Discussion in 'History' started by S.A.M., Sep 28, 2009.
well it isnt up to you and does not have to meet your made up criteria.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Its based on reason and rationality probably why you don't like it. Though your right ir isn't up to me which is why I am in contact with those it is.
though considering this post was responding to statements about my belief what i think is in fact relevant.
who says i dont like it? personally i have no connection to this. no reason to get hostile, you are entitled to you opinion. just dont make demands on other people.
Since when? Last time I checked, Jews have been talking about Jerusalem that way on a daily basis since biblical times.
The issue seems to be that nobody listened, or anyway much cared.
than why no effort to get it for 1700 years? acting on a belief is what shows support of it.
In private at least? Based on the Bohrmann diktate, yes? Then the following article might interest you...
Is there any reason why anyone should? How many other religious beliefs do you "care" about?
There are thousands of religions in the world are humans supposed to care about all of them for the stupid political correctness ?!.
People that are going to decide the legitimacy of Jewish claims of attachment to Jerusalem based on the history of what Jews say about the matter should. Supposing they want anyone to take them seriously, that is.
In the sense of aknowledging that they are sincerely held beliefs? Pretty much all of them, I'd say.
There are plenty of such efforts in history, if you care to learn it.
Your own ignorance of the subject is not a very good premise for an argument.
Er, is that a David Irving apologist site?
I'm sorry, but my card-carrying membership in the International Society of Lizardoids prevents me from accepting your source. Also, we now have to eat your liver. Sorry. Policy.
I've searched. Out side of napolean's efforts I can't find anything. If there are efforts please name them.
What you accept as relevant facts, is not relevant, or even germane to the situation.
The major relevant fact, is that Israel was given statehood in exactly the same manner as Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, under League of Nations and United Nations mandates, so Israel is a legal entity, with full historical attachment to the lands in which it was founded.
The other major fact is that the Palestinian State that was to be founded along with Israel under U.N.C.R. 181 was destroyed by the Arab State, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, and neither Country even tried to establish a Palestinian State.
Yes they are no matter how much you wish other wise.
No it wasn't. Those states were for the resident populations Israel wasn't.
Except the first and last documents(Balfour decleration and the UN charter respectively) relevant to its creation say otherwise
Where is the historical attachment when they did nothing to gain it for 1700 years?
You are a piece of work still blaming Jordan and Egypt in full even though combined Israel stole more than 3 times as much. Try basing your beliefs on all the facts
Which is irrelevant because the palestinians did.
Apparently, we are supposed to give all religions the respect they deserve.
*I actually said that with a straight face, but couldn't contain my laughter.
You have a point, but I'd still consider the Bormann Vermerke as not reliable. And then...Francois Genoud was anything but unbiased in his translations. Historians look upon the Bormann Vermerke critically, and so should you. When translating it's easy to manipulate with the words without it being too noticeable. And as far as I remember Hitler never denounced Christianity as a religion, but as a political organisation; it was weak.
He was not an atheist. End of story.
Because it increases the risk that it could happen to you? Animals seem to gather in numbers to avoid being killed, perhaps this is a consequence of that method?
I view one death as horrible as a hundred. Depending somewhat on the way that the one person died (and of course how related I am to that person). It's always just one person. One individual in all those deaths. Anne Frank was one of those individuals, and I do think that the story of this one individual has touched the heart of the reader much more deeply than the notion of the number of deaths or that 'many have been killed'.
Of course, each person holds such a story.
One could say the same thing about Nazism or racism. Atheists who call themselves a Jewish race should be taken seriously? Really? So why not if they call themselves an Aryan race?
How do you gauge sincerity? Also what makes a sincerely held belief a justification for land theft or occupation? Does colonialism qualify? What about manifest destiny or apartheid? Just because a belief is sincerely held, does not make it right. There is no historical evidence of a Jewish exile or Jewish "nation"; the Khazarite kingdom has more supporting evidence than Davids. There is no evidence of an ancient Israel even. The so-called "ethnic" Jews are as racially distinct as the rest of the human race. Meanwhile, Americans defending ethnocentric and religious nationalism is a major joke.
He was an atheist in private. He couldn't be one in public because the nation was Christian. Is that so surprising? He called Christianity a curse and promoted and supported science [eugenics was the hot topic of the day in all major global scientific institutions, opposed strongly by the church]. He wouldn't be the first atheist who had to conceal his beliefs to get voted into power. He himself declared that you tell the people what they want to hear.
So empathy with genocide is a variant of "there but for the grace of God"?
I think its a matter of advertising. e.g. what do you know about the Soviet gulags? How many people died there?
He was raised Catholic and a theistic mystic in private, by most accounts and surviving documents superstitious and self anointed - a prophet type. As is common among prophets and mystics, he frequently criticized established religious institutions. Compare Muhammed, Jeremiah, Moses. He was supported by the Church, because of his espousal of family values. He had no understanding of science, and viewed it as magic, as well as politically malleable and equivalent to political or religious beliefs (he had the German legislature vote against the Theory of Relativity).
His misapprehensions of science, including the bizarre "eugenics" his government supported, are characteristic of mystical theists - common on this forum, for example, where political and moral objections to the supposed consequences of this or that theory are presented as reasons to not accept it as scientific or explanatory, and supernatural presumptions are dvanced as comparable - belonging to the same category of thought- as natural ones; by theists.
The Soviet Gulags were well advertised in the US. One difference is that thousands of American soldiers did not capture and open them, and return to the US with eyewitness accounts of what they found. Another is that aside from his slaughter of the Jews, all of Europe's chosen despised, Stalin mostly killed his actual political enemies - regardless of ethnicity.
Another point: the Gulags did not kill with the same ferocity, or dramatic and focused effort. Kolyna, the worst of them, killed maybe a half million people in thirty years. Aushwitz killed a bit less than triple that in three years - a much different operation, both in motive and in execution.
Yes please do.
No one calls Mohammed a Quraish pagan even if he was born in the community. Likewise, Hitler should be known by what he openly advocated, rather than what he is presumed to have thought.
The same bizarre eugenics also supported by all the free thinkers of the time and most major scientific institutions. It was the 30s, they were sterilising the mentally retarded, performing human experiments on the lowly inferior criminals, exhibiting Africans in zoos and obsessed with the science of genetics.
Like I said, advertising
Separate names with a comma.