Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
"Choose" is right. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is supposed to be the 3rd most important location in Islam. This is where Muslims claim Mohamed rode a horse up to heaven and negotiated with God about the 5 daily prayers.
Yet Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. The text says he went to the mosque that was the "furthest".
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/017.qmt.html#017.001
The Dome on the Rock would fit that description, unfortunately Mohamed died June 8, 632. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock
Riding a horse up to heaven could be a "miracle". Doing it from a mosque that doesn't exist yet is just "batshit crazy".
This part of Islam's "holy land" is contrived and has nothing to do with their actual religion. They made it up. This has little to do with the actual topic at hand, but the idea that this is "holy land" in Islam is absurd. They've got Mecca and Medina, why do they need Jerusalem when it's not in their scripture?
Yet Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. The text says he went to the mosque that was the "furthest".
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/017.qmt.html#017.001
The Dome on the Rock would fit that description, unfortunately Mohamed died June 8, 632. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock
Riding a horse up to heaven could be a "miracle". Doing it from a mosque that doesn't exist yet is just "batshit crazy".
This part of Islam's "holy land" is contrived and has nothing to do with their actual religion. They made it up. This has little to do with the actual topic at hand, but the idea that this is "holy land" in Islam is absurd. They've got Mecca and Medina, why do they need Jerusalem when it's not in their scripture?
You sure about that?
Two out of three translations disagree. Are you sure Muslims were worshiping there when Mohamed was alive? Can you provide a link?
If you're referring to the foundation stone that the Dome was built on, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone
Compare the "Jewish significance" section to the "Muslim significance" section.
Two out of three translations disagree. Are you sure Muslims were worshiping there when Mohamed was alive? Can you provide a link?
If you're referring to the foundation stone that the Dome was built on, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone
Compare the "Jewish significance" section to the "Muslim significance" section.
I gave you respect but you want to take it there so let me oblige.
It isn't that simple because the British didn't just leave, the Israelis didn't just claim independance, and the Arabs didn't just declare war. The British were supplying the Arabs and the British didn't leave until sometime AFTER the war had already started.
No, I want to keep the topic on point and not be the harbinger of retardness like yourself. You are the one attempting to derail it with fallacies and we'll get to that in a bit. However, when people are discussing a group of people who's "race"/"ethnicity" and "religion" use the same name and/or term, it is only logical to come to a mutual agreement of who those people are.
And some would say Jews are specifically those who come from the tribe of Yehuda and call themselves Yehudim. However, if we follow your definition of "jews" and use it to denote those who follow Judaism, where does that leave a person who does not adhere to the religion or who's mother was not a "jew"?
It makes a difference if your claim to the land is, "YISRAEL IS OURS BECAUSE YHWH/HA-SHEM GAVE IT TO US! WE BE THE SEEDS OF ABRAHAM!" Do you understand this, or do I have to teach you Judaism 101 and give you a crash course pertaining to the history of the land?
By the way, more and more research is coming to light that shows the "jews", especially those of European stock, DON'T have a connection to the land and aren't from anywhere near the middle east. Moreover, you should know that certain "jews", those practicing the religion, were denied citizenship and are still being denied citizenship. Concerning King David, I've heard of him. Concerning the curse of Israel and how the "jews" are supposed to be restored do you know about it? Sure you do.
Please utilize critical reading and analytical skills. I should not have to waste my time pointing out the obvious.
This is an illogical claim and a warped way of thinking. Posting an article does not mean he is leaning one way or the other--it simply means he posted an article for us to read and talk about.
I feel free doing what I'm doing, and I don't need someone who has already shown he doesn't know much about the topic, telling me what I need to do. Moreover, I don't need that person claiming my argument is weak when he obviously lacks the ability to identify a premise or thesis. Finally, when that person makes accusations, it is in their best interest to make sure they aren't relying on straw man, red herring and circumstantial ad hominem fallacies. :dead:
This is idiocy and does not deserve to be addressed, however I'm on a roll here so might as well go for the throat. If the BEST you can do is give me a wikipedia link, that has nothing to do with the amount of people but everything to do with how much land was owned, I suggest you exit stage left or right. It doesn't matter which way you take, but at this point you should stop posting.
BTW, educate yourself before you speak:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
The author is saying Israel was FOUNDED in 1948. The author is not saying the carnage STARTED in 1948. Do you understand this?
According to the Arabs, and their supporters, what you just said is the exact reason why they declared war. :dead:
No, it's called stupidity.
This is where your logic is crippled and where I come to the conclusion that you're mentally impotent and will most likely remain so. You think it's ok to present an "analogy" yet not be questioned about your analogy? Moreover, you're the one who originally mentioned america, and I said we don't even need to address the issue after you cried about it, but here it is you're saying I'm trying to derail the topic? I asked you a question that was derived from YOUR WORDS. YOU were the one who introduced it to this topic, therefore, you should be held accountable for what it is you're saying.
More fallacies on your part buddy, and you can make as many typos as you want, I don't care. As a matter of fact, you can be the second coming of Merceidez and I wouldn't care one bit. The fact is, you were called out on your "analogy", and now you're searching for wiggle room by bottle-spinning and making it seem like I'm derailing the thread. However, the people reading this thread know who is using world jugglery and jargon to back away from their words, and they know it isn't me.
I had a long day of mixing and this is where I will say, "This doesn't deserve a response" and actually not respond to it.
No problem.
It isn't that simple because the British didn't just leave, the Israelis didn't just claim independance, and the Arabs didn't just declare war. The British were supplying the Arabs and the British didn't leave until sometime AFTER the war had already started.
No, I want to keep the topic on point and not be the harbinger of retardness like yourself. You are the one attempting to derail it with fallacies and we'll get to that in a bit. However, when people are discussing a group of people who's "race"/"ethnicity" and "religion" use the same name and/or term, it is only logical to come to a mutual agreement of who those people are.
And some would say Jews are specifically those who come from the tribe of Yehuda and call themselves Yehudim. However, if we follow your definition of "jews" and use it to denote those who follow Judaism, where does that leave a person who does not adhere to the religion or who's mother was not a "jew"?
It makes a difference if your claim to the land is, "YISRAEL IS OURS BECAUSE YHWH/HA-SHEM GAVE IT TO US! WE BE THE SEEDS OF ABRAHAM!" Do you understand this, or do I have to teach you Judaism 101 and give you a crash course pertaining to the history of the land?
By the way, more and more research is coming to light that shows the "jews", especially those of European stock, DON'T have a connection to the land and aren't from anywhere near the middle east. Moreover, you should know that certain "jews", those practicing the religion, were denied citizenship and are still being denied citizenship. Concerning King David, I've heard of him. Concerning the curse of Israel and how the "jews" are supposed to be restored do you know about it? Sure you do.
Please utilize critical reading and analytical skills. I should not have to waste my time pointing out the obvious.
This is an illogical claim and a warped way of thinking. Posting an article does not mean he is leaning one way or the other--it simply means he posted an article for us to read and talk about.
I feel free doing what I'm doing, and I don't need someone who has already shown he doesn't know much about the topic, telling me what I need to do. Moreover, I don't need that person claiming my argument is weak when he obviously lacks the ability to identify a premise or thesis. Finally, when that person makes accusations, it is in their best interest to make sure they aren't relying on straw man, red herring and circumstantial ad hominem fallacies. :dead:
This is idiocy and does not deserve to be addressed, however I'm on a roll here so might as well go for the throat. If the BEST you can do is give me a wikipedia link, that has nothing to do with the amount of people but everything to do with how much land was owned, I suggest you exit stage left or right. It doesn't matter which way you take, but at this point you should stop posting.
BTW, educate yourself before you speak:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
The author is saying Israel was FOUNDED in 1948. The author is not saying the carnage STARTED in 1948. Do you understand this?
According to the Arabs, and their supporters, what you just said is the exact reason why they declared war. :dead:
No, it's called stupidity.
This is where your logic is crippled and where I come to the conclusion that you're mentally impotent and will most likely remain so. You think it's ok to present an "analogy" yet not be questioned about your analogy? Moreover, you're the one who originally mentioned america, and I said we don't even need to address the issue after you cried about it, but here it is you're saying I'm trying to derail the topic? I asked you a question that was derived from YOUR WORDS. YOU were the one who introduced it to this topic, therefore, you should be held accountable for what it is you're saying.
More fallacies on your part buddy, and you can make as many typos as you want, I don't care. As a matter of fact, you can be the second coming of Merceidez and I wouldn't care one bit. The fact is, you were called out on your "analogy", and now you're searching for wiggle room by bottle-spinning and making it seem like I'm derailing the thread. However, the people reading this thread know who is using world jugglery and jargon to back away from their words, and they know it isn't me.
I had a long day of mixing and this is where I will say, "This doesn't deserve a response" and actually not respond to it.
No problem.
Cool, I see a few but not the one I am looking for. Fuck having long tedious history
That's correct, there were Arab riots, Jewish civilians murdered, Arab civilians murdered, and atrocities committed by both sides. However the option to peacefully coexist was available to both sides. The Jews were willing to accept peaceful coexistence, the Arabs refused to accept it. They gambled hoping to get the entire nation, they lost that gamble.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings to the point where you need to make personal attacks, I'm sure you'll get over it though.
I do agree that it would be logical to come to a mutual agreement on who those people are. However when one side wants to avoid the topic and focus on the definition of each word in a post, while being willfully disagreeable, it becomes an exercise in futility to attempt consensus. Why get into a long discussion about who the Jews are legally when the average second grader knows who the Jews and Palestinians are when discussing Israel and Palestine.
Who cares? This has little to do with Israel's right to exist.
I would definitely be interested in a Judaism 101 crash course since I've had little to no exposure to Judaism.
The point I was making is that it makes very little difference if the people running a nation actually have a connection to that land. I would use America as an example again, but it seems too upsetting for you so I'll refrain. The Israelis are running their country and defending it as they see fit. Their historical connection to that land (which I believe exists) is irrelevant.
I believe this has little to do with Israel's right to exist.
And I should not have to waste my time defending your argument. You said it, not me. When I make points in an argument, I post links, quotes, etc. to defend those arguments. I didn't see how "certain arguments" in the article were defended by the Balfour Declaration or Yishuv. I'm calling bullshit and saying those arguments don't exist. If you want to defend your statement go for it. I think you're unable to do so.
So if I posted an topic called "Do African-Americans have the right to live in America" and I posted an article written by some extreme right-wing Klan member, it wouldn't imply my stance on the subject? I believe that copy-and-pasting propaganda articles implies support for the article unless the poster specifically distances themselves from the article like "look at this bullshit article". We disagree on this issue, that's fine.
Disagreement on an issue doesn't mean the opposing side "doesn't know much about the topic". There's a difference between being uneducated on a topic and not wanting to play your game of "define every word instead of discussing the topic". I don't claim to be an authority on the topic of Israeli/Palestinian history. There's a lot I don't know. I'm interested in the topic and enjoy discussing it and learning new things in the process.
I used Wikipedia because it seems to be one of the least biased sources available and it's easily accessible. It's self defeating to link to obviously biased sites. Yes maybe all the Jewish owned land was owned by one person, I find it unlikely though. According to your link it does appear that there was a "substantial number" of Jews living in the area at the time. I'll have to read some more of that site, seems like it's got some interesting information.
But this is so much fun. Maybe you would prefer to only be involved in threads with yes-men echoing your own beliefs. I enjoy debate and will continue to post at my discretion. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll decline.
The author probably shouldn't have used the sentence: "Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948." The key words being "set about" and "in 1948".
I skimmed the article and found no mention of ANY dates or time periods before 1948. Apparently you have the power to read the author's mind and know what she really meant. I lack that ability and only saw 1948 and later.
So you admit they declared war? Will you also admit that they lost the war? This should be the end of the discussion right here. The Arabs declared war (maybe they were justified in doing so, maybe not), the Arabs lost that war. It's time for the Arabs to move on and get over their loss.
As I said, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm assuming that's the reason why you're lashing out.
A mentally impotent person would derail or distract as you did. You didn't question my analogy or find flaws in its comparison. You attempted to derail the topic by begining a new debate about land rights in America. If the comparison is flawed, point out those flaws. Starting a new topic is a cheap way to avoid the topic.
If you are able to attack my analogy, I'll defend my rational for using it or conceed defeat on that point. If you want to start up a new topic within the same thread based on my analogy, I'll kindly ask you to start a new topic. Understand?
My apologies if I give the impression of juggling words. I'll try to state this clearly: You never called me out on my analogy. You said "What about non-native americans that were forced to come here?" this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and it doesn't point to flaws in my comparison. Instead it starts a new topic. I don't really understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
If you say "that doesn't work because America is different from Israel in these ways..." that's "calling me out on my analogy". Instead you started a new topic on an unrelated subject.
Come to think of it, you still have addressed the actual topic of Israel's right to exist. You've been attempting plenty of word games, and you claim intellectual superiority but haven't actually voiced an opinion and presented arguments defending that opinion. Interesting.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings to the point where you need to make personal attacks, I'm sure you'll get over it though.
I do agree that it would be logical to come to a mutual agreement on who those people are. However when one side wants to avoid the topic and focus on the definition of each word in a post, while being willfully disagreeable, it becomes an exercise in futility to attempt consensus. Why get into a long discussion about who the Jews are legally when the average second grader knows who the Jews and Palestinians are when discussing Israel and Palestine.
Who cares? This has little to do with Israel's right to exist.
I would definitely be interested in a Judaism 101 crash course since I've had little to no exposure to Judaism.
The point I was making is that it makes very little difference if the people running a nation actually have a connection to that land. I would use America as an example again, but it seems too upsetting for you so I'll refrain. The Israelis are running their country and defending it as they see fit. Their historical connection to that land (which I believe exists) is irrelevant.
I believe this has little to do with Israel's right to exist.
And I should not have to waste my time defending your argument. You said it, not me. When I make points in an argument, I post links, quotes, etc. to defend those arguments. I didn't see how "certain arguments" in the article were defended by the Balfour Declaration or Yishuv. I'm calling bullshit and saying those arguments don't exist. If you want to defend your statement go for it. I think you're unable to do so.
So if I posted an topic called "Do African-Americans have the right to live in America" and I posted an article written by some extreme right-wing Klan member, it wouldn't imply my stance on the subject? I believe that copy-and-pasting propaganda articles implies support for the article unless the poster specifically distances themselves from the article like "look at this bullshit article". We disagree on this issue, that's fine.
Disagreement on an issue doesn't mean the opposing side "doesn't know much about the topic". There's a difference between being uneducated on a topic and not wanting to play your game of "define every word instead of discussing the topic". I don't claim to be an authority on the topic of Israeli/Palestinian history. There's a lot I don't know. I'm interested in the topic and enjoy discussing it and learning new things in the process.
I used Wikipedia because it seems to be one of the least biased sources available and it's easily accessible. It's self defeating to link to obviously biased sites. Yes maybe all the Jewish owned land was owned by one person, I find it unlikely though. According to your link it does appear that there was a "substantial number" of Jews living in the area at the time. I'll have to read some more of that site, seems like it's got some interesting information.
But this is so much fun. Maybe you would prefer to only be involved in threads with yes-men echoing your own beliefs. I enjoy debate and will continue to post at my discretion. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll decline.
The author probably shouldn't have used the sentence: "Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948." The key words being "set about" and "in 1948".
I skimmed the article and found no mention of ANY dates or time periods before 1948. Apparently you have the power to read the author's mind and know what she really meant. I lack that ability and only saw 1948 and later.
So you admit they declared war? Will you also admit that they lost the war? This should be the end of the discussion right here. The Arabs declared war (maybe they were justified in doing so, maybe not), the Arabs lost that war. It's time for the Arabs to move on and get over their loss.
As I said, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm assuming that's the reason why you're lashing out.
A mentally impotent person would derail or distract as you did. You didn't question my analogy or find flaws in its comparison. You attempted to derail the topic by begining a new debate about land rights in America. If the comparison is flawed, point out those flaws. Starting a new topic is a cheap way to avoid the topic.
If you are able to attack my analogy, I'll defend my rational for using it or conceed defeat on that point. If you want to start up a new topic within the same thread based on my analogy, I'll kindly ask you to start a new topic. Understand?
My apologies if I give the impression of juggling words. I'll try to state this clearly: You never called me out on my analogy. You said "What about non-native americans that were forced to come here?" this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and it doesn't point to flaws in my comparison. Instead it starts a new topic. I don't really understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
If you say "that doesn't work because America is different from Israel in these ways..." that's "calling me out on my analogy". Instead you started a new topic on an unrelated subject.
Come to think of it, you still have addressed the actual topic of Israel's right to exist. You've been attempting plenty of word games, and you claim intellectual superiority but haven't actually voiced an opinion and presented arguments defending that opinion. Interesting.
:H:
This is more bottle spinning on your part. We are not talking about atrocities committed on both sides, nor are we talking about peaceful coexistence. What we are talking about, however, is your simple three point process that is historically and chronologically INACCURATE.
No, you didn't hurt my feelings, and you were the one who opened with attacks. In my previous posts, I showed you respect and it was not reciprocated, so it is what it is now.
YOU are the party posting misinformation, bottle spinning and avoiding the topic, thanks for taking a peek in the mirror. Yes, I focus on what a person says, every single word, you know why? It is called critical reading, and by doing so, I'm able to grasp a comprehensible explanation of what the person is trying to convey, even if they do not know exactly how to put it together. You on the other hand? Well, you just post shit and go off on an emotional roller coaster, lie on people, insult people and display extreme cowardice when called out.
O.K., I want you to R-E-A-D this S-L-O-W-L-Y because it's obvious your reading comprehension skills have not surpassed the second graders you erroneously reference. In order to discuss Israel, and the right to exist, you have to discuss the CLAIMS to the land. These claims are historical and religious based claims, so it is only RIGHT and LOGICAL to address the legality of the people who are making these claims.
Actually, it has a lot to do with it, as it tramples your definition and opens the door to explore the "jews" and their historical and religious claims to the land.
I would be obliged to give it to you but you don't strike me as one willing to step outside the box and explore. The fact you DON'T have a minimal understanding of the religion and have shown you don't understand correlation or causation limits your ability to understand why it is important to address who the people are.
The point you are trying to make is, was and forever will be, null and void.
There you go again lying to your hearts content.
Their historical connection is the topic most often discussed by those familiar with the so-called jews and the so-called "promised land." Moreover, an important portion of the authors article is the claim that these people are EUROPEAN, which means they are not semetic (semetic in the terms of ethnicity or race not the linguistic group) and have no historical or religious claim to the land. Until you grasp this, you'll continue to run around in circles like a mutt chasing its tail.
What you believe is not important, what you know is what I'm concerned with, and what you know obviously doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Israel’s claim is one they feel is accurate from a historical and religious perspective. What I posted directly addresses those claims, but since you don't know anything about the religion or culture, you simply can't move forward.
YOU were the one who said Jews were those who practice Judaism and have a connection to the land and King David. However, when I open the door to show you how that might not be the case you say what I'm showing you-- which is a DIRECT response to your claims--has little to do with Israel’s right to exist.
Once again, you don't have the ability to identify any premise or thesis presented in this thread, and the fact you claim you're DEFENDING my argument is sole proof of this. :dead:
Yes I said it, and because you don't understand what the author is saying, and didn't know anything about what I posted until I posted it, it is hard for you to understand why what I posted actually supports the authors claims. LMAO@you posting links, quotes, etc. Give me an ISBN or a link to a credible source, don't waste our time with wikipedia. But better yet, before you even do all that, make sure you what you're talking about before you go posting links, quotes, etc to defend your "arguments", because it's obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about here.
Unless you have a strong history of openly endorsing such views, it would not imply your stance on the subject. It would simply be an article for us to discuss.
You're very emotional, highly illogical and most likely typing just for the fuck of it. There is no law or prerequisite stating that if one posts "propaganda articles", (the term propaganda may be subjective or relative depending on the reader) that one must distance themselves from the article.
But you DON'T know much about the topic and you're speaking on the topic as if you do, even though you admit to not knowing much! Instead of LYING, presenting fallacies and trying to put me on blast, you should have sat back, soaked or asked questions. However, you made this exchange go sour so just deal with it, it isn't the end of the world.
No comment...
You fail to grasp that the link you posted has nothing, and will never have anything to do with what you were trying to convey.
This is fun for you because you obviously get off on behaving like a dummy. It's fun for me because it's another feather in the cap, you should take the suggestion and simply walk away.
No, those aren't the keywords, and you don't know how to read. The keywords are "Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine." Now I'll once again show you why you don't make sense. I'm sure everyone reading this thread knows "set about" is a synonym for "start" or "establish", so we'll show the new version:
"Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who [started/established] a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948."
Now the reason why you don't make any sense is due to the fact they were there BEFORE 1948 and had been fighting BEFORE 1948. However, Israel was FOUNDED in 1948 and this is what the author is referring to. The author is saying the people are Europeans and they started Israel in 1948, not that destruction started in 1948.
The following link supports what I've been saying about you. However, you just proved the following link 100% true. :dead:
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htm
I have stated they declared war, however, I can not say they lost the war because to some the war is still going on. You are incorrect when you say it should be the end of discussion, because "loosing" a war does not mean the other party is justified in their alleged illegal occupation.
No, I'm not lashing out and your implied sarcasm leaves much to be desired. I let people chose the flow of the conversation, and it is obvious you wanted this exchange to go this way so now we have it. Doesn't make upset or hurt in one bit as I can give it and take it. However, you do need to stop lying.
You're a liar, you were the one who mentioned land rights and americans, and I asked you about it. You introduced those things to the topic, and since you introduced them in hopes of supporting your position, it is only right to question it. However, when you started sniveling like a bitch I said we don't have to talk about it, but what do you do? Keep bringing it up.
You sound real dumb right about now. You're saying by questioning your analogy I'm trying to derail the thread, yet you're now asking me to attack it? = :dead:
You introduced it HERE, I called you on it HERE, there is no need for a new topic. However, due to your bitching and lying, I said we don't even have to discuss, but who keeps brining it up? You.
You mentioned a group of people who WILLINGLY went to Israel having more rights to be in Israel than non-natives in america, yet you say non-natives that were FORCED to come here is not on topic? You sound real dumb.
I can answer, and will answer, if there is a consensus of who Israel is, who the Jews are and who the Palestinians are. Until we can agree on these things, there is no need to answer it. In addition, the OP and article are not asking us if Israel has a right to exist, as the article is a critical examination/assessment of Israel’s existence. Therefore ANSWERING the question is NOT a prerequisite to partaking in this thread.
This is more bottle spinning on your part. We are not talking about atrocities committed on both sides, nor are we talking about peaceful coexistence. What we are talking about, however, is your simple three point process that is historically and chronologically INACCURATE.
No, you didn't hurt my feelings, and you were the one who opened with attacks. In my previous posts, I showed you respect and it was not reciprocated, so it is what it is now.
YOU are the party posting misinformation, bottle spinning and avoiding the topic, thanks for taking a peek in the mirror. Yes, I focus on what a person says, every single word, you know why? It is called critical reading, and by doing so, I'm able to grasp a comprehensible explanation of what the person is trying to convey, even if they do not know exactly how to put it together. You on the other hand? Well, you just post shit and go off on an emotional roller coaster, lie on people, insult people and display extreme cowardice when called out.
O.K., I want you to R-E-A-D this S-L-O-W-L-Y because it's obvious your reading comprehension skills have not surpassed the second graders you erroneously reference. In order to discuss Israel, and the right to exist, you have to discuss the CLAIMS to the land. These claims are historical and religious based claims, so it is only RIGHT and LOGICAL to address the legality of the people who are making these claims.
Actually, it has a lot to do with it, as it tramples your definition and opens the door to explore the "jews" and their historical and religious claims to the land.
I would be obliged to give it to you but you don't strike me as one willing to step outside the box and explore. The fact you DON'T have a minimal understanding of the religion and have shown you don't understand correlation or causation limits your ability to understand why it is important to address who the people are.
The point you are trying to make is, was and forever will be, null and void.
There you go again lying to your hearts content.
Their historical connection is the topic most often discussed by those familiar with the so-called jews and the so-called "promised land." Moreover, an important portion of the authors article is the claim that these people are EUROPEAN, which means they are not semetic (semetic in the terms of ethnicity or race not the linguistic group) and have no historical or religious claim to the land. Until you grasp this, you'll continue to run around in circles like a mutt chasing its tail.
What you believe is not important, what you know is what I'm concerned with, and what you know obviously doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Israel’s claim is one they feel is accurate from a historical and religious perspective. What I posted directly addresses those claims, but since you don't know anything about the religion or culture, you simply can't move forward.
YOU were the one who said Jews were those who practice Judaism and have a connection to the land and King David. However, when I open the door to show you how that might not be the case you say what I'm showing you-- which is a DIRECT response to your claims--has little to do with Israel’s right to exist.
Once again, you don't have the ability to identify any premise or thesis presented in this thread, and the fact you claim you're DEFENDING my argument is sole proof of this. :dead:
Yes I said it, and because you don't understand what the author is saying, and didn't know anything about what I posted until I posted it, it is hard for you to understand why what I posted actually supports the authors claims. LMAO@you posting links, quotes, etc. Give me an ISBN or a link to a credible source, don't waste our time with wikipedia. But better yet, before you even do all that, make sure you what you're talking about before you go posting links, quotes, etc to defend your "arguments", because it's obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about here.
Unless you have a strong history of openly endorsing such views, it would not imply your stance on the subject. It would simply be an article for us to discuss.
You're very emotional, highly illogical and most likely typing just for the fuck of it. There is no law or prerequisite stating that if one posts "propaganda articles", (the term propaganda may be subjective or relative depending on the reader) that one must distance themselves from the article.
But you DON'T know much about the topic and you're speaking on the topic as if you do, even though you admit to not knowing much!
Instead of LYING, presenting fallacies and trying to put me on blast, you should have sat back, soaked or asked questions. However, you made this exchange go sour so just deal with it, it isn't the end of the world.No comment...
You fail to grasp that the link you posted has nothing, and will never have anything to do with what you were trying to convey.
This is fun for you because you obviously get off on behaving like a dummy. It's fun for me because it's another feather in the cap, you should take the suggestion and simply walk away.
No, those aren't the keywords, and you don't know how to read. The keywords are "Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine." Now I'll once again show you why you don't make sense. I'm sure everyone reading this thread knows "set about" is a synonym for "start" or "establish", so we'll show the new version:
"Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who [started/established] a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948."
Now the reason why you don't make any sense is due to the fact they were there BEFORE 1948 and had been fighting BEFORE 1948. However, Israel was FOUNDED in 1948 and this is what the author is referring to. The author is saying the people are Europeans and they started Israel in 1948, not that destruction started in 1948.
The following link supports what I've been saying about you. However, you just proved the following link 100% true. :dead:
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htm
I have stated they declared war, however, I can not say they lost the war because to some the war is still going on. You are incorrect when you say it should be the end of discussion, because "loosing" a war does not mean the other party is justified in their alleged illegal occupation.
No, I'm not lashing out and your implied sarcasm leaves much to be desired. I let people chose the flow of the conversation, and it is obvious you wanted this exchange to go this way so now we have it. Doesn't make upset or hurt in one bit as I can give it and take it. However, you do need to stop lying.
You're a liar, you were the one who mentioned land rights and americans, and I asked you about it. You introduced those things to the topic, and since you introduced them in hopes of supporting your position, it is only right to question it. However, when you started sniveling like a bitch I said we don't have to talk about it, but what do you do? Keep bringing it up.
You sound real dumb right about now. You're saying by questioning your analogy I'm trying to derail the thread, yet you're now asking me to attack it?
= :dead:You introduced it HERE, I called you on it HERE, there is no need for a new topic. However, due to your bitching and lying, I said we don't even have to discuss, but who keeps brining it up? You.
You mentioned a group of people who WILLINGLY went to Israel having more rights to be in Israel than non-natives in america, yet you say non-natives that were FORCED to come here is not on topic? You sound real dumb.
I can answer, and will answer, if there is a consensus of who Israel is, who the Jews are and who the Palestinians are. Until we can agree on these things, there is no need to answer it. In addition, the OP and article are not asking us if Israel has a right to exist, as the article is a critical examination/assessment of Israel’s existence. Therefore ANSWERING the question is NOT a prerequisite to partaking in this thread.
By claiming that that I'm "very emotional" you're attempting to invalidate my statements without addressing them. I've never called you stupid, a liar, or described your words as "bitching". To do so would be "very emotional" and further proof of being unable to defend a position.
Yes, I freely admit that there is much about this topic that I don't know about. To imply that I was some sort of authority on this topic would be foolish and untrue. This is exactly what you're doing. Maybe you are an authority on this subject, so far you haven't said much to prove it.
As for critical reading, maybe you should brush up on that skill a bit.
I never said "questioning my analogy" I said: You didn't question my analogy, you brought up non-natives forced to come to America. Are there non-natives in Israel that were forced to be there? If so I may be able to see what you were getting at. Until you clarify what you were getting at, I will only see it as an attempt to distract.
You mention lying quite often with no evidence to back up those accusations. I may disagree with you, but I don't believe I've lied. You've lost your ability to discuss this topic civilly.
You claim intellectual superiority, yet haven't addressed the topic at hand. You say I'm stupid because I won't do your work for you and support your argument. Claiming my critical reading skills are at a lower level than yours is a cheap way to avoid doing your own work. You make it sound like it's so easy to support "certain arguments" in the article with the Balfour Declaration and Yishuv, yet you are unable to do so yourself. Are you just being lazy or are you just unable to back up your statement?
There's obviously no need to continue this discussion. When one side has been reduced to personal attacks, name calling, and outlandish accusations, that side has lost it's ability to debate rationally. And thus lost the debate. Cheers.
Yes, I freely admit that there is much about this topic that I don't know about. To imply that I was some sort of authority on this topic would be foolish and untrue. This is exactly what you're doing. Maybe you are an authority on this subject, so far you haven't said much to prove it.
As for critical reading, maybe you should brush up on that skill a bit.
I never said "questioning my analogy" I said: You didn't question my analogy, you brought up non-natives forced to come to America. Are there non-natives in Israel that were forced to be there? If so I may be able to see what you were getting at. Until you clarify what you were getting at, I will only see it as an attempt to distract.
You mention lying quite often with no evidence to back up those accusations. I may disagree with you, but I don't believe I've lied. You've lost your ability to discuss this topic civilly.
You claim intellectual superiority, yet haven't addressed the topic at hand. You say I'm stupid because I won't do your work for you and support your argument. Claiming my critical reading skills are at a lower level than yours is a cheap way to avoid doing your own work. You make it sound like it's so easy to support "certain arguments" in the article with the Balfour Declaration and Yishuv, yet you are unable to do so yourself. Are you just being lazy or are you just unable to back up your statement?
There's obviously no need to continue this discussion. When one side has been reduced to personal attacks, name calling, and outlandish accusations, that side has lost it's ability to debate rationally. And thus lost the debate. Cheers.
How are they "defending" their country while wiping out palestinian people by the dozen on a regular basis. They are defending themselves by striking palestinian houses and deploy strong military forces with highly developed weoponry against a civil society which does not even has an army. Come on? Is this called defense? How can you defend yourself using a standing army against civilians fucking up their houses with tanks? This is called terror.
I've addressed everything you've presented and you are very emotional. You're typing knee jerk responses in an attempt to sound intelligent and you just can't seem to get it together.
Again, YOU were the one who opened the door for me to take this tone. Your facetious posts and false allegations warranted the type of response you're getting now which happens to be a proper assessment of who and what you are.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............
:wakes up:
No, I questioned your analogy. In fact, I specifically asked you a question about your analogy.
Bottle spinning, the burden of proof fallacy and more lies on your part.
You've made several false allegations and lies in this thread, the people see them, so I don't have to worry about it. Again, YOU were the one who took us down this road, so now it is what it is, just deal with.
I've shown intellectual superiority, but you don't understand the topic at hand so of course you're going to screw things up and point the finger at me.
No, you're making yourself look stupid, I'm just giving you the venue to do so. Moreover, your stupidity has nothing to do with you supporting or not supporting my argument, especially when you don't understand my position. :dead:
I'm unwilling to do so, not unable to do so. Learn the difference between these things and you'll make it far in life. However, the reason why I'm unwilling to do so has to do with your supercilious behavior, petulance and drivel. And yes, it is very easy to take the things I listed and use them as evidence for the article.
You were the one who started it, so I'm giving it to you how you want it. Deal with it and exit stage left or right.
Again, YOU were the one who opened the door for me to take this tone. Your facetious posts and false allegations warranted the type of response you're getting now which happens to be a proper assessment of who and what you are.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............
:wakes up:
No, I questioned your analogy. In fact, I specifically asked you a question about your analogy.
Bottle spinning, the burden of proof fallacy and more lies on your part.
You've made several false allegations and lies in this thread, the people see them, so I don't have to worry about it. Again, YOU were the one who took us down this road, so now it is what it is, just deal with.
I've shown intellectual superiority, but you don't understand the topic at hand so of course you're going to screw things up and point the finger at me.
No, you're making yourself look stupid, I'm just giving you the venue to do so. Moreover, your stupidity has nothing to do with you supporting or not supporting my argument, especially when you don't understand my position. :dead:
I'm unwilling to do so, not unable to do so. Learn the difference between these things and you'll make it far in life. However, the reason why I'm unwilling to do so has to do with your supercilious behavior, petulance and drivel. And yes, it is very easy to take the things I listed and use them as evidence for the article.
You were the one who started it, so I'm giving it to you how you want it. Deal with it and exit stage left or right.
Heresy is right, he entered the convo civilly it is you Neshani that started with the bullshit believing you were the authority on this topic here, well someone stepped up and got you on all your bullshit, now you are lying, backpedaling, and pointing fingers, but we are not that stupid. Besides, who would argue with someone who states that it doesn't matter if the people in Israel are really jews? It just matters that somehow they got the land we call Israel, and they have the absolute right to protect that land whether they got it legally or illegally- but the Palestinians are wrong for using what they have to take the land back from people who may not have a legitimate claim to the land? That's idiocy... no sane person I know would argue with someone who can't see the importance in knowing if the people who currently occupy Israel are Jews are not.
