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.

Jihadin wrote:Movie Cool Running

Do not most Blue Collar workers in Teaxs wear Carhartt?

I don't think that's really relevant.

He's not blue collar, he's a douche who happens to be rich and also a douche.

Melissia wrote:[He's not blue collar, he's a douche who happens to be rich and also a douche.

So he's a rich douche is what I should be getting out of this statement?

As an aside, I really do hate the Republican field. There isn't a single decent candidate except Romney, and Romney won't win the primaries (he might not even win an election, he's flip flopped more in the last year than most politicians in their entire lifetime).

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:[He's not blue collar, he's a douche who happens to be rich and also a douche.

So he's a rich douche is what I should be getting out of this statement?

As an aside, I really do hate the Republican field. There isn't a single decent candidate except Romney, and Romney won't win the primaries (he might not even win an election, he's flip flopped more in the last year than most politicians in their entire lifetime).

Yeah and Romney is a douche as well. Remember this gem?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
What do you dislike about America?

America is awesome! American people are amazing! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Huh?!

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There were differences between "Israelis" and the surrounding Muslim population that are not present between Palestinian Muslims and the surrounding Muslim population.

Fixed, though there are significant differences between, say, Jordanian Muslims and Palestinian Muslims, especially now that nationality has taken a degree of hold.

Please take the time to fix your own posts, not mine, especially when the "fixing" requires some nod towards anti-Jewish sentiment.

The fact of immigration (whether Jewish or not) into the area known as Israel is pretty well established. These people are different than the Arabs who were living in the area.

LordofHats wrote:So he's a rich douche is what I should be getting out of this statement?

With the subtext of "he's not a douche because he's rich, he's a douche AND he's rich".

Newt Gingrich is an invented name...

HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT NEWT!

Sick burn, amirightgents?

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
I'm pretty sure both Palestinians and Jordanians are predominantly Sunni.

They are, but most people in the Caribbean are Protestant, yet we don't talk very much about how much the US has in common with Jamaica (except John Candy).

AustonT wrote:
Even so nearly 1/3rd of Jordan's population is made up of "Palestinians" with Jordanian citizenship and access to Jordanian social services. Although what we are really talking about is the loss of Jordanian identity then, between the Iraqis and Palestinians fully half of Jordan's population isn't "Jordanian" but I digress.

To be fair, the national distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians is tenuous at best, it exists because of Israel (though that doesn't mean they are at fault).

AustonT wrote:

I concede that nationalism divides Palestinians from Jordanians, but that is perhaps the only division between them.

It is, however, a big one.

In the first and third case Canadians and Americans and Palestinians and Jordanians are good parallels.

Edit:text was in the wrong place

Melissia wrote:

Huffy wrote:

biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.

On that logic would that make the Israelis an invented people as well?

Same with "Americans".

Most Central and South Americans I know and work with take exception to the term American being applied only to people from the U.S. They can be quick to point out that they are Americans, also.

Because the only way you can not support Israel to the very ends of the earth is to completely and utterly abandon them....

And what exactly do you do? Cutting Aid to pressure them into supporting Palestinians IS abandoning them. Talking to israel and asking them to do whatever, probably won't work unless they support it too. Supporting Palestine instead is also a threat to the Israeli nation too. Can't go both ways.

Newt has taken a U.S. history course at some point right?

He does realize that we 'invented" a new people when we stole North America right?

Where did the name Palestine come from?

The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from “Plesheth”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”. Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers – chiefly from the Mediterranean islands – overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “the Philistine Syria” using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman “Provincia Judaea” and so renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”, the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name “Provincia Syria Palaestina” was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized “Palestine” is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the “three Palestines.” After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman “Palaestina”. Quoting Golda Meir:
•The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation’s supposed ancient name, though they couldn’t even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]

biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.

That's because at the time they were just people living in the British territory of "Palestine".

Israel is and is not legitimate. It is because it maintained its territorial integrity through force of arms against its vastly superior neighbors, and it's not because it was simply handed the territory by a British empire eager to divest itself of its troublesome and no longer profitable colonies. The Palestinians weren't conquered, they were evicted and ostracized, and are kept down by a campaign of terror. The situation is distinct from similar incidents in America as the natives there were nomadic barbarians, or South Africa where the oppressed population was itself largely the descendants of immigrants from tribes to the north of the British and Dutch colonies, since the Palestinians were as much a civilization as Egypt, and had been for almost as long.

But nonetheless, Israel has managed to maintain its sovereignty, mostly on its own (until the US started bankrolling its military), so it has a degree of legitimacy, regardless of its dubious origins.

CT GAMER wrote:Newt has taken a U.S. history course at some point right?

This is either dripping sarcasm or you missed an excellent opportunity.

regardless of its dubious origins.

Even when they have a significant claim to the land, just as much as the Palestinians? or are we forgetting history?

Jihadin wrote:Where did the name Palestine come from?

...

Although interesting, that makes no difference to the political realities.

Mr Hyena wrote:

regardless of its dubious origins.

Even when they have a significant claim to the land, just as much as the Palestinians? or are we forgetting history?

Except they didn't. While the Israelis were culturally descended from the exiled Judeans, they are far more accurately grouped in with the peoples of whatever lands their families wound up in, making them Germans, Slavs, Spaniards, Danes, etc. You can't put two human populations together, however insular and mutually xenophobic they may be, without significant interbreeding and cultural osmosis, especially when you're talking on a timescale of thousands of years. To say nothing of the whole "nearly two thousand year absence" thing. It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.

Don't we?

CT GAMER wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.

Don't we?

No, we own Europe because we conquered it back in WWII, then rebuilt it from scratch. We're just not making them pay rent because we're cool like that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.

Don't we?

No, we own Europe because we conquered it back in WWII, then rebuilt it from scratch. We're just not making them pay rent because we're cool like that.

This won't hurt his numbers. Conservatives don't particularly care about the vagueries of the histories of the holy land and the bible credits Israelites with owning the location so the christian base is sated. It's telling of our national mood and the debasement of the conservative movement when Newt can be himself and still maintain a commanding lead in the national spotlight. That said, it's no worse than much of what Perry or Bachman during their climbs toward the sun. It's not like FP is a particularly important subject of debate or consideration in republican primaries right now anyway. In theory the person with the least FP experience is the most likely to look good to the xenophobic base.

Shuma nailed it

biccat wrote: Unless you're talking about Native Americans, but even then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have identified themselves as "Americans" before colonization.

Yep.
They identify themselves by the name "the people" (strangely, most of the native names for themselves usually translate as "of the people" - and the others they share their lands with are always "not of the people").

I actually thought what he had to say was pretty good for an on-the-fly answer. Horribly irrelevant, but he said it so confidently, I couldn't help but be impressed

Also a douche though.

Shuma has indeed impacted the nail on the head

Gingrich has something of a point, in that there was no Palestinian identity 50 or 60 years ago. When Israel was formed it was genuinely felt the Palestinian population would simply move into the surrounding Arab nations. Remember at the time there were population swaps going on between countries, picking up ethnic minorities in Europe and putting them back in their home countries, and this was done with minimal political force. Ideas about identity and nationality were incredibly different to what we see now, and the formation of a Palestinian identity was entirely unexpected.

But that only defends Gingrich's point in an academic sense, and his comment was not mere academic pondering, but expressly political. It is meant in the sense that Palestinians, because their identity is 'invented' have no right to claim their own state, and this is something that plays well with a certain collections of voters (not hugely significant in votes, but typically high campaign contributors, something Newt needs if his funding is as poor as the rumours have claimed).

The point is that none of that has anything to do with what is happening in the region right now. Whether your identity is recently invented or not, no-one has a right to move you from your home to put their own ethnic group in there. Which makes the present situation unacceptable, which makes a solution necessary. No-one anywhere is pretending that Israel would be capable of granting equal rights if they absorbed Palestine entirely into Israel, nor would Israel want this, as they'd become a minority in their own country. Nor is it practical to have Palestine merge into Jordan or another country (as they neither want to, nor have the capability to rebuild Palestine). Which leaves one option, and that's for a new Palestinian nation.

Not that you'd hear Newt talking about that, because that'd play poorly with his base, and that's the only consideration he has in talking about this stuff.

biccat wrote:
Please take the time to fix your own posts, not mine, especially when the "fixing" requires some nod towards anti-Jewish sentiment.

Wait, so its now antisemitic to point out that Jews are not Muslim, and that there are differences between Jews living in the Middle East and Muslims living in the Middle East?

I suspect that you know it isn't antisemitic to do such a thing, but that you are hiding behind "Antisemitism!" the same way Jesse Jackson hides behind "Racism!" Only, at least in this instance, I'm only noting that Jews are Jewish, and Muslims are Muslim, which would seem to be less about discrimination, and more about identifying characteristics claimed by both groups.

But please, demonstrate for us how one uses equivocation (poorly) in order to avoid addressing a substantive deficiency in a point previously made, I'm certain we would all benefit from the lesson.

biccat wrote:
The fact of immigration (whether Jewish or not) into the area known as Israel is pretty well established. These people are different than the Arabs who were living in the area.

And yet the fact remains that the vast majority of immigrants into Israel were, are, and will be in the future, Jewish. In fact the Israeli government is actively engaged in making certain that the majority of its citizenry remains Jewish, being as the state of Israel takes "Jewish State" as its identity.

You don't hear about, nor will you find statistical evidence of, Arab (or even Muslim) immigration into Israel. Which was, ultimately the point of fixing your original post. The primary difference between Israeli citizens, and their Arab Muslim neighbors, is religion, not nationality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote: Nor is it practical to have Palestine merge into Jordan or another country (as they neither want to, nor have the capability to rebuild Palestine). Which leaves one option, and that's for a new Palestinian nation.

I imagine that Israel would also take issue with the loss of water rights.

sebster wrote:
Not that you'd hear Newt talking about that, because that'd play poorly with his base, and that's the only consideration he has in talking about this stuff.

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as I sincerely doubt young Newt intends to do anything substantive vis a vis Israel-Palestine if elected.

I have an ex girlfriend who is Israeli of Russian descent from an Atheist family. They are one of the minority groups in Israel.

dogma wrote:young Newt

Did you know as a child young Newt was able to survive a hostile alien infestation on LV-426? Also, he was a girl.

[edit - post removed due to Jihadin's more superior knowledge in the area]

Do you think that it would cause a right wing conservative's head to explode if you point out to them that the Muslim faith venerates Christ more than the Jewish one?

Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.

Muslims claim that they believe in the true Jesus Christ. Muslims praise Jesus as a prophet of God, as sinless, as “the Messiah,” as “illustrious in this world and the next,” as “the Word of Allah” and as “the Spirit of God.” (e.g. Sura 3:45) Muslims cite their Bible, the Koran, in confirmation of their belief in Jesus: ‘An