made a law prohibiting the burning of women, the stoning of them, that women can own property, that they can walk by themselves, have jobs, and no face covering in public.

I guess they must have had a lot of that happening there, to require a law.

Actually not, just preparing for a rainy day.

Law is derived from it, Sam. I don't presume you can actually be trying to refute the religious connect to "secular" law in the ummah?

Geoff

Law is derived as the politicians see fit.

The Sauds derive a full face covering, Saddam derived women working for a living, Pakistan derives honor killings and elects a woman Prime Minister who wears miniskirts in Europe.

Yeah, very derivative, the law.

I avoid quoting the Fiqh or Hadith for that very reason. If I do quote the Fiqh I quote the opinions of the earliest Islamic jurists, who formulated the earliest definitions of the terms.

Later jurists are more likely to have been influenced by the changes brought about by the arrival of the Asians.

i was talking about our argument on your thread on islam.

So the democratic republic of Israel has made it easier on the non Muslims ?

Which is why they are greatly reduced in number now?



you cant connect between the two. muslims in israel live better then me. some of them dont even pay taxes and the police doesnt do anything about them.

Actually not, just preparing for a rainy day.

Always a good idea. I'm against special laws for segments of the population (unless its based on welfare).

i was talking about our argument on your thread on islam.



you cant connect between the two. muslims in israel live better then me. some of them dont even pay taxes and the police doesnt do anything about them.

I usually quote the Quran, which I understand.

I'm sure Muslims live very well in Israel. I am quite certain the majority of Israeli Jews are, like most people, more interested in making their own lives better rather than making other people's lives worse.

I was making a point about the social system.

I usually quote the Quran, which I understand.

I'm sure Muslims live very well in Israel. I am quite certain the majority of Israeli Jews are, like most people, more interested in making their own lives better rather than making other people's lives worse.

I was making a point about the social system.

social system? what are you talking about?

is this true sam?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359094,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/1006258/1_wa.jpg
Warning sign on Indian train

Those words make sense on a train from Mumbai to Goa because thieves riding on the train have given their fellow travelers including tourists drugged gifts of food for the purpose of making making the travelers disabled or unconscious so that they can be peacefully robbed.

The Image makes no sense at all. I Googled a bit and found that there is not much documentation for this story. I would like to see the other half of the sign and see the sign as it was in it's surroundings. Was it an official train sign or something put out by somebody else.

I do remember reading something written by somebody in Mumbai saying that Israeli tourists are the worst. So I googled (Israelis, mumbai, and rude). I didn't waste a lot of time and only clicked on one link, this: http://www.indiamike.com/india/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4538&highlight=backlash
Israeli tourists may have a bad reputation in India and that might explain the sign.

Still the sign really makes no sense unless the image is connected to some other words about where to find a temple or something like that. I would put the odds at 40% that the story is entirely false, 40% that the sign is real and was in India but was either not an official sign or the image refers to something other that the drugged and that 10% that the story is entirely true.

I'm putting it in the perspective of the time and the place and what is generally known about the Ottomans.

Justice is poetic after all.

Hmm. I note this from your excerpt:

The seizure of sons whose absence would cause hardship and difficulties was not permitted.

Meaning that sons could indeed be "seized", so long as it wouldn't cause "undue hardship".

I think I've fairly won this part of the argument; further the dhimmi thing as well.

Best,

Geoff

So the democratic republic of Israel has made it easier on the non Muslims ?

Well, we were talking about the historical usage of he jizya vis-a-vis today, and the separation of mosque and state - which, for an "islamic state", is something of a poser.

Which is why they are greatly reduced in number now?

The articles indicate that there are a variety of reasons for that, not least economics. Then again, muslim emigration is extraordinarily low, which is not readily explained on the same criteria.

Just because a society follows a different social system, does not make it better or worse.

Quite correct: only a worse social system is worse.

Legal second-citizen status and punitive taxation is...worse. Are you contesting this?

The Christians in Palestine did not leave until after Israel was formed. Why?

Because the area erupted in open warfare. Do you imply this was all Israel's fault?

And as for the children remaining Palestinian?

Er...rather, they all are. I think that was the point of the article.

Nothing to do with 80 years of war and decimation of the population?

What has ensuring Palestinian children remain poor, muslim and in Palestine have to do with the articles I linked, or with the decimation of the steadily growing Palestinian population? Or, rather: why is it so important to the PA? Is there some...say...religious reason they might object? Could it have anything to do with Sura 9, or al-Buhkari, or al-Muslim, or al-Dahood?

Geoff

Law is derived as the politicians see fit.

The Sauds derive a full face covering, Saddam derived women working for a living, Pakistan derives honor killings and elects a woman Prime Minister who wears miniskirts in Europe.

Yeah, very derivative, the law.

And all derived, to one degree or another, from the same place. And all followed, to one degree or another, in the same way, with many commonalities: the punishment of shirk, the punishment of apostacy, of homosexuality, restrictions for women, and so on.

The differences are all of degree, not of kind.

Geoff

So there are more non-Muslims in Islamic countries?:confused:

The taxes on the Muslims were less accessible to the government so less likely to be misused, does not mean they were less. Plus non-Muslims were not required to join the military and unlike the tax on Muslims there were no taxes on women and children.Why were Xians not allowed to convert to become Muslim? I think you will find it is a system that puts pressure on a segment of people - forcing them to pay an unfair tax.

As for the army. That is a professional JOB and one many people would like to have had. This is another example of the Xians being denied a fair go.

I wonder how Muslims would feel in America or India or Australia or Europe if they were not given any State subsidies (welfare), had to pay a special tax simply for being Muslim, were not allowed to become Xian and could not get work in the army either?

It apparent that this system was initially used to monetarily persuade people to become Muslims because the message obviously wasn’t doing the trick and then it became obvious that these people could be milked for their money, while some would assuredly say it’s an example of where Islam wasn’t being followed as the Prophet intended (well actually that’s God as Mohammed was simply the mouth peace) I would contend it’s an example of a faulty system. One we have vastly improved upon in the concept of modern democracies.

Regardless, why again were Xians not allowed to convert to become Muslim? That does seem rather odd?

Michael

Michael, By xian do you mean Christian? This "Xian" word is new for me. I believe that Syria, Turkey, Palestine and perhaps even Egypt were Majority Christian at one time and then gradually converted to Islam.

Michael, By xian do you mean Christian? This "Xian" word is new for me. I believe that Syria, Turkey, Palestine and perhaps even Egypt were Majority Christian at one time and then gradually converted to Islam.
Xian is the traditional manner inwhich Chrisitian used to be (and still is) written. The word Xian pre-dates the word Christian.

I do remember reading something written by somebody in Mumbai saying that Israeli tourists are the worst. So I googled (Israelis, mumbai, and rude). I didn't waste a lot of time and only clicked on one link, this: http://www.indiamike.com/india/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4538&highlight=backlash
Israeli tourists may have a bad reputation in India and that might explain the sign.



I think the Israeli tourist thing sounds exaggerated, its nothing new in military men on leave (which is probably the bunch that makes the most noise). As for Indians catering to special tourist groups, well, go to Arab frequented areas in India and you'll find Indians speaking Arabic. Its an Indian thing to make guests feel welcome- and providing home flavor in a foreign country is an Indian business opportunity not to be missed!

Well, we were talking about the historical usage of he jizya vis-a-vis today, and the separation of mosque and state - which, for an "islamic state", is something of a poser.



The articles indicate that there are a variety of reasons for that, not least economics. Then again, muslim emigration is extraordinarily low, which is not readily explained on the same criteria.



Quite correct: only a worse social system is worse.

Legal second-citizen status and punitive taxation is...worse. Are you contesting this?



Because the area erupted in open warfare. Do you imply this was all Israel's fault?



Er...rather, they all are. I think that was the point of the article.



What has ensuring Palestinian children remain poor, muslim and in Palestine have to do with the articles I linked, or with the decimation of the steadily growing Palestinian population? Or, rather: why is it so important to the PA? Is there some...say...religious reason they might object? Could it have anything to do with Sura 9, or al-Buhkari, or al-Muslim, or al-Dahood?

Geoff

This is all incredibly silly. A short perusal of articles by Edward Said and one can see how the Christians think of Palestine. As for the low Muslim immigration, what is the absolute immigration of Muslims as compared to that of Christians? Considering they were 80% of the population to begin with?

And all derived, to one degree or another, from the same place. And all followed, to one degree or another, in the same way, with many commonalities: the punishment of shirk, the punishment of apostacy, of homosexuality, restrictions for women, and so on.

The differences are all of degree, not of kind.

Geoff

Sure but which one of the countries under review here are exposed to Western culture? Lets not forget that Martin Luther King was not too far back in history. That colonial oppression of the natives, apartheid, and the Holocaust is not a distant memory. You're comparing wildly disparate cultures and expecting to see the same values.

Why were Xians not allowed to convert to become Muslim? I think you will find it is a system that puts pressure on a segment of people - forcing them to pay an unfair tax.

As for the army. That is a professional JOB and one many people would like to have had. This is another example of the Xians being denied a fair go.

I wonder how Muslims would feel in America or India or Australia or Europe if they were not given any State subsidies (welfare), had to pay a special tax simply for being Muslim, were not allowed to become Xian and could not get work in the army either?

It apparent that this system was initially used to monetarily persuade people to become Muslims because the message obviously wasn’t doing the trick and then it became obvious that these people could be milked for their money, while some would assuredly say it’s an example of where Islam wasn’t being followed as the Prophet intended (well actually that’s God as Mohammed was simply the mouth peace) I would contend it’s an example of a faulty system.

Regardless, why again were Xians not allowed to convert to become Muslim? That does seem rather odd?

Michael

Huh? Who said they were denied welfare?

They were free to convert or not. The jiziya was originally the equivalent of the zakat and was not imposed on the old, sick, monks, women or children. It was a tax paid by able bodied free men who were not required to join the military if there was a campaign of attack or defense.

During a time when people were under those who conducted military campaigns the ability to work, practise your own faith and pay proportional tax only for yourself without needing to fight on behalf of the country you stay in (when there were Crusades and wholesale salughter happening on the other side of the world) was not a disadvantage.

Anyway all the rules are instituted by jurists so they are not set in stone and can be changed to reflect whatever the standards of current society may be. Which will depend on the level of progress of the people.

One we have vastly improved upon in the concept of modern democracies.

Which modern democracy are we specifically referring to?

Give me an example.

Its an Indian thing to make guests feel welcome and providing home flavor in a foreign country is an Indian business opportunity not to be missed!

Hmm, must not be an "Indian thing", unless that only for foreign tourists with mone