Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!!! Check out this poll on American Muslims!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

But it doesnt. What you think is irrelevant. If I own the land and let you rent it and I sell it to someone else your going to tell them youve been living there for 20 years and aint moving?

---

More like my family has been living and farming on the land for more generations than anyone can remember, someone invaded years ago and took possession of it, then they sell it to someone else who tells me I have to leave, and then I say heck no. Yes, I'd fight that. Why should a Palestinian farmer care about Western or Turkish property laws over their families and their livelihoods? As people, if not as a clearly defined nation, they'd been there longer than the Turks or Westerners.

Quote:

---

The Jews bouth the land from the legitimate owners. Mostlly Turkish absentee lanndlords. They didnt just take it.

---

Many Native American chiefs also sold land to European settlers. The fact that they often had a collective idea of property ownership and thought they were selling rights to share use of the land rather than exclusive ownership, and that their buyers did little to make things clear to them, makes for a similar situation between their peoples and the Palestinians.

Quote:

---

:oops: When did the Palestinians rule the region? Never thats when.

---

I'll give you that one on a technicality. I shouldn't have said just 'ruled/owned.' I've already stated why I think the Palestinians have a claim to the land as well. They may not have had political control at any point, but it's still their ancestral homeland, too.

Ajax

Can anyone explain to me how in the Nine Hells [D&D super geeky exclamation] does the Backroom -- like, 3+ threads in the front page -- become a battlefield to expound upon the evils of:

Jewish Israeli scums
Palestinian scums
Muslim scums
More Muslim scums

...?

I'm quite tired of it, really. So much bigotry and so much hatred, all from the armchair plutocrats that we all are. Old disproven "facts" thrown around and catchwords and stereotypical positions (some quite chilling, to me) put forth. At least if you're going to hate something hate something cool. Like the Beatles. Or rap music. Or God.

Quote:

---

More like my family has been living and farming on the land for more generations than anyone can remember, someone invaded years ago and took possession of it, then they sell it to someone else who tells me I have to leave, and then I say heck no. Yes, I'd fight that.

---

Your not going to find many palestinians who meet that criteria, Nor will you find Israel invading THIER nation or land. At least in 48

Quote:

---

Many Native American chiefs also sold land to European settlers. The fact that they often had a collective idea of property ownership and thought they were selling rights to share use of the land rather than exclusive ownership, and that their buyers did little to make things clear to them, makes for a similar situation between their peoples and the Palestinians.

---

The Turks wned the land and got much more than it was worth. The Jews paid through the nose for it. A very poor analogy indeed you have here.

Quote:

---

I'll give you that one on a technicality. I shouldn't have said just 'ruled/owned.' I've already stated why I think the Palestinians have a claim to the land as well. They may not have had political control at any point, but it's still their ancestral homeland, too.

---

OK when did they own it LOL? And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

OK when did they own it LOL? And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

---

Wow, by that criteria it's not the Jews ancestral homeland either, because they had to move into it as well. I'm using ancestral homeland as a land where your family has lived for generations, not your ultimate place of origin. I suppose in case of ultimate origin, Africa is the ancestral homeland for us all, as far as scientists can tell, so we should probably leave behind all these other lands we've moved into and return there.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And isnt Saudi Artabia thier ancestral homeland? Palestine is the ancestral homeland of only one peoples living on the earth today and thats the Jews.

---

Bollocks. The whole slew of Semitic peoples probably wandered up from the Arabian peninsula or thereabouts, long before the group that became the Israelites was even a blip on the radar of history. Palestine was already quite inhabited enough when that merry lot can first be positively identified from the archeological and written record.

Go far enough back, and ultimately the only ancestral homeland anyone can claim (without resorting to the supernatural anyway) is the Rift Valley.

Quote:

---

If you call 700.000 people living in that region densly packed The place as a desert and forlorn until jewish immigration stated. It was the Jews who casused all the arbs to migrate there to get a better standard of living. Without the Jews israel would be as bad, no it would be worse9No Oil) than all its poor arab neighbors. The real reason israel is hated is because they have these filthy western ways about them and their not Muslims. Thats it in a nut shell, basicly they have the samething against them as they do us,. Also like us its why their succesful and the arabs are not. Get the hell out of the 17th century.

---

Excuse me if I conduct a breach of etiquette here Gawain, but do tell: are you a bloody racist ?

If I may be forgiven for going back on topic, there was a lovely post about the fallout from the study today:

Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians

The hysteria over the Pew poll about American Muslims continues unabated, with the focus now on the finding that while 80% of American Muslims oppose attacks on civilians in all cases, 13% said they could be justified in some circumstances. The "discussion" illustrates some standard failings of our political discourse.

Michelle Malkin went to National Review to proclaim that the poll "should be a wake-up call, not another excuse for the mainstream media to downplay the threat of homegrown jihad." Mark Steyn said it demonstrates the existence in America of "a huge comfort zone for the jihad to operate in," and Jonah Goldberg warned how "significant" this is. On CNN last night, Anderson Cooper was horrified -- just horrified -- that "so many" American Muslims would support such violence.

The reality, though, is that it is almost impossible to conduct a poll and not have a sizable portion of the respondents agree to almost everything. And in particular, with regard to the specific question of whether it is justifiable to launch violent attacks aimed deliberately at civilians, the percentage of American Muslims who believe in such attacks pales in comparison to the percentage of Americans generally who believe that such attacks are justifiable.

The University of Maryland's highly respected Program on International Public Attitudes, in December 2006, conducted a concurrent public opinion poll of the United States and Iran to determine the comparative views of each country's citizens on a variety of questions. The full findings are published here (.pdf).

One of the questions they asked was whether "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified"? Americans approved of such attacks by a much larger margin than Iranians -- 51-16% (and a much, much larger margin than American Muslims -- 51-13%):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...mania/poll.jpg

A rather substantial 24% of Americans thought that such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," while another 27% thought they were justified in rare cases. By stark contrast, only 11% of Iranians think such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," with a mere further 5% agreeing they can be justified in rare cases. Similar results were found with the series of other questions regarding violence deliberately aimed at civilians -- including women, children and the elderly. Americans believed such attacks could be justifiable to a substantially higher degree than Iranians.

As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria." Make of that what you will -- and its meaning is debatable -- but those are just facts.

In general, polling data can be used to document all sorts of pernicious views held by a sizable number of respondents. One recent poll found that 15% of Americans would either outright refuse to vote for, or would have reservations about voting for, a black presidential candidate even if he were qualified (12% would outright refuse to vote for a Hispanic, 11% for a woman, and 14% for a Jew). A 1999 poll of Americans found that 34% answered "yes" -- 34% -- when asked: "If you honestly assessed yourself, would you say that you have at least some racist feelings?" And 18% of Americans believe that "the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack."

The reality of that Pew poll is that, generally and comparatively speaking, it demonstrates just how unremarkable, assimilated, peaceful and consummately American is the American Muslim population. If anything, support for violence -- including against civilians -- is notably less than it is among Americans generally. Again, those are just facts. Yet by manipulating the polling data and failing to discuss it comparatively, an impression is quickly solidifying, as intended, that there are throngs of scary and threatening jihadist Muslims -- both in our midst and around the world -- waiting to launch suicide attacks on us, and that necessitates the euphemistic Malkian "wake-up call."

:wall:
Capital. Oh how I love populists.

Quote:

---

Wow, by that criteria it's not the Jews ancestral homeland either, because they had to move into it as well.

---

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

Quote:

---

I'm using ancestral homeland as a land where your family has lived for generations

---

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

Quote:

---

Bollocks. The whole slew of Semitic peoples probably wandered up from the Arabian peninsula or thereabouts, long before the group that became the Israelites was even a blip on the radar of history. Palestine was already quite inhabited enough when that merry lot can first be positively identified from the archeological and written record.

---

Since you say probably Ill have to assume you dont know. :laugh4: The point is Israel was the first ever nation to claim the region. It was one of the first nations on the planet.

Quote:

---

Excuse me if I conduct a breach of etiquette here Gawain, but do tell: are you a bloody racist ?

---

Well then you are sadly mistaken and owe me an apology. Show me one racist remark in that quote. So you deny that western industry and ideas arent what makes Israel superior to its neighbors and nothing else. if thats racism I dont know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

---

False. There were other nations there before them. Including the one their records say they committed genocide upon to claim the land.

Quote:

---

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

---

Are you even reading what I'm writing? That's not what I'm saying at all. It's still their ancestral homeland. It's also the Palestinians' ancestral homeland by the same qualification.
:wall:

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No because they were the first NATION to be there. Before that they had no homeland.

---

What happened to the Canaanites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So am I. If their forced to leave its no longer their ancestral homeland ?

---

Quite. As I've said before, the land of what we now call Israel and Palestine should be cleared of both Jews and Arabs, and be returned to its rightful inhabitants, the Phoenicians. Just because they were forced out by the Hebrews does not mean it is any less their ancestral homeland. Within its bounds, abolish the worship of false gods, like whichever one it is that the Jews and Muslims follow, and impose compulsory worship of Baal. Moloch 4 teh win!!!

Quote:

---

What happened to the Canaanites?

---

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

Quote:

---

Quite. As I've said before, the land of what we now call Israel and Palestine should be cleared of both Jews and Arabs, and be returned to its rightful inhabitants, the Phoenicians

---

How there are none. Besides what about the earlier people who,lived there?

Quote:

---

Just because they were forced out by the Hebrews does not mean it is any less their ancestral homeland.

---

Once more they were not a nation. There are no more of them today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

---

Why not?

Ajax

Because thats what history teaches us :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not a nation . Not in the sense we think of nations.

How there are none. Besides what about the earlier people who,lived there?

Once more they were not a nation. There are no more of them today.

---

Surely there must be some, somewhere, in permanent exile after their expulsion by the Hebrews. Can't we look in Tunisia for whatever descendants of the Carthaginians we can find, and gather them up and give them back their ancestral homeland of Canaan? Sure, their ancestors might have come from other Phoenician cities than those in Canaan, but surely they won't be any more out of place in that land than the million or so Russian Jews transported to Israel to ensure a Jewish majority?

Justice for the Canaanites! Expel the Jews and Arabs and give the land back to its original inhabitants! End the Exile now!

"Nation" as in "people/culture" or as in "nation-state", which is a pretty darn modern invention ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Before that they had no homeland.

---

Being a nomad tends to do that. So by the same token, if a Turkish or Bedouin Arab nomad settled down to till a field in Israel (as many did) that plot of land then became his "ancestral homeland" ? And the Hungarians' "ancestral homeland" is the Great Hungarian Plain on which they settled in the 900s ?

Quote:

---

Nation" as in "people/culture" or as in "nation-state", which is a pretty darn modern invention ?

---

Lets try Egypt Rome or Greece.

My memory is fuzzy, but isn't this the root of the matter when it comes to Egypt and archaeological endeavors there. I remember a former colleague of mine had some extremely tough times with Egyptian authorities, largely because the excavations had to do with possible Jewish settlements and the fear there was and probably still is of people claiming rights to lands based on historical settlement. From what I remember, once again a little fuzzy, but there were problems in Jordan as well, but not quite the blackout on Jewish excavations as in Egypt. They currently have 2 funded digs in Jordan I believe, zero in Egypt.


[edit]

I think I saw something about this on the science channel as well or something, maybe history international.

They cant even dig up the temple mount because the Muslims built a Mosque on top of it in Jerusalem lol. Much of ancient Israel is buried beneath Muslim lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Lets try Egypt Rome or Greece.

---

So which of the two do you consider those to be ?

Quote:

---

Much of ancient Israel is buried beneath Muslim lands.

---

Gee, aren't they bad people when they didn't leave all that prime farmland alone while the Jews were away...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Because thats what history teaches us :book:

---

Well, that's sure enlightening. Do you have any actual reason for claiming Canaan wasn't a nation? I fail to see why you think the Jews have an exclusive right to this land. Everyone and their dog has lived there in the last 4000 years, and the ones who were living there up until recently don't want to give it up. How are they in the wrong for this?

Ajax

Thinking about it, shouldn't the land be returned to the Egyptians? IIRC David is supposed to have been the King who first united the Jews into a nation. However, the Hebrew bible dates him to around 1000 BC. The Battle of Kadesh had already taken place 300 years before this, between Egypt (a recognised nation state according to Gawain) and the Hittites (another nation state by any definition) - there is evidence of that in Gawain's home city of New York. The province of Canaan was then under the control of the nation state of Egypt.

Clealr Israel should dissolve itself as an illegitimate alien state, dismantle its governmental apparatus, and ask Egypt to send a governor to govern this lawless land.

Quote:

---

Thinking about it, shouldn't the land be returned to the Egyptians? IIRC David is supposed to have been the King who first united the Jews into a nation. However, the Hebrew bible dates him to around 1000 BC. The Battle of Kadesh had already taken place 300 years before this, between Egypt (a recognised nation state according to Gawain) and the Hittites (another nation state by any definition) - there is evidence of that in Gawain's home city of New York. The province of Canaan was then under the control of the nation state of Egypt.

---

No they werent at that point in time. They were invaders. Just who do you think the Canninites got their name from? It couldnt be the son of Ham could it? They are the same people as the jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No they werent at that point in time. They were invaders. Just who do you think the Canninites got their name from? It couldnt be the son of Ham could it? They are the same people as the jews.

---

And aren't the Arabs supposed to be descended from Ishmael? Much closer relatives than those Canaanites. I suppose they have a legitimate Biblical claim to the land as well, then.

Ajax

Quote:

---

And aren't the Arabs supposed to be descended from Ishmael? Much closer relatives than those Canaanites. I suppose they have a legitimate Biblical claim to the land as well, then.

---

If you paid attention to my post I said this is the real sad or funny part of this whole situtation. In reality its the intolerance of islam toward any other religion and nothing more.

Im sitting here laughing to myself at all those who think I believe Israel should exist because they were there first :laugh4:

how much bollox can Gawain write about Isreal in one sitting ?

Almost as much tripe as you can hand out.:yes:

Do you ever stop with the insults?

Well its just amazing that you managed in a such a short time to write at least a dozen "facts" that are completely false ,whats more amazing is that you have previously written them many times and each time they have been shown to be false .
It must be a sign of a failing memory or a complete refusal to accept reality .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In reality its the intolerance of islam toward any other religion and nothing more.

---

Are you quite for real, Gaw ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No they werent at that point in time. They were invaders. Just who do you think the Canninites got their name from? It couldnt be the son of Ham could it? They are the same people as the jews.

---

Wow, we're going back to the family tree of Noah now. But even if one accepts that argument, aren't the Hebrews the descendants of Shem, not Ham? If there are any people from the House of Ham still remaining, shouldn't they take precedence over the House of Shem? Even if we assume your claim is correct, and Canaanites no longer exist, shouldn't ownership of the land pass on to other Hamites? Instead of the Shemites who currently occupy it?

And no, don't bother arguing theological doctrine with me, I'm not interested. I was only interested in your appeal to the Noah family tree - the interest being that of an incredulous observer, amazed that someone from a 1st world nation would actually believe in the literal historicity of the bible. Especially a bit about the whole of mankind being descended from the 3 children of a bloke who built a big boat to escape a flood.