Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ClicheCalvicade
Bleeding heart hypocrite argument. A link without context, just a picture. Nothing more needs to be said.
I'd say that was the best denial of reality I seen on here all day. Do you plug your ears too when something doesn't suit you?
That picture is the context.
Note: You infer this image is inaccurate, so please provide your own proof via link (with context!), or you are guilty of preciesly that which you accuse LostPassword of.
No, it shows how Israel has taken land from the Palestinians. What else needs to be said? Why is this a bleeding heart argument? I guess, according to you, bleeding heart arguments are based in facts.
Try refuting the argument made by this picture, i.e. the time-lapse maps of Israeli vs. Palestinian territory, rather than just a snarky comment.
Now it is clear from all the mentions that Herodotus gives of Palestine and its people that they did not have a particularly odd monotheistic religion (which the Bible claims they did) as if they had done so: it is the kind of thing that Herodotus was and is apt to mention. However none of his informants mention this and thus neither does Herodotus. Indeed the only mention we have of a temple is of a pagan one; to Aphrodite, who was apparently much favoured by the locals in Ascalan; modern Ashkelon, who were supposedly jews at this time according to the Biblical narrative. This is certainly an odd omission not easily argued against.
The only mention we have of unusual religious practices is in the practice of circumcision among both the Syrians of Palestine and the Phoenicians who are directly suggested to have derived their practice from Egypt. This is often taken as 'proof' that the 'Syrians of Palestine' were jews, but this cannot be done for the precise reason that we have no way to know that the 'Syrians of Palestine' were jews or even followed a monotheistic or quasi-monotheistic religion! To blandly assume the connection is to make a conclusion a priori and then 'see' the 'evidence' for it.
Indeed the fact that Herodotus mentions that circumcision was also used among the Phoenicians removes any basis what-so-ever for making the connection as it tells us of plurality of use: in other words if more than one people in the same area used circumcision then how can it be used as evidence of the existence of a specific people when more than one people in the area was using it? The idea that the 'Syrians of Palestine' are simply equatable with jews is further condemned to the dustbin of history by Herodotus' clarifying remark:
'Phoenicians who have contact with Greece drop the Egyptian usage, and allow their children to go uncircumcised'.
This tells us quite directly that the Phoenicians behaved rather like Hellenizing jews of the same general period. To explain briefly: at around this time the Tanakh tells us that the jews had two generalised factions. One were the cultured jews; the Hellenizers of a sort, who tended to; as Herodotus says, abandon the mark of covenant (circumcision) and to a large extent Judaism in favour of Greek practices. The other were the religious fanatics (like the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah) who held that anything non-jewish was inherently evil and demanded that circumcision be practised.
What this means is that because Herodotus clearly identifies the Phoenicians as behaving like Hellenizing jews and not the 'Syrians of Palestine' you cannot claim that the Phoenicians and 'Syrians of Palestine' are distinguishable from each other. In other words you cannot claim that the 'Syrians of Palestine' are jews precisely because the Phoenicians in Herodotus' account are actually behaving more like the jews of the Tanakh than the 'Syrians of Palestine' who are the claimed jews of the Christian and jewish historical cosmos.
The other argument oft propounded; although this time by Zionists and their apologists, is that Palestine is an 'invention' of the Emperor Hadrian's: thus dating the name to after the jewish kingdoms that are claimed to have existed. Thus; in jewish eyes, meaning that Palestine is an 'invention' and gives rise to the common claim that the Palestinians are an 'invented people'. This is absolute cobblers as Herodotus clearly says Palestine and Syrians of Palestine in the original Greek: he does not say an approximate or substitute. Thus the region was called Palestine long before the jews turned up and declared Yahweh had given the land to them.
To argue; as many jews do, that there was a jewish kingdom of substance before Herodotus is rather difficult precisely because the only evidence we have is from jewish religious writings written after the fact. When I say only evidence it might surprise some as it is one of those great historical shibboleths that tend to exist in any age: however the strange thing about the 'Kingdoms of Israel' is that aren't mentioned textually by anyone else. It is rather like the 'holocaust' in a sense in that it is all assumption and very little substance: yet 'everybody knows' it existed.
In essence then it is very difficult to reasonably argue that the jews are mentioned at all; even by inference, in Herodotus' 'Histories' without reasoning a priori.
Did the jews exist in Palestine at this point as some argue?
Quite possibly, but then at the same time convincing arguments have been put forward that they didn't.
However I tend to err on the cautious side here and suggest that the simplest possible solution is the likeliest in that the jews of antiquity were a tiny tribal conglomeration and not 'states' or 'kingdoms' per se, but rather rose to power later and then imposed their religion on other Semites for a time. Perhaps the closest we can get to the probable scenario in my view is the spread of Islam from Arabia that was accomplished by military means. So then that would place the spread of Judaism as a kind of failed attempt at spreading a barbaric tribal religion by the sword.
Rather different to the 'glorious' history of 'ancient Israel' isn't it?
Originally posted by LostPassword
I just watched whole interview with Ahmadinejad and Pierce Morgan on CNN
I agree with good 90% of what Ahmadinejad was saying.
Even if you assume he lied just to make himself look good and civilized,
The fact is, Iran is not an empire with bases and wars around the world. And if
they help freedom fighters "terrorists" in Occupied Palestine and occupied
Afghanistan and Occupied Iraq.
I for one can't even blame them for it, because they know they are targeted next.
DISCLAIMER: I am not muslim.
I am not persian.edit on 25-9-2012 by LostPassword because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Originally posted by Augustine62
Originally posted by abdel
I think Ahmadinejad backed off too much regarding the Holocaust merely citing the difficulty of independent investigation instead of challenging the figures.
I believe the Holocaust happened but the figures have been grossly inflated and many of the non-Jewish victims such as gays, disabled, homeless, union activists and other trouble makers are completely forgotten about, where are the Holocaust monuments remembering the dead gypsies?.edit on 25-9-2012 by abdel because: spelt Gypsies wrong in my haste
Being a non-Jew myself, I'd have to surmise that 1) the Gypsies have no made an effort to keep this understanding front and center as the Jewish people have; the Jews were also front and center in Nazi rhetoric 2) where do you get off calling victims of the Holocaust "trouble makers"?
Uh, the non-Jews who were victimized by the Nazis didn't have the massive political, media and financial support of the diaspora in England, the US and other countries. The commentor you quote also failed to mention the Slavs as victms of the Nazis. About three times as man Slavs died at the hands of the Nazis as did Jews.
And yes, the Jews won't let anybody forget about their holocaust -- The Holocaust to them. That is part of their very effective PR effort to use this as an excuse for anything they want to do, including building nuclear weapons and ethnically cleanse another people -- not to mention threatening a war against yet another nation because it may, too, want nuclear weapons. It doesn't, however, give it any moral justification of its thuggish policies. Any people that go about developing nuclear weapons clandestinely and against international prohibitions and who commit ethnic cleansing and continue to illegally occupy and oppress a people for over 50 years and now are threatening war against another nation that has not waged an aggressive war in hundreds of years (Iran) are definitely trouble makers in my book. Like I said, I don't care that they previously suffered during WWII. A lot of people suffered. I care about the here and now.
People who continue to use the holocaust as an excuse for Israel's illegal and immoral actions need to rethink their sense of morality and entitlement for Israel. Just about the rest of the world has had enough of it already.