Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?

Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?

Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.

Traditional meaning decendents and culture...

It's jsut a Fubar situation all over...

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?

Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.

Traditional meaning decendents and culture...

It's jsut a Fubar situation all over...

Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.

 AustonT wrote:

Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.

Ironically, these same people have been fighting ever since the New Kingdom period. Some have actually suggested that Moses was fleeing Pharaoh not because of Judaism, but because he had been a supporter of Akhenaten, who, as far as anyone can tell, was the originator of the idea of monotheism. (previous to this, the Jews had worshiped an entire pantheon. )

Not sure if it's accurate, but it causes some events to make more sense, and casts others in a very different light.

Ironically, these same people have been fighting ever since the New Kingdom period. Some have actually suggested that Moses was fleeing Pharaoh not because of Judaism, but because he had been a supporter of Akhenaten, who, as far as anyone can tell, was the originator of the idea of monotheism. (previous to this, the Jews had worshiped an entire pantheon. )

Not sure if it's accurate, but it causes some events to make more sense, and casts others in a very different light.

Don't know where you go that idea, pretty sure Abraham was the first recorded monotheist, and he came about on the way back from Babylon if I'm not mistaken.

Pretty sure Abraham predates Babylon. He came from Ur.

I thought the two were pretty much contemporaneous?

 Albatross wrote:
I thought the two were pretty much contemporaneous?

Not as regards prominence. In brief, Ur lost its power and was succeeded by Babylon.

I would guess that Ratbarf was using "Babylon" to refer to "Mesopotamia".

The first monotheistic religion is a subject of much debate. One part is that Zorastrianism may be the first real monothesitic religion, the other is when Judaism became monothesitic.

What's that you say? Judaism wasn't always monothesitic? Yeah it was Henotheistic and then it wasn't. Maybe it happened in the Desert, maybe just before the Unified Monarchy. Either way Abraham wasn't the first monotheist.

Huh, no I actually did mean Babylon, as in the return from Captivity. it was the remember correctly part that I think I should point to you.

My history teacher in Grade 11 said it was Abraham, I kind of took his word for it.

 Ratbarf wrote:

My history teacher in Grade 11 said it was Abraham, I kind of took his word for it.

11th grade History teachers are not to be trusted.

I still owe a slap to mine for presenting Comte's conception of historical knowledge as if it was the incarnate truth.

According to my 11th grade history teacher the whole world thought it was flat except Columbus.

 d-usa wrote:
According to my 11th grade history teacher the whole world thought it was flat except Columbus.

That's another very funny one. Oh and that everyone thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

Feth you, Arab mathematicians, just feth you.

The return from captivity was Nehemiah IIRC.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I guess it's got to be a lot easier to argue with the things you wish someone had said; rather then what they actually did, huh?

That's exactly what he said, actually.

 sebster wrote:

I don't condone violence, but I recognise that when you want your own country, you use the tools you have at your disposal. For the Jews at the time, outgunned as they were, that meant bombing campaigns and abductions. It sucks, but that's how it is.

Now, 60 something years later, the Palestinians are doing the same.

And people on-line, with absolutely no understanding of the history of these events, take up this moralistic positions against one side for using whatever weapons they have at their disposal.

All the Palestinians have at their disposal, according to Sebster, is terrorism, so we - and Israel - have no right to criticize (or, excuse me, "take up moralistic positions" against one side) because of it.

If all they can do is deliberately target civilians, who are we to judge?

For some reason you've read my statement that the violent response by the Palestinians was probable, perhaps even inevitable, and you've heard that and somehow in your brain lurched to a conclusion that therefore any retaliation against that must be wrong. Which is so stupid it just kind of makes me sad.

I mean, any idiot on Earth knows that if a mob boss finds out you've been sleeping with his wife, at the very least you're going to cop one hell of a beating. We can all recognise that the mob boss shouldn't go around beating up on people, but we all accept the basic reality of what's going to happen when you go aroudn bragging you've been banging his wife.

And yet, according to your line of reasoning, by acknowledging that such a response is inevitable that means no-one should do anything to stop it. You shouldn't call the police to get protection, or fight back however you can. So ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Iran Theocrats never says good things about Israel (and Jews in general). supporting Palestine is one thing. what will Iran do after Palestine is recognised by U.N. ?

Nothing. Iran will do nothing. Why would they do anything?

How can you sure that Iran doesn't have any nukes?

Uh, that's a given. No-one anywhere is claiming they've got nukes. People are debating how close they are, and in some cases whether its actually a viable goal at all. And Mossad, who are s

What proofs that Iran only denounce Israel and jews but never actually sends any military aid to Hamas no matter if they actually can?

They do send aid, again that's not a secret. But the difference between smuggling some rocket parts and committing to the end of your nation by firing a nuclear weapon at a nuclear power who's closest ally happens to have the most powerful nuclear arsenal in history is really quite big.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's safe to assume that Mossad knows everything. Including what you personally had for breakfast this morning, your total body composition down to the DNA, and the last time you kissed your significant other on the mouth and if he/she was into the kiss at all.

That is not a joke.

Yeah, I know you're not joking. Seriously, Mossad are just incredibly good at what they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if Iran had nukes, they would have probably used them by now. Or given one to a third party to use for them. Less chance of an international invasion that way(if only slight)

Once again, Mossad disagrees with you. And in a choice between the most effective intelligence service on Earth and some guy on the internet, I'm going to give a bit more weight to Mossad.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
My only worry about Palistinian gaining UN recognition is how this was achieved.

Is it that far fetched that other groups would do the same thing?

This changes a lot of things.

If other peoples around the world are occupied by another country who won't grant them citizenship and won't allow them to become their own country, and they convince the UN to grant them notional existance as a non-member state, then that'd be nice as well.

 d-usa wrote:
So everybody is cool with giving the United States back to the people who can claim it as their ethnic home land?

No problem. Its my ethnic program. I'm not greedy, I'll just take Minnesota.

 Seaward wrote:
What doesn't work about that scenario is that nothing at all is going to change for your everyday Palestinian as a result of the vote. Palestinians are going to realize this, eventually, and Abbas is going to become more irrelevant than ever as Hamas says, "See? Violence is the only way," now with some evidence.

So you agree the fundamental problem is the living standards among Palestinians, and that if Israel worked to improve those standards, rather than to reduce them, we'd be much closer to a lasting peace?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Uh-oh... These guys really could give masterclasses on eye-for-an-eye making the whole world blind, couldn't they....?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20552391

Israel has authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to Israeli officials.

It is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 planning permissions.

Well, according to at least one person Dakka the settlements aren't an issue because Israel hasn't formed a new one since the late 90s.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think I've yet come to terms with how aggressively the pro-Israel crowd on Dakka reject the basic realities of this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
As far as Im concerned this Israel Palestinian thing ended the day the Palestinians said feth a two state solution and tried to massacre the other half.

So, basically what you're saying is that you heard a simplistic narrative, used that to make your mind up, and have since avoided learning anything about the issue.

Sounds about right for much of Dakka when it comes to this issue, unfortunately.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The return from captivity was Nehemiah IIRC.

Zerubababel and Yeshua Kohen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
As far as Im concerned this Israel Palestinian thing ended the day the Palestinians said feth a two state solution and tried to massacre the other half.

So, basically what you're saying is that you heard a simplistic narrative, used that to make your mind up, and have since avoided learning anything about the issue.

Sounds about right for much of Dakka when it comes to this issue, unfortunately.

It's a Republic not a democracy.

 AustonT wrote:
Are you really in this fething thread talking about a Jewish homeland and you don't have any idea how Argentina might be involved.
Sebster was right. And I think I just swallowed my own vomit.

All I'm saying. If you know things contribute, if you don't read and ask questions. And if you think you know things and it becomes obvious you don't, then back away, and take the opportunity to learn.

hehehe, yeah. Please disregard that post. I was drunk as a skunk when I was posting the other night. I see I forget things when I am in that state.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Okay... gotcha now

My sarcas-o-meter is broken tonight.

I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine, yet we side with their opponents because "that is the right thing to do".

One of the arguments I hear the most is "The Jews have always lived in Israel, that is their historical homeland, they have ties there, etc etc etc".

To me that is just a stupid argument, and not just because I am sitting on a continent full of white people who are sad that the land that used to be full of "red" people is not white enough anymore.

It's even dumber because the Palestinians have lived there for a very long time as well.

And ultimately, once your people have been there a generation, then what you're really dealing with is kids who were born in a place and have lived their whole lives there. You can't demand they move because of what their parents, grandparents, or ancestors back 2,000 years did or didn't do. You can't make them move, either morally or practically.

So any talk of anyone moving just doesn't work. It's a nonsense. All that matters is how you get both sides to live peacefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
No. I couldn't care less about historical claims. Palestinian leadership - and a lot of Palestinians - are bad for other reasons.

Wow. That's some hardcore nuance right there. "That side is bad."

 Ratbarf wrote:

Don't know where you go that idea, pretty sure Abraham was the first recorded monotheist, and he came about on the way back from Babylon if I'm not mistaken.

Except that Abraham means 'father of multitudes' and does not appear in the early versions of the text. He first turns up in versions following Nebuchadnezzar's invasion (about the same time that Deuteronomy was altered). This took place about 600 BCE. Akhenaten ruled Egypt around 1356-1333 BCE and tried to force the worship of Aten on the entrenched priesthood. His son, Tutankhamun (aka King Tut) repealed most of what his father had down and ordered the old temples Akhenaten had ordered demolished rebuilt.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Not as regards prominence. In brief, Ur lost its power and was succeeded by Babylon.

Actually it's quite specific. 'Ur of the Chaldeans' This means that Abraham left Ur after it's capture by the Babylonians, who were called Chaldeans around the period of the destruction of the first temple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some natives understood this and assimilated themselves into US society, and were better off for that.

Right up to the moment they were rounded up and sent west too. My grandmother told me the story her grandmother told her, about how when they were forced out of their homes, the white people stood outside hope to steal anything they couldn't take with them. She spent an hour smashing anything she couldn't pack into the single wagon they were allowed, then torched the house.

When George Washington ordered what was, if not the first, pretty close, crime against humanity the United States Army committed, many of the officers complained that the native villages, towns and one city they burned were far too nice for the natives, and complained bitterly that many of the houses had glass windows, a luxury they themselves could not afford.

Further, the idea that we were wandering savages who did not understand land ownership or the trappings of civilization is one of the big lies they like to tell in schools. They forget that William Penn was so kind as to explain it to us. On the occasions that the white governors actually kept their bargains, there was actually surprisingly little strife, as the Penn's were always happy to point out to their somewhat greedier neighbors.

 Seaward wrote:
Generally speaking I'm not fond of anyone who utilizes terrorism.

So you're not much of a fan of the Zionist movement that established Israel, then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Yep. It's often a choice of lesser evils.

Mwahahahaha!

Oh yeah, that's it, oppressive dictator or population calling for democracy.

Tough choice for Nixon there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
It's a Republic not a democracy.

I know you like that as your little thing and everything, but seriously, you posted that nonsense. I mean, even ignoring the one-sided and simplistic it is to claim that Palestine rejected peace (Zionist factions said no plenty of times too, you know), what in the flying fuckballs does it matter to a kid born into Palestine or Israel today?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
hehehe, yeah. Please disregard that post. I was drunk as a skunk when I was posting the other night. I see I forget things when I am in that state.

Is cool. Thankyou for admitting your mistake and letting the debate move on.

If there was more of that Dakka would be a much improved place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.

True. It's worth mentioning again that people honestly believed that Palestinian Arabs would generally depopulate the area, and move to neighbouring countries - especially to Jordan. That country actually received and patriated millions of refugees through to 1970s or so. But what no-one saw coming was the rise of Palestinian nationalism, both in the occupied zones and in the camps in Jordan (where there are multiple generation refugees still trying to get back to Palestine, somehow).

That rise corresponded with a general rise in nationalism and the rights of the individual across the world - the idea of telling people to pack up their house and move to another territory because an area 'belongs' to some other ethnic group sounds completely bizarre today, but was actually a broadly accepted, albeit contraversial practice, through much of the 20th century. Population swaps were pretty common across Europe, and some even occurred in the wake of WWII.

The last, most contraversial, and least successful of which has been Israel.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

11th grade History teachers are not to be trusted.

Ah, 11th Grade history.

I remember that teacher because he said that, if his wife asked "Do I look fat in this?" while dressing for an occasion, he would answer honestly.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Huh, no I actually did mean Babylon, as in the return from Captivity.

The Captivity references imperial rule as well as an actual place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually it's quite specific. 'Ur of the Chaldeans' This means that Abraham left Ur after it's capture by the Babylonians, who were called Chaldeans around the period of the destruction of the first temple.

I have never heard Babylonians referred to as 'Chaldeans' and, given that Babylon and Ur exist within the region that is called 'Chaldea' I am hesitant to trust your turn of phrase.

 sebster wrote:
For some reason you've read my statement that the violent response by the Palestinians was probable, perhaps even inevitable, and you've heard that and somehow in your brain lurched to a conclusion that therefore any retaliation against that must be wrong. Which is so stupid it just kind of makes me sad.

Actually, I read your statement that terrorist campaigns against civilians are entirely justified if that's all you have at your disposal and realized, yet again, that you hold some awfully reprehensible opinions.

I mean, any idiot on Earth knows that if a mob boss finds out you've been sleeping with his wife, at the very least you're going to cop one hell of a beating. We can all recognise that the mob boss shouldn't go around beating up on people, but we all accept the basic reality of what's going to happen when you go aroudn bragging you've been banging his wife.

And yet, according to your line of reasoning, by acknowledging that such a response is inevitable that means no-one should do anything to stop it. You shouldn't call the police to get protection, or fight back however you can. So ridiculous.

I don't think even you know what point you're arguing at the moment, but I'm glad you used that analogy.

All I've been doing is saying that the mob boss' response to finding out some dude was sleeping with his wife is more immoral than sleeping with the mob boss' wife in the first place. Yeah, sleeping with a married woman's bad, but killing a guy for sleeping with your wife is worse. You, on the other hand, have been trying to claim they're morally equivalent. At this point I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, as in most threads you post in,

 sebster wrote:
So you agree the fundamental problem is the living standards among Palestinians, and that if Israel worked to improve those standards, rather than to reduce them, we'd be much closer to a lasting peace?

No. I was not remotely talking about living standards.

If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments. If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel. Arab Israelis have it pretty good, especially compared to...well, most of the other states in the region.

 dogma wrote:

I have never heard Babylonians referred to as 'Chaldeans' and, given that Babylon and Ur exist within the region that is called 'Chaldea' I am hesitant to trust your turn of phrase.

Well, Nabopolassar 'the Chaldean' was Nebuchadnezzar's father, so...

If you don't believe me...

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

 Seaward wrote:
Actually, I read your statement that terrorist campaigns against civilians are entirely justified if that's all you have at your disposal and realized, yet again, that you hold some awfully reprehensible opinions.

So you make up gak in your brain, pretend it's what someone else thinks and then condemn people for it. Well if that's how you want to spend your time on the internet I guess that's up to you. It seems a tremendous waste of time to me, and more than a little bit crazy, but it's your time to spend how you like.

Meanwhile, as I've said countless times, I don't condone terrorism of any kind. I just accept what people are likely to do in a given situation.

Meanwhile, you stand off on the side saying 'I am morally opposed to terrorism and that makes me awesome at solving this issue'... which probably makes you feel pretty righteous, but is really quite useless.

All I've been doing is saying that the mob boss' response to finding out some dude was sleeping with his wife is more immoral than sleeping with the mob boss' wife in the first place. Yeah, sleeping with a married woman's bad, but killing a guy for sleeping with your wife is worse. You, on the other hand, have been trying to claim they're morally equivalent.

No, I'm saying one leads to the other. Morality doesn't mean anything if what you want is to stop any of it happening.

If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments. If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel. Arab Israelis have it pretty good, especially compared to...well, most of the other states in the region.

Ha ha. Yeah, Israel is totally, definitely going to incorporate the Palestinians into Israel, and become an ethnic minority in their own country. That's both a plausible and totally sensible thing to request. Yep, well done.

I think you made more sense when you were pretending that Palestinian terrorism exists because they're bad.

 Seaward wrote:

If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments.

Yeah, it's like that. I can't tell whether you're just that racist or just that stupid, Seaward.

 Seaward wrote:

If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel.

Yes, because after all, conditions in Gaza wouldn't have anything to do with the Israeli blockaid of things most civilized nations consider basics, whatsoever.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, because after all, conditions in Gaza wouldn't have anything to do with the Israeli blockaid of things most civilized nations consider basics, whatsoever.

Careful, you've strayed pretty far from 'Palestinian terrorism exists because they're bad people', and that probably means you condone terrorism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Well, Nabopolassar 'the Chaldean' was Nebuchadnezzar's father, so...

You should read that Wikipedia article, as it does not equate "Chaldean" with "Babylonian".

 Seaward wrote:

If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel.

Do you really think Israel would let 3.7 million non-Jews in?