Who is really killing the Muslims?

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestinians refers to those who live in Gaza and the West Bank. They are united against Israel. They are not monolithic, more like split in two. Hamas and Fatah.

You are misinformed. "Palestinian" refers to Arabs who live in Gaza and who live in the West Bank, and former residents of Israel of Arabic descent wherever they live. Moreover, it is bigoted to refer to an ethnic group or a race or a nationality as "The" because it denotes that everyone in that group is the same.

It's the position of their leaders. It's the position of most of the people there. While there are no doubt exceptions they have been brainwashed for a lifetime to believe it, the belief will be widespread.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's a great quote from Dennis Prager about this:

"If the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace. If the Jews laid down their weapons, there would be a total annihilation of the Jews."

Dennis Prager is delusional. Illegal Israeli settlements is the proof.

Nor is there any actual argument or evidence that the Palestinians wouldn't simply put the Jews in the equivalent of what the Israelis keep the Palestinians in or accept them as second class citizens rather than exterminating them. The power imbalance could explain much of the rhetoric and terrorist sentiment. I am no fan of Islam, but it isn't like jews were exterminated during Muslim rule prior to the creation of Israel by outside forces.

 

[laughing dog]

Palestinians refers to those who live in Gaza and the West Bank. They are united against Israel. They are not monolithic, more like split in two. Hamas and Fatah.

You are misinformed. "Palestinian" refers to Arabs who live in Gaza and who live in the West Bank, and former residents of Israel of Arabic descent wherever they live. Moreover, it is bigoted to refer to an ethnic group or a race or a nationality as "The" because it denotes that everyone in that group is the same.

It's the position of their leaders. It's the position of most of the people there. While there are no doubt exceptions they have been brainwashed for a lifetime to believe it, the belief will be widespread.

BS

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a great quote from Dennis Prager about this:

"If the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace. If the Jews laid down their weapons, there would be a total annihilation of the Jews."

Dennis Prager is delusional. Illegal Israeli settlements is the proof.

Nor is there any actual argument or evidence that the Palestinians wouldn't simply put the Jews in the equivalent of what the Israelis keep the Palestinians in or accept them as second class citizens rather than exterminating them. The power imbalance could explain much of the rhetoric and terrorist sentiment. I am no fan of Islam, but it isn't like jews were exterminated during Muslim rule prior to the creation of Israel by outside forces.

The Jews accepted their second-class status. The creation of Israel was a rejection of that second-class status and thus will provoke a stronger response.

Besides, I already showed how the Jews used to be treated. The silence was deafening. Jim Crow was very good by comparison.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the position of their leaders. It's the position of most of the people there. While there are no doubt exceptions they have been brainwashed for a lifetime to believe it, the belief will be widespread.

BS

Saying BS doesn't make it so. All it shows is you have no rebuttal.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the position of their leaders. It's the position of most of the people there. While there are no doubt exceptions they have been brainwashed for a lifetime to believe it, the belief will be widespread.

BS

Saying BS doesn't make it so. All it shows is you have no rebuttal.

Saying it is not BS doesn't make it so. All it shows is that you have no evidence to support your claim of fact.

 

[Arctish]

Nor is there any actual argument or evidence that the Palestinians wouldn't simply put the Jews in the equivalent of what the Israelis keep the Palestinians in or accept them as second class citizens rather than exterminating them. The power imbalance could explain much of the rhetoric and terrorist sentiment. I am no fan of Islam, but it isn't like jews were exterminated during Muslim rule prior to the creation of Israel by outside forces.

The Jews accepted their second-class status. The creation of Israel was a rejection of that second-class status and thus will provoke a stronger response.

Besides, I already showed how the Jews used to be treated. The silence was deafening. Jim Crow was very good by comparison.

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

 

[steve_bank]

Nor is there any actual argument or evidence that the Palestinians wouldn't simply put the Jews in the equivalent of what the Israelis keep the Palestinians in or accept them as second class citizens rather than exterminating them. The power imbalance could explain much of the rhetoric and terrorist sentiment. I am no fan of Islam, but it isn't like jews were exterminated during Muslim rule prior to the creation of Israel by outside forces.

The Jews accepted their second-class status. The creation of Israel was a rejection of that second-class status and thus will provoke a stronger response.

Besides, I already showed how the Jews used to be treated. The silence was deafening. Jim Crow was very good by comparison.

In the 19th century up through WWII and beyond Jews were social activists. The idea that Jim Crow was 'better than something else' especially in today's climate is plain apologetics for slavery and the rest.

A black man I know where I live grew up in Jim Crow La. A few days ago he was interviewed on camera by historians from Seattle University and University Of Washington for a documentary and a university archive.

They had to stop at one point because one of the interviews could not stop crying.

Jim Crow was not a mass mechanistic genocide, but it was open season on blacks in many areas of the country. I saw a picture of a white picnic with a church in the background, along with a black hanging from a tree. I could get into details of stories from my friend. In terms of social and economic suppression of blacks under Jim Crow it was no less than the Jewish suppression in Europe.

Jews in this country had it bad. The images of the Holocaust helped turn it around. Ann Frank became required high school reading.

You have just had a Joe Biden moment in your post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nor is there any actual argument or evidence that the Palestinians wouldn't simply put the Jews in the equivalent of what the Israelis keep the Palestinians in or accept them as second class citizens rather than exterminating them. The power imbalance could explain much of the rhetoric and terrorist sentiment. I am no fan of Islam, but it isn't like jews were exterminated during Muslim rule prior to the creation of Israel by outside forces.

The Jews accepted their second-class status. The creation of Israel was a rejection of that second-class status and thus will provoke a stronger response.

Besides, I already showed how the Jews used to be treated. The silence was deafening. Jim Crow was very good by comparison.

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

Nobody has posted a reply about what that book showed, beyond noting it's age. (And it's age is actually a big plus--it's a contemporary account from a disinterested third party long before there was a propaganda war. This makes it a far more credible source.)

Read it (it's only a couple of paragraphs on that page) and address the conditions it describes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the 19th century up through WWII and beyond Jews were social activists. The idea that Jim Crow was 'better than something else' especially in today's climate is plain apologetics for slavery and the rest.

Huh? So Jim Crow is the ultimate evil, nothing can possibly surpass it?

It should be obvious that I was saying Jim Crow was bad. I was just saying the plight of the Jews being described in that book was even worse. For something to be even worse what it's being compared to must also be bad!

 

[laughing dog]

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

Nobody has posted a reply about what that book showed, beyond noting it's age. (And it's age is actually a big plus--it's a contemporary account from a disinterested third party long before there was a propaganda war. This makes it a far more credible source.)

Read it (it's only a couple of paragraphs on that page) and address the conditions it describes.

There is no link in this thread to any such book. Nor its title. Which makes it difficult for anyone to read it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

Nobody has posted a reply about what that book showed, beyond noting it's age. (And it's age is actually a big plus--it's a contemporary account from a disinterested third party long before there was a propaganda war. This makes it a far more credible source.)

Read it (it's only a couple of paragraphs on that page) and address the conditions it describes.

There is no link in this thread to any such book. Nor its title. Which makes it difficult for anyone to read it.

It wasn't in this thread. The title wouldn't do you much good, anyway, given it's age. What I posted was a link to Google showing the content of the book. You can read it right there.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no link in this thread to any such book. Nor its title. Which makes it difficult for anyone to read it.

It wasn't in this thread. The title wouldn't do you much good, anyway, given it's age. What I posted was a link to Google showing the content of the book. You can read it right there.

There is no link in this thread to that book. There is no link in this thread to the thread where there is an alleged link to the book. So, it is not possible for anyone to read that book.

 

[Arctish]

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

Nobody has posted a reply about what that book showed, beyond noting it's age. (And it's age is actually a big plus--it's a contemporary account from a disinterested third party long before there was a propaganda war. This makes it a far more credible source.)

Read it (it's only a couple of paragraphs on that page) and address the conditions it describes.

I did. Apparently you didn't, or at least didn't read more that a few paragraphs describing Palestinian Jews as miserable wretches subsisting on alms and despair. You missed the parts where Rev. Hollingsworth writes about fulfilling Biblical prophecy and the advantages Britain could expect from having access to an overland route to Lahore via Jerusalem.

The author isn't wrong about the battles between the nomadic herders and settled farmers for control of the grasslands and access to water. He isn't wrong about the impact conscription has on villagers trying to plant and harvest their crops. His mistake is in thinking the poor Palestinian farmers were all Jews and Christians. He says that creed doesn't matter, that both Christian and Jewish Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land because they're descended from the Hebrews. Apparently he didn't realize that the people he dismisses as Arabs were for the most part descended from Hebrews, too. Also, his certainty that if Britain flexed it's muscles, the Muslims would give up the fight for Palestine because their religion teaches them to be submissive, looks pretty silly in hindsight.

The author's statements about the economy and social structure are in line with what other sources report, although his descriptions are rather florid and overblown, and he completely ignores what the existence of Muslim Hebrews does to his argument. His claims regarding God's Will, Divine Provenance, prophecy and the like, are just expressions of his faith.

Overall, it's an interesting read. You should take the time to finish it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no link in this thread to any such book. Nor its title. Which makes it difficult for anyone to read it.

It wasn't in this thread. The title wouldn't do you much good, anyway, given it's age. What I posted was a link to Google showing the content of the book. You can read it right there.

There is no link in this thread to that book. There is no link in this thread to the thread where there is an alleged link to the book. So, it is not possible for anyone to read that book.

There is no link between your post and the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You claimed it. You never showed it. Your refusal to learn the history, much less accurately portray it, is well documented.

Israel was created by Europeans in response to conditions in Europe and in keeping with European notions on colonization and domination of other cultural groups. It was not a response to Ottoman rule; it was a seized opportunity when the Ottoman Empire faltered and collapsed.

Nobody has posted a reply about what that book showed, beyond noting it's age. (And it's age is actually a big plus--it's a contemporary account from a disinterested third party long before there was a propaganda war. This makes it a far more credible source.)

Read it (it's only a couple of paragraphs on that page) and address the conditions it describes.

I did. Apparently you didn't, or at least didn't read more that a few paragraphs describing Palestinian Jews as miserable wretches subsisting on alms and despair. You missed the parts where Rev. Hollingsworth writes about fulfilling Biblical prophecy and the advantages Britain could expect from having access to an overland route to Lahore via Jerusalem.

The author isn't wrong about the battles between the nomadic herders and settled farmers for control of the grasslands and access to water. He isn't wrong about the impact conscription has on villagers trying to plant and harvest their crops. His mistake is in thinking the poor Palestinian farmers were all Jews and Christians. He says that creed doesn't matter, that both Christian and Jewish Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land because they're descended from the Hebrews. Apparently he didn't realize that the people he dismisses as Arabs were for the most part descended from Hebrews, too. Also, his certainty that if Britain flexed it's muscles, the Muslims would give up the fight for Palestine because their religion teaches them to be submissive, looks pretty silly in hindsight.

The author's statements about the economy and social structure are in line with what other sources report, although his descriptions are rather florid and overblown, and he completely ignores what the existence of Muslim Hebrews does to his argument. His claims regarding God's Will, Divine Provenance, prophecy and the like, are just expressions of his faith.

Overall, it's an interesting read. You should take the time to finish it.

The issue isn't their poverty, the issue is how they were treated.

 

[Arctish]

I did. Apparently you didn't, or at least didn't read more that a few paragraphs describing Palestinian Jews as miserable wretches subsisting on alms and despair. You missed the parts where Rev. Hollingsworth writes about fulfilling Biblical prophecy and the advantages Britain could expect from having access to an overland route to Lahore via Jerusalem.

The author isn't wrong about the battles between the nomadic herders and settled farmers for control of the grasslands and access to water. He isn't wrong about the impact conscription has on villagers trying to plant and harvest their crops. His mistake is in thinking the poor Palestinian farmers were all Jews and Christians. He says that creed doesn't matter, that both Christian and Jewish Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land because they're descended from the Hebrews. Apparently he didn't realize that the people he dismisses as Arabs were for the most part descended from Hebrews, too. Also, his certainty that if Britain flexed it's muscles, the Muslims would give up the fight for Palestine because their religion teaches them to be submissive, looks pretty silly in hindsight.

The author's statements about the economy and social structure are in line with what other sources report, although his descriptions are rather florid and overblown, and he completely ignores what the existence of Muslim Hebrews does to his argument. His claims regarding God's Will, Divine Provenance, prophecy and the like, are just expressions of his faith.

Overall, it's an interesting read. You should take the time to finish it.

The issue isn't their poverty, the issue is how they were treated.

Did you read the book, or not?

I get the feeling you didn't read more than a paragraph or two, didn't care who the author was or why he wrote the book, and didn't care if he was reporting things he himself observed or if he was writing about what he heard from other, unnamed sources. Heck, you can't even be bothered to look through your old posts to find the link again.

IOW, I get the feeling you are just as ignorant about the content of your source document as you are about the content of mine.

I'm calling shenanigans. You're bullshitting. I'm not going to discuss the contents of a book you haven't read while all you do is make wild guesses about what you imagine that book might say and turn them into strawman arguments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I did. Apparently you didn't, or at least didn't read more that a few paragraphs describing Palestinian Jews as miserable wretches subsisting on alms and despair. You missed the parts where Rev. Hollingsworth writes about fulfilling Biblical prophecy and the advantages Britain could expect from having access to an overland route to Lahore via Jerusalem.

The author isn't wrong about the battles between the nomadic herders and settled farmers for control of the grasslands and access to water. He isn't wrong about the impact conscription has on villagers trying to plant and harvest their crops. His mistake is in thinking the poor Palestinian farmers were all Jews and Christians. He says that creed doesn't matter, that both Christian and Jewish Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land because they're descended from the Hebrews. Apparently he didn't realize that the people he dismisses as Arabs were for the most part descended from Hebrews, too. Also, his certainty that if Britain flexed it's muscles, the Muslims would give up the fight for Palestine because their religion teaches them to be submissive, looks pretty silly in hindsight.

The author's statements about the economy and social structure are in line with what other sources report, although his descriptions are rather florid and overblown, and he completely ignores what the existence of Muslim Hebrews does to his argument. His claims regarding God's Will, Divine Provenance, prophecy and the like, are just expressions of his faith.

Overall, it's an interesting read. You should take the time to finish it.

The issue isn't their poverty, the issue is how they were treated.

Did you read the book, or not?

I get the feeling you didn't read more than a paragraph or two, didn't care who the author was or why he wrote the book, and didn't care if he was reporting things he himself observed or if he was writing about what he heard from other, unnamed sources. Heck, you can't even be bothered to look through your old posts to find the link again.

IOW, I get the feeling you are just as ignorant about the content of your source document as you are about the content of mine.

I'm calling shenanigans. You're bullshitting. I'm not going to discuss the contents of a book you haven't read while all you do is make wild guesses about what you imagine that book might say and turn them into strawman arguments.

I read what was relevant to the topic at hand--how the Jews were being treated over there. Showing that the place was in poverty has nothing to do with this.

 

[Arctish]

Did you read the book, or not?

I get the feeling you didn't read more than a paragraph or two, didn't care who the author was or why he wrote the book, and didn't care if he was reporting things he himself observed or if he was writing about what he heard from other, unnamed sources. Heck, you can't even be bothered to look through your old posts to find the link again.

IOW, I get the feeling you are just as ignorant about the content of your source document as you are about the content of mine.

I'm calling shenanigans. You're bullshitting. I'm not going to discuss the contents of a book you haven't read while all you do is make wild guesses about what you imagine that book might say and turn them into strawman arguments.

I read what was relevant to the topic at hand--how the Jews were being treated over there. Showing that the place was in poverty has nothing to do with this.

So you haven't read it yet. You just guessed that the few paragraphs you found were enough to convey the entirety of the situation in mid 19th century Palestine, and the reliability of the author as a source.

If you can't even be bothered to read your own dog-damned source, why should I bother discussing it with you?

Let me know if you ever find that book and actually read all 38 pages. I have a few questions about the author's assertions, and you can bet your bottom dollar I'll know if you're bullshitting.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no link in this thread to that book. There is no link in this thread to the thread where there is an alleged link to the book. So, it is not possible for anyone to read that book.

There is no link between your my post and the situation.

Of course not. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. You are the one who needs to provide a link the some book to which you refer. Naturally, instead of doing so, you prefer to post bs.