PDA

View Full Version : The Holy bloodline



XxKillabytexX
03-15-2007, 03:41 AM
Because we are going off topic in this thred here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/9751039045/p/2) I have decided to make a new thred to talk all about the holy bloodline and all other questions related to that subject.

So please feel free to continue our little convosation in here so that the other thred can get back on topic.

Thanks.

XxKillabytexX
03-15-2007, 03:41 AM
Because we are going off topic in this thred here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/9751039045/p/2) I have decided to make a new thred to talk all about the holy bloodline and all other questions related to that subject.

So please feel free to continue our little convosation in here so that the other thred can get back on topic.

Thanks.

FableB
03-15-2007, 08:53 AM
What you see in the Holy Land now is not a fight between The Muslims and The Christians but between The Muslims and The Jews. And this fight is merely 100 years old...

noobfun
03-15-2007, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
What you see in the Holy Land now is not a fight between The Muslims and The Christians but between The Muslims and The Jews. And this fight is merely 100 years old... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oops thought we were carrying on this bit in the other section and bringing the dan brown thinking in here

dont think theres much to discuss as the whole topic arrived from rebelinthenude0 thinking son of none might be a hint of some blood line signifcance (theres another thread here basicaly showing his means only that he was an orphan)

and then kabura786 mistranslating his name to mean son of the one (which fableB corrected), and hinting he might be the son of hassan the first who founded the nizari states ... (which would put altair about 120 years old in the game)

not to mention hassans son took over from him when he died

the possible blood line were of the last imam nizar or of mohamed

i said bieng a decendant of the prophet mohamed wouldnt be a huge story changer, and fableB said that it added more duties then benefits (not sure what you meant by this ive only got a limited knowledge of islam)

nizar the last blood imam for the nizari died without an heir, so his connection to this blood line would be far fetched, not to mention by this time hassan the second had unofficially let it be known he was the true imam returned to his people, his son did like wise later but openly claimed he and his farther were decended and the heirs of nizar with some strange tails and interestingly modified family tree's to prove it

XxKillabytexX
03-17-2007, 02:29 AM
*******Just a note for anyone contributing to this thred remember NO RELIGIOUS OR RACIAL CRITISISEM because Ubi will revoke your posting priviladges & lock this thred....Thanks*********

Now back to the topic at hand.
Now we know that the holy bloodline has a very slim chance of existing in the Hashshashin (and Im going strictly with the Koran here) as stated by noobfun anyway.

But

The population of that area around that era was (well compared to this day) really quite small so dosent the Hashshashin have more chance of being part of the holy bloodline and ansestors of the prophet?



Also thanks heaps for that downloadable book Noobfun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FableB
03-17-2007, 07:11 AM
At that time, the members of every family (Or tribe in case of The Prophet Mohammed, which is named "Quraish") have very strong connection and everyone knows everyone, so there is no chance that these Hashashins are a "forgotten" or unknown part of the tribe.

noobfun
03-17-2007, 08:39 AM
cheers fableB no way in hell would i have known that

the only way would be for them to have been converted to ishma'ilism, then chosen the nizari path during the split.

again even if by some ludicrously minute chance this had happened its still not a big thing

its not a fantasy film where he finds a birth mark of an rasberry on his butt cheek then gets to declaire himself king of arabia

he would just be who he was doing what he always did

fableb says 0 chance of it, he knowns more then me on this so im sticking with him

kabura786
03-18-2007, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
At that time, the members of every family (Or tribe in case of The Prophet Mohammed, which is named "Quraish") have very strong connection and everyone knows everyone, so there is no chance that these Hashashins are a "forgotten" or unknown part of the tribe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this game though takes place like a couple hundred years after the prophets death, and no doubt by this time the prophets family tree would be HUGE, so wouldn't there still be a chance that maybe some of these nizari's were from that line and maybe Al-tair could be from it? oh yea also noobfun posted that online book thingy about the nizari's and that sinan guy could be what there talkin bout with this holy bloodline thing since there were storys about this sinan showing that he had powers and stuff maybe Al-tair could be related to him since if that sinan guy had powers no doubt people would think his was holy in a sense

noobfun
03-18-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kabura786:

this game though takes place like a couple hundred years after the prophets death, and no doubt by this time the prophets family tree would be HUGE, so wouldn't there still be a chance that maybe some of these nizari's were from that line and maybe Al-tair could be from it? oh yea also noobfun posted that online book thingy about the nizari's and that sinan guy could be what there talkin bout with this holy bloodline thing since there were storys about this sinan showing that he had powers and stuff maybe Al-tair could be related to him since if that sinan guy had powers no doubt people would think his was holy in a sense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao you people spend to much time reading your
davinci code story book


chances are practically 0% relation to the prophet mohamed

and what differance would it make?

re-read the chapter on sinan,

all the stories about his powers and the new version of the reserection he wrote were for the purpose below

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some such exaltation of Sinan's role would make good sense. Alamut was far away and the Syrians could hardly be expected to feel personal devotion for an Imam whom they would never see. Sinan, on the other hand, was in their presence. But he could hardly claim to be the Imam, except at the cost of branding the lord of Alamut as a usurper. If he were to avoid this, and at the same time not to represent himself as spiritually inferior to the lord of Alamut, he had to present a more flexible version of the Resurrection, in which all the leading figures were roughly equal and in which it was conceivable that the Divine Impulse could appear simultaneously in different forms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the people believe he has divine spiritual powers everyone knows it they all tell the stories about it,

is this the kind of guy they would follow with undying blind loyalty

frankly yes

he couldnt say yepp im really the imam that would have created cival war between the iranian and syrian sects, (not sure how it would work over long distances but you can be dam sure it would happen some how) so with his stories of his powers and conversing with the green bird etc put him on an almost level pegging with the imam. this way the people get a strong and practically holy leader and it doesnt upset mohamed sat there in alaumt

p.s. sinan didnt have any kids ^_^

MDS_Geist
03-18-2007, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
What you see in the Holy Land now is not a fight between The Muslims and The Christians but between The Muslims and The Jews. And this fight is merely 100 years old... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is wrong on multiple levels. If you want to know more, I'll be happy to expand on it.

XxKillabytexX
03-19-2007, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">lmao you people spend to much time reading your
davinci code story book </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Im shocked and offended!

Nah just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But the Da Vinci Code isnt a story hell its probably the thing I know most about.

I would be happy to argue this point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



PS. You might remember my post in the other thred about how my school and history department sucks.

Well just an example of how bad my history department is...

Today my history teacher thought Joan of Arch was a man!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
Just thought that had to be said.

noobfun
03-19-2007, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:
Im shocked and offended!

Nah just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But the Da Vinci Code isnt a story hell its probably the thing I know most about.

I would be happy to argue this point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



PS. You might remember my post in the other thred about how my school and history department sucks.

Well just an example of how bad my history department is...

Today my history teacher thought Joan of Arch was a man!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
Just thought that had to be said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao no wonder you think the dan brown bed time story is real with a history department like that lol

dan browns work is just a fictional story version of a fictional theory 'the holy blood, the holy grail'

there system was if we can find a link no matter how small and tenuose it is then its a possability

so if they could find a link between a + B, and B + C also linked then A + C must be linked and we can remove B becuase it doesnt help our ideas

wiki's entry for hasshasin probaily has more historic fact in it then 'hoy blood, holy grail' and you know what i think about wiki's accuracy lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MDS_Geist:
That is wrong on multiple levels. If you want to know more, I'll be happy to expand on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

umm wrong bit geist that topics here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/9751039045/p/2)

FableB
03-19-2007, 08:32 AM
Plus, at that time (And even nowadays), if you are the decendant of Mohammed, you would DEFINITELY know.

MDS_Geist, please, do so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MDS_Geist
03-19-2007, 04:06 PM
I expanded a bit in the thread Noobfun linked to.

The long and short of it is that it hinges on certain points in Muslim law dealing with the rights of Muslims (paramount) versus the rights of non-Muslims (irrelevant). In Islamic law any land ever held by Muslims in then and forever after "Muslim Land," and for it to be in the possession of anyone other than Muslims is a grave insult. Since Islam spread violently throughout the whole of the Middle East, much or North Africa and even part of Europe we therefore have a situation wherein religious Muslims feel that those lands are theirs and that the non-Muslims living there must recognize the authority of Muslims and Islam.

Clearly non-Muslims have no interest in being second class citizens at best, so you can imagine how this has led to some rather stormy relationships. Even the "protected" peoples are still subservient to Muslims in all ways and have very limited rights - for example, no wearing of green and that just ruins St. Patrick's Day for most folks who celebrate it.

Israel in particular is a problem since there has been considerable Islamic revisionism to try and claim Jewish and Christian holy sites in the name of Islam and deny and Jewish or Christian connection to them. Less of an issue for Christianity (since Christians happily razed mosques and rebuilt churches) a rather large issue for Judaism. Sadly, Islamic clerics have often served to stir the populace up against Jews simply for living in their midst such as the Hebron massacre of 1929 or the blood libel of Damascus.

btw Killabyte, Joan of Arc may indeed have been a man and there has been some rather serious historical speculation about the role and relationship of Gilles de Rais (burned as a satanist) and Jeanne. So your history teacher may have been referring to that line of inquiry.

XxKillabytexX
03-20-2007, 01:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">btw Killabyte, Joan of Arc may indeed have been a man and there has been some rather serious historical speculation about the role and relationship of Gilles de Rais (burned as a satanist) and Jeanne. So your history teacher may have been referring to that line of inquiry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Trust me my teacher wasnt implying that at all, shes just stupid. For another example she didnt know the difference between a normal bow and a cross bow.

As for the Joan of Arc thing.

Joan of arc was a woman she was known as the maid of Oleons. Its true that she dressed and looked like a man because that was the only way to get power in those times when men ruled the world and wemon had no say.
There is also another way that we know that Joan was a woman and it is also the reason that she was crazy (Joan WAS crazy BTW, trust me its not the happy little story you get from Age of Empires) the reason I dont really want to mention although I will if anybody asks but anybody who knows the true reason why Joan was crazy knows why I dont want to say it.

MDS_Geist
03-20-2007, 04:48 AM
She was a psychotic. From all the descriptions we have she sounds like a "classical" schizophrenic.

noobfun
03-20-2007, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxKillabytexX:

Trust me my teacher wasnt implying that at all, shes just stupid. For another example she didnt know the difference between a normal bow and a cross bow.

As for the Joan of Arc thing.

Joan of arc was a woman she was known as the maid of Oleons. Its true that she dressed and looked like a man because that was the only way to get power in those times when men ruled the world and wemon had no say.
There is also another way that we know that Joan was a woman and it is also the reason that she was crazy (Joan WAS crazy BTW, trust me its not the happy little story you get from Age of Empires) the reason I dont really want to mention although I will if anybody asks but anybody who knows the true reason why Joan was crazy knows why I dont want to say it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

awww come on killa dont be shy share with the class

^_^

just watch your language young man!!! lol

XxKillabytexX
03-21-2007, 01:33 AM
Ok well I said if anyone asked...

Now im trying to keep it well lets just say "user friendly"...

If any of you little ones dont understand please ask your parents not me...

Now...

Joan of Arc was a phsycotic because. Well she didnt go through puberty she didnt menstraight and she never lost her verginity. Now because she didn't go through puberty (that includs not having her periods) her hormones went crazy and they played tricks on her mind.
Many people say that this is the reason for her so called "visions from god".

Now you can see why I didnt want to mention it.

Also Ubi im sorry...I tried to say it as nicely as i can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FableB
03-21-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The long and short of it is that it hinges on certain points in Muslim law dealing with the rights of Muslims (paramount) versus the rights of non-Muslims (irrelevant). In Islamic law any land ever held by Muslims in then and forever after "Muslim Land," and for it to be in the possession of anyone other than Muslims is a grave insult. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is true, then Spain, Iran, Turkey and all the lands between the middle-east and the borders of china should be ours now, because they were held by the Muslims once, and as you can see, now they're not. So what you are saying is awfully wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since Islam spread violently throughout the whole of the Middle East, much or North Africa and even part of Europe we therefore have a situation wherein religious Muslims feel that those lands are theirs and that the non-Muslims living there must recognize the authority of Muslims and Islam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read through history again, and you will see that no Muslim forced a non-Muslim to enter Islam, because one of the foundations of Islam is to call people for Islam without forcing them to. The wars that the Muslims led upon the non-Muslims in the Middle-East were againt The Romans and The Persians, both occupied a large piece of The Arabian Peninsula at that time and therefore we had the right to reclaim our lands.

Behind every war the Muslims lead, is a violation from the other side. What I mean is, Muslims always were only making re-actions, at those who occupied their lands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even the "protected" peoples are still subservient to Muslims in all ways and have very limited rights - for example, no wearing of green and that just ruins St. Patrick's Day for most folks who celebrate it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can see now in USA and the most european countries, Hijab for Muslim women isn't allowed in school...Why is that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Israel in particular is a problem since there has been considerable Islamic revisionism to try and claim Jewish and Christian holy sites in the name of Islam and deny and Jewish or Christian connection to them. Less of an issue for Christianity (since Christians happily razed mosques and rebuilt churches) a rather large issue for Judaism.[QUOTE]

Before you mention this, you have to mention how The Jews came to Palestine in the first place. They migrated from all around the world and came to Palestine back when it was occupied by The English, encouraged by The English and protected by them. How's that? Then they took Al-Aqsa Mosque and held it away from the muslims, and not only that, but also dug and digging under it to find one of their holy sites, as they claim.

The Christains happly lived and living with the Muslims, with their holy sites. No one ever had a problem with the Christains who lived in Palestine.

[QUOTE]Sadly, Islamic clerics have often served to stir the populace up against Jews simply for living in their midst such as the Hebron massacre of 1929 or the blood libel of Damascus.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about massacres and violations that the jews lead against the muslims starting from the very first moment they put their feet on Palestine? Don't you have to take re-actions?

MDS_Geist
03-21-2007, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
If that is true, then Spain, Iran, Turkey and all the lands between the middle-east and the borders of china should be ours now, because they were held by the Muslims once, and as you can see, now they're not. So what you are saying is awfully wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it is not wrong at all. First of all, Turkey and Iran are Muslim nations. As for the others that are no longer Muslim they were conquered by Muslims, and then reconquered by non-Muslims. For example, have you not learned about the Reconquista? The fact that they are no longer Muslim lands isn't for lack of trying. In Orthodox Islam it is by no means uncommon to hear a Friday sermon about al-Andalus.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
Read through history again, and you will see that no Muslim forced a non-Muslim to enter Islam, because one of the foundations of Islam is to call people for Islam without forcing them to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this is a nice idea, it is also false. Reading through history shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Islam does have a history of forced conversion that sadly continues to this day. Terrorists in Iraq have forced people they kidnap to convert to Islam or for a slightly less radical example consider the practice of kidnapping Christian children in places like Nigeria and forcing them to convert.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&l...ement=4800&backpage= (http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=4800&backpage=)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
The wars that the Muslims led upon the non-Muslims in the Middle-East were againt The Romans and The Persians, both occupied a large piece of The Arabian Peninsula at that time and therefore we had the right to reclaim our lands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would only make sense if the wars were contained in the Arabian Peninsula. Since they were not, clearly they were wars of conquest. In point of fact, initially the wars were against other Arab tribes, Jews and Christians. These weren't wars for the sake of nationalism but for the sake of religion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
Behind every war the Muslims lead, is a violation from the other side. What I mean is, Muslims always were only making re-actions, at those who occupied their lands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, that is historical revisionism that is not borne out by factual data. Syria-Palestine, Egypt, Persia, Turkey, Morroco and Spain (just to name a few) were never "occupied" Muslim lands until Muslims invaded them and occupied them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
You can see now in USA and the most european countries, Hijab for Muslim women isn't allowed in school...Why is that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it is one school district in the UK and France. That is all. France doesn't allow the display of any religious symbols so no conspicuous crosses for Christians, skullcaps for Jews or the Hijab for Muslims. The UK did not ban the hijab, but only full face veils in public schools for security reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
Before you mention this, you have to mention how The Jews came to Palestine in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. There was a constant Jewish presence in the land and had been for over 2,000 years - well before Islam was created. Beyond that, there were a number of waves of immigration with the first large wave taking place in the late 1800's/early 1900's. They bought land that the local Arab tribes did not want such as swamplands and began to turn them into some pretty impressive farms. This increase in farmland led to increased Arab immigration to come work there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
They migrated from all around the world and came to Palestine back when it was occupied by The English, encouraged by The English and protected by them. How's that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it was quite the opposite. While the Balfour Declaration was pro-Jewish, actual British policy and immigration controls were clearly anti-Jewish. The English were by and large opposed to it, even to the extent of abstaining from the 1947 partition vote. Even at the height of the Holocaust and after it the British were sending Jews away and keeping very rigid immigration controls on Jews. They did not place any restrictions on Arab immigration to Israel, which only increased as the Jewish pioneers created more arable land.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
Then they took Al-Aqsa Mosque and held it away from the muslims, and not only that, but also dug and digging under it to find one of their holy sites, as they claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is patently false, and I won't bother trying to assume where you read or heard that. The Al-Aqsa mosque is still right where it has been since the mad caliph al-Hakim built it and revised Muslim history to make Jerusalem important and is still in the hands of Muslims. Israel has never taken it or other mosques away despite the fact that many mosques were built on Jewish holy sites that were desecrated by Muslims rather than protected the way Jews do to Muslim sites in Israel such as the continuing illegal excavations under the Temple Mount that destroy Jewish antiquities as part of the Waqf's continued campaign to deny the existence of the Jewish Temples. There was no digging under the mosque, and the reinforcement of the al-Mugrahbi gate poses no threat to the structural stability of the mosque. Even the UN team agreed with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
The Christains happly lived and living with the Muslims, with their holy sites. No one ever had a problem with the Christains who lived in Palestine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While that is theoretically true it is false in practice. Under secular Israeli rule the Christians had recourse. Since 1993 the Christian population has been rapidly decreasing under Arab rule and all the more so now under Hamas. Christians still have to pay the poll tax in some Muslim countries and are still restricted in their activities. Bear in mind that many Christian holy sites were turned into mosques.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
What about massacres and violations that the jews lead against the muslims starting from the very first moment they put their feet on Palestine? Don't you have to take re-actions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there weren't any and that's the point. There weren't Jewish "massacres and violations." Bear in mind that Jews were in the region of Palestine since before the rise of Islam and generally were non-violent (for all sorts of reasons, many practical). Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine was also by and large peaceful, and it was only in response to Arab raids that they began to arm themselves.

noobfun
03-21-2007, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
just the same as pretty much every religeon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MDS_Geist :
Actually that is not at all the case. Christianity was not spread by the sword, but was later used as a reason for violent expansionism. Judaism we never spread by the sword. Buddhism was never spread by the sword. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cough .. south/central america, africa shall i go back further in history?

the roman persecution of the vandals forcing them to migrate down to spain and eventually across to africa for bieng the wrong kind of christian (not the only group this happened to but probabily the most famous)



on a side note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1945-1947 The Post-War Immigration Crisis and the Jewish Revolt

After the war, Britain was anxious to consolidate its Middle East interests. Priorities included control of oil supplies and maintenance of the sea route to the Persian Gulf and the Far East, all of which required Arab friendship.

Under Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government, the White Paper policy of severe restrictions on Jewish immigration was continued. The survivors of the Displaced Persons Camps of Europe demanded to go to Palestine. Illegal immigration by desperate survivors in chartered boats, often barely seaworthy, increased in scale, and those who were unsuccessful in avoiding the British Navy were put into camps in Cyprus and Mauritius, or returned to Europe.

British troops were shipped to Palestine to meet the growing Jewish resistance. Various groups opposed the British, including the Haganah the Irgun and the more extreme Stern Group. One major event in the conflict was the bombing by the Irgun of the British Army Headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, resulting in British, Arab and Jewish casualties. The Irgun claimed that the building had not be evacuated despite clear warnings.

Leaders of the Jewish resistance groups were arrested. Some were imprisoned, some deported and some hanged. In retaliation five British sergeants were kidnapped by the Irgun and hanged. The fundamental differences in policy between the Haganah [15] and the Irgun [16] led to the bombing by the Haganah of the "Altalena", a ship bringing arms to the Irgun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a goverment party and an army born from terrorism ...... wonder which modern goverment this parallel's *cough cough*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by FableB:
Read through history again, and you will see that no Muslim forced a non-Muslim to enter Islam, because one of the foundations of Islam is to call people for Islam without forcing them to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While this is a nice idea, it is also false. Reading through history shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Islam does have a history of forced conversion that sadly continues to this day. Terrorists in Iraq have forced people they kidnap to convert to Islam or for a slightly less radical example consider the practice of kidnapping Christian children in places like Nigeria and forcing them to convert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry fable he's right on this one, if its any consilation this was somthing often done by christians too. they usually still had a choice convert or die .... not much of a choice though


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">24. The Committee was also seriously concerned at reports of continued provocative activity by Jewish settlers, particularly their acts of vandalism and profanation directed at the Muslim holy sites in Hebron and Jerusalem, particularly the Haram al-Sharif and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and their increasing encroachment on Arab lands and Arab towns, such as in Hebron, which was often accompanied by violence and destruction of property.

55. Reviewing events that had led to the convening of the Council, the Chairman said that a group of Israeli parliamentarians, some of whom were known for their advocacy of the expulsion of Arabs from Jerusalem and the West Bank, had visited the sanctuary on two occasions, with the permission of the Muslim authorities, for the declared purpose of inspecting construction work in progress. They had, however, used the visits as a pretext to engage in acts of provocation, such as reciting Jewish prayers and taking photographs. This had led to protest demonstrations by Arabs, which had been violently dispersed by the police, who had fired shots and used tear-gas, wounding five Arabs. Nineteen Arabs were also arrested. The reported behaviour on the part of Israeli parliamentarians was undoubtedly a Profanation of one of the most sacred places of Islam and had aroused anger not only in the occupied Arab territorial but also in the Muslim world at large. In the already highly charged atmosphere of the region, the religious provocation had compound d the political conflict, with unforeseeable and perhaps disastrous consequences for international peace and security.

56. He could not but conclude that the actions he had related were aimed at establishing permanent Israeli domination over all of Jerusalem and the occupied territories and creating a fait accompli by encouraging Arabs to emigrate permanently from the country. He referred to previous acts of aggression against the Muslim and Christian Holy places and particularly cited excavation work conducted at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as criminal acts of arson and armed attack committed against the Mosque in August 1969 and in April 1982. In March 1983 and January 1984, attempts had even been made to blow up the structure.

59. At its 2650th meeting, on 30 January 1986, the Security Council had before it a draft resolution sponsored by the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates (S/17769/Rev.1) by which the Council would have expressed its deep concern at "the provocative acts by Israelis, including members of the Knesset, which have violated the sanctity of the sanctuary of the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem" and would have strongly deplored them, affirming that "such acts constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, the failure of which could also endanger international peace and security".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry what was that about repecting religeous sites? *cough* another U.N resolution vetoed by america on behalf of israel (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0a2a053971ccb56885256cef0073c6d4/b39d322c45d3b527802563f100401be3!OpenDocument) *cough*

from what i can find out about 55. the worshippers chased off the offending people and also called the police, the police quickly arrived and began beating the muslim worshippers that had called them ....

56. .... what was that about the Al-Aqsa Mosque?

MDS_Geist
03-21-2007, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
cough .. south/central america, africa shall i go back further in history?

the roman persecution of the vandals forcing them to migrate down to spain and eventually across to africa for bieng the wrong kind of christian (not the only group this happened to but probabily the most famous) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're doing nothing more here than proving my point. These are cases of nationalist expansion brought on by economic pressures (this is the root cause of the other pressures involved, notable population pressure) in which Christianity was an excuse and an ally.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
a goverment party and an army born from terrorism ...... wonder which modern goverment this parallel's *cough cough* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite, well, not at all the same thing.

None of the Jewish groups active at the time had an agenda of genocide. Illegal immigration is a far cry from attacking civilians and the mainstream Jewish groups actively fought and suppressed the terrorists. Contrast this to the actions of the Arab Fedayeen, who were in fact encouraged and even decorated by their governments for attacking civilians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by FableB:
Read through history again, and you will see that no Muslim forced a non-Muslim to enter Islam, because one of the foundations of Islam is to call people for Islam without forcing them to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
sorry fable he's right on this one, if its any consilation this was somthing often done by christians too. they usually still had a choice convert or die .... not much of a choice though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so often by Christians nor was it a doctrinal point. It was mostly an act of the Spanish Inquisitors and they were acting against specific orders from Rome to do no such thing. The actions of Crusaders were a different matter entirely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
sorry what was that about repecting religeous sites? *cough* another U.N resolution vetoed by america on behalf of israel (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0a2a053971ccb56885256cef0073c6d4/b39d322c45d3b527802563f100401be3!OpenDocument) *cough* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should really get that cough looked at. Have you tried robotussin?

My point stands. This was yet another disproportionate anti-Israel resolution. I'm eagerly awaiting the day the UN deals with actual injustices like slavery in the Sudan or apartheid in Saudi Arabia.

In this matter, it's mostly empty. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. Jews pray there. When they can, Muslims attack them. Sadly, I've been there when Muslims have rioted simply because Jews were present. That is religious hatred plain and simple. The police acted within their purview to protect people under attack from a mob.

When people have attacked Muslims or attacked holy sites the Israeli police and/or military stop them, arrest them, charge them and see them tried. When Muslims outright destroy Jewish holy sites, even ones that they have sworn to protect they are not punished in any way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
from what i can find out about 55. the worshippers chased off the offending people and also called the police, the police quickly arrived and began beating the muslim worshippers that had called them .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't what happened. It was a government inspection to ensure that the illegal excavations that the Waqf had been (and continues to) engaging in were not causing structural damage. One of the MP's (Technically they're MK's) was believed to have said a prayer (which is not a reasonable provocation in any event) and a mob of Muslims attacked them and their police escorts. More police were called in to disperse the rioters, and they used tear gas to do so - a far better alternative than live ammunition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noobfun:
56. .... what was that about the Al-Aqsa Mosque? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still in Muslim hands as it has been, and protected by the Israelis just as it has been. The "violations" referred to are the presence of Jews and the historical reality of Jewish claims to the site as the place where the First and Second Temple stood.

Anything else I can clear up?

noobfun
03-22-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1415 May 11, EDICT OF BENEDICT XIII (Spain)

Was enraged by the lack of voluntary conversions after the Christian "victory" at the Tortosa disputation. As a result, he banned the study of the Talmud in any form, instituted forced Christian sermons (where Jews were forced to listen to conversion sermons each Sunday), and tried to restrict Jewish life completely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>nope no spanish inquisition here


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On March 19, 1497 (the first day of Passover), Jewish parents were ordered to take their children, between the ages of four and fourteen, to Lisbon. Upon arrival, the parents were informed that their children were going to be taken away from them and were to be given to Catholic families to be raised as good Catholics. Children were literally torn from their parents and others were smothered, some parents chose to kill themselves and their kids rather than be separated. After awhile, some parents agreed to be baptized, along with their children, while others succumbed and handed over their babies.

In October 1497, about 20,000 Jews came to Lisbon to prepare for departure to other lands. They were herded into the courtyard of Os estaos, a palace and were approached by priests trying to convert them. Some capitulated, while the rest waited around until the time of departure had passed. Those who did not convert were told they forfeited their freedom and would become slaves. More succumbed. Finally the rest were sprinkled with baptismal waters and were declared "New Christians." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>nope no spanish inquisition here

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Popular support for a Portugese Inquisition surfaced in 1531, when many Christians blamed the New Christians for the recent earthquake. Pope Clement VII authorized the Inquisition and the first auto-da-fe (trial) took place in Lisbon on September 20, 1540. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> ahh here they are

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus Leo III, who ruled during the two decades immediately preceding the Khazar conversion to Judaism, "attempted to end the anomaly [of the tolerated status of Jews] at one blow, by ordering all his Jewish subjects to be baptized"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>nope no spanish inquisition here

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Indeed the king of the Greeks at the present time, the Year of the Hegira 332 [AD 943-4] has converted the Jews in his kingdom to Christianity by coercion.... Thus many Jews took flight from the country of the Greeks to Khazaria.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>nope no spanish inquisition here

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The church and the government of Rome set Wednesday, March 6, 1430, as the day when all the Jews of Rome must convert or face death. On that day a great earthquake shook Rome and many of the archbishops and priests who conceived the decree were killed. Following the earthquake, Pope Martin V annulled the decree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>they might be here but its the church declaring this


forced jewish conversionPage 5 of 186,584 results

i only went 5 pages in and found more reffereances to forced converion christianity then muslim, and most didnt involve the inquistion

take a look at this to if you like (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/HistoryJewishPersecution.htm)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by FableB:
Then they took Al-Aqsa Mosque and held it away from the muslims, and not only that, but also dug and digging under it to find one of their holy sites, as they claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by MDS-Gheist:
There was no digging under the mosque, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">56. He could not but conclude that the actions he had related were aimed at establishing permanent Israeli domination over all of Jerusalem and the occupied territories and creating a fait accompli by encouraging Arabs to emigrate permanently from the country. <span class="ev_code_RED">He referred to previous acts of aggression against the Muslim and Christian Holy places and particularly cited excavation work conducted at the Al-Aqsa Mosque,</span> as well as criminal acts of arson and armed attack committed against the Mosque in August 1969 and in April 1982. In March 1983 and January 1984, attempts had even been made to blow up the structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ill repeat my question, what was that about the Al-Aqsa Mosque?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point stands. This was yet another disproportionate anti-Israel resolution </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes brought before the UN by those well known axis of evil muslim extremist nations of Congo(Religions Christain, Animist,, others
), Ghana( Religions Local traditions, Muslim, Christian), Madagascar(Religions Traditional beliefs, Christian, Muslim ), Trinidad and Tobago(isnt this part of the jamaica islands)(Religions Catholic, Hindu, others) and United Arab Emirates (Religions Muslim (96%), others)

..... hmmm that didnt look right ... they arnt hardline muslim nations that want israel destryoed, lets look at who voted what, see if those evil doers show up there

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Security Council on 30 Jan. 1986 voted on the draft as follow:

Voted For: Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela.
Voted against: United States of America.
Abstaining: Thailand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahh see there they are .... hmmm maybe not

so its dis-proporionate becasue you dont like it .....?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm eagerly awaiting the day the UN deals with actual injustices like slavery in the Sudan or apartheid in Saudi Arabia </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes i agree the UN should go after ANY country who's govermant regularily comits injustices against parts of its populace based on faith, class or skin colour

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sent a joint letter to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, urging members to reject the bill. "The draft law barring family reunification for Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens is profoundly discriminatory," Amnesty said in a statement. "A law permitting such blatant racial discrimination, on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly violate international human rights law and treaties which Israel has ratified and pledged to uphold." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you like the word genocide ive noted so here you go
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Israeli professor and political sociologist at Ben Gurion University, Lev Grinberg, wrote an article that created an furore in Israel. Entitled "Symbolic Genocide," [1] it provided an unsettling argument: "Unable to recover from the Holocaust trauma and the insecurity it caused, the Jewish people, the ultimate victim of genocide, is currently inflicting a symbolic genocide upon the Palestinian people...What is symbolic genocide? Every people has its symbols, national leaders and political institutions, a home land, past and future generations, and hopes. All these symbolically represent a people. Israel is systematically damaging, destroying and eradicating all of these, with unbelievable bureaucratic jargon." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


shall we take a look at torture?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">given by a 1 5-year-old Palestinian, Riad Faraj, who was arrested for throwing stones in late 1987. "They handcuffed and beat me during the journey to Fara'a [a military prison in Nablus]. Once we arrived, they took me to a 'doctor' for a 'checkup.' I found out later that this 'checkup' is to locate any physical weakness to concentrate on during torture. They paid particular attention to my leg, which was once injured and was still sensitive. Before they began interrogation, they asked me if I was ready to confess. They then hanged me by my wrists, naked, outside in the cold, and gave me hot and cold showers alternatively. A hood covered in manure was put over my head." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eitan Fellner, head of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, says that "torture became a bureaucratic routine in all Shin Bet interrogation centers. We estimate that 85 percent of Palestinian detainees were tortured, though many were later released without a charge." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Currently nearly 8,000 Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons and detention centers, according to the Palestinian Prisoners' Association......

According to the Palestinian Prisoners Club, Israel arrested about 3,000 Palestinian children since 2000. And currently, there are nearly 300 Palestinian children in the Israeli jails. The majority of those children have been arrested for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. ..........

According to the IPS, only 2,731 Palestinian prisoners have "blood on their hands", which means that the majority of Palestinian detainees are political prisoners who have been arrested for political expression or for no legitimate security reason, which contradicts international covenants enshrining the freedom of speech for all persons.

According to B'Tselem, "security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner such that nonviolent speech and political activity are considered dangerous. ... [This] is a blatant contradiction of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion guaranteed under international law. If these same standards were applied inside Israel, half of the Likud party would be in administrative detention."

Administrative detentions and imprisonment of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories inside Israel are both illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Article 76 states that "protected persons accused of offenses shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country."

According to Article 1 of the Convention, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

twisting words is all well and good, but actual evidence (or lack of)is making your argument less believable by anyone not already sharring your belief's

MDS_Geist
03-22-2007, 11:47 AM
You want to go case by case? Sure.

First case: That actually is the Spanish Inquisition at work, but not yet forced conversion.
Second case: Still the Spanish Inquisitors working or Portugal, the Portuguese Inquisition wasn't yet active.
Third case: Portuguese Inquisition.
Fourth case: Questionable historicity in any event.
Fifth case: As above, questionable historicity.
Sixth case: Great story, and a nice reasoning for annuling an unlawful decree.

Bottom line: Some yes, some no. More to the point, Christianity sure did have a crappy record with it. Islam still does this.

The Al-Aqsa mosque? Still in Muslim hands as it has been under the whole period of Israeli rule. The Israeli government protects the site and allows the waqf to administer it despite constant hatred preached at the mosque, acts of incitement and illegal excavations destroying Jewish antiquities.

The resolution was indeed a disproportionate condemnation of Israel, as have been the vast majority of UN resolutions pertaining to Israel. Since I like dealing with facts and reality, clearly I don't like such resolutions nor should anyone who is educated about the reality of the situation.

Lev Grivner is a hard-line leftist. Pretty good lecturer though.

Allegations of torture are nothing new. Israel investigates them and punishes them when they are borne out by facts. Generally they are not. Fellner's statement is as he said, an estimate.

I have not twisted any words, but you seem to be reading rather selectively.

Since you do not know my beliefs, you do not know who shares them.

noobfun
03-22-2007, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MDS_Geist:

The Al-Aqsa mosque? Still in Muslim hands as it has been under the whole period of Israeli rule. The Israeli government protects the site and allows the waqf to administer it despite constant hatred preached at the mosque, acts of incitement and illegal excavations destroying Jewish antiquities.

Allegations of torture are nothing new. Israel investigates them and punishes them when they are borne out by facts. Generally they are not. Fellner's statement is as he said, an estimate.

I have not twisted any words, but you seem to be reading rather selectively.

Since you do not know my beliefs, you do not know who shares them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yes we do have a terrible record for jewish relations im happy to admit my religeons and countries wrong doings, at least youve stopped imply all of it is 1 small group's actions acting against its own authority

ill expalin a little better what i encompas with the word twisting.. ignoring, over looking or arguing around facts such as the excavations at al-asqua

the UN are condeming israeli excavations ... which you previous said had never happened ..but now your saying its the muslims digging it ....

again

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Allegations of torture are nothing new. Israel investigates them and punishes them when they are borne out by facts. Generally they are not. Fellner's statement is as he said, an estimate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sounds like a goverment policy line...

ignores the statements and figures about the majority of prisoners bieng the equivalent of political prisoner, the systematic use of techniques that contravine numerous human rights and the genieva covention.the dention and use of above techniques on children for stone throwing.

and mentions only one source becuase of the use of the word estimate as means to deny any and all of the above ...... now THATS selective reading

your right i dont know your personal beliefs, i was hinting at the three monkeys style of discussion youve been showing, see no evil hear no evil speak no evil unless its not about what i believe in


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.


1993 to 1995
UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) l

UNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995)

UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995)

UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995)

UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994)

UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993)

UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993)

UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armanent (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

theres a further 12 years worth im sure if i choose to go look them all up

these are just the ones condeming israels actions or asking it to curb its actions.the collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation.

i can post the 32 others if you like that went a step further then just condemnation

these ones demanded action or face sanctions
for a peace keeping force to be deployed
for palestine to become a recognised state (which would prevent cross border raids, cross border shootings and airstrikes without fear of internation court rulings of war crimes, and would also allow palestine to request a UN force to be deployed in the area in a peace keeping role )
for israel to return to its own borders as recognised by the UN

all these were vetoed to prevent outside intervention or miltarily or economic sanctions or loss of land to be made against israel

all vetoed by 1 country america, wnat to argue that israel's not bieng protected by america too?

so are they all disproportoinate? are you really misguided and closed minded enough to think they are?

MDS_Geist
03-22-2007, 02:53 PM
I never implied anything of the sort, you inferred it without any help from me.

You seem confused about excavations, so I'll assume you're unfamiliar with the situation. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge, but you are responsible for not reading carefully.

At present, Israel is trying to reinforce a bridge at the al-Mugrahbi gate. Due to Israeli law, they need to make sure they aren't damaging any antiquities. As you may be aware, 2,000 years ago they didn't have heavy equipment the way we do now and carelessness can cause tremendous damage. Therefore there are some excavation taking place along with the construction.

With me so far?

A Waqf official made some wild claims about what the excavations were. So Muslims rioted and made all kinds of threats. Israel stopped the work in response and allowed a UN team to come in and inspect the site. They have done so, and concluded that everything was exactly what Israel said it was.

Still on the same page?

To be extra-careful to the point of wasting more time, Israel is also allowing a Turkish team to inspect the site. They arrived this week. It is expected that they will reaffirm what Israel and the UN already established. Sadly, it is also expected that the Waqf will again claim malic on Israel's part and encourage violence in any event. Interestingly enough, had any rabbi acted the way the sheikh is acting, he would be in jail.

That's one piece.

The Muslim excavations on the Temple Mount are illegal. They are unauthorized and have caused serious damage to the Western Wall plaza. They have also illegally excavated and dumped as trash Jewish antiquities that were thousands of years old.

That is the other piece.

The Geneva Conventions are a nice piece, and since the majority of Palestinian Arabs in Israeli jailed were picked up for terrorism related issues they can of course be considered "political prisoners" since terrorism is part of the Palestinian body politic.

Noobfun, I'm responding to things that you have posted and giving you the benefit of my education and experience. From what you have posted it seems very clear that you're not very aware of the situation in the Middle East and are very unfamiliar with the facts on the ground. I have so far continued to extend to you the courtesy of not trying to infer your beliefs and would appreciate the same thing.

Now if you have something substantive to discuss rather than cutting and pasting someone else's words that would be super. I'll be happy to help clarify things for you as I have been trying to do. This isn't at all about ideology for me as much as you seem to want it to be.

You're also clearly not aware of the nature of Israeli politics. Despite being a democracy, politically it is a very Arab model involving a lot of bombast. While it makes for great entertainment, it makes for some pretty poor government at times. Israel investigates complaints and deals with them. That is factual. The Shin bet is not allowed by decree of the Israeli court to use stressful interrogation techniques except in situations of a "ticking bomb."

"Stone throwers" aren't what people try and portray them as. It's not just picking up a pebble and tossing it at someone. it is usually using torch cut rocks that do considerable damage to a person if they hit, and the stone throwers are used as cover for terrorists with heavier weapons, explosives and firebombs. "Stone throwers" also include people using slings and slingshots, which are lethal weapons.

Yep, that's a long list of UN resolutions. Could you post the ones condemning Saudi Arabia for Apartheid? How about the slavery in Sudan? What about Syria for keeping Palestinian Arabs locked in camps and making it a crime in Lebanon to sell land to a Palestinian? how about Jordan for expelling Palestinians after they tried to establish a "Palestinian State" in Jordan? How about Iraq for the genocide of the Marsh Arabs? What about the DPRK's use of enforced labor? Pakistan for its support of terrorists in Kashmir? Indonesia for child soldiers? Syria for chemical weapons and supporting terrorism? Iran for continued support of terrorism?

The UN has spent roughly a third of its time condemning Israel. And you think this is "proportionate?" So speaking of misguided and close-minded....Frankly, you seem to lack the knowledge base to make such as assertion about me or anyone else.

The UN recognized borders? The mean the borders the majority of the Arab world still doesn't recognize much less the existence of Israel? Are you that misinformed and unaware of the reality of the situation on the ground?

Recognizing "Palestine" as a state? The only thing holding that up is the Arabs. Israel would have done it over a decade ago if the Arabs had actually kept the agreements they committed to and wholly abandoned violence as a strategy.

A UN Force? The UNRWA is already there and spending profligate amounts of money on a growing refugee population. It is the only refugee population that is growing and it is growing precisely because the UN and the Arab world keep them in the camps - despite the fact that the camps abut cities that have housing for them, in many cases housing built by Israel. If there had been a sincere effort on the part of the Arab world to have peace, there would be both peace and a new Palestinian state.

Israel is the only nation being expected to relinquish territory.

A Palestinian state would make it much easier for Israel - after all, going to war with an actual state lets you do much more to stop your enemies. Clearly you're not thinking this one through.

Hassan-Sabbah
03-23-2007, 01:49 AM
Greets all!

I am new to these forums (obviously), but I thought this an interesting thread. Not so much for the information going back and forth (though, it is of interest, but an antiquated debate at this point). What is of more interest is that there will never be a "Correct" position on these subjects. "Jews" hurl missiles, "Muslims" throw stones and dynamite vests (not playing the "Chicken and the egg" here...which comes first), but biases will always determine ones stand point.

Facts will be manipulated to suit those biases.

"Facts" in a historical sense should not be taken as "Truth" (or correctness vs. incorrectness). One fact that has stood the test of time is this: History is written by the victors. Or in modern parlance, who has greater control of the media (this includes the UN, Israeli, US, and the Saudi governments along with their respective religious institutions).

Case in point: Here in the US for decades upon decades, Segnior Christopho Colombo (Columbus) was laureled as a hero...a brave, valiant explorer. It has now been shown, Mr. Columbus was a paranoid schizophrenic who followed commands from the voice of the Virgin Mary in his head and was allegedly guilty of genocide upon the indigenous people he found in the "New World." Not to mention, he was lost to begin with...

Quite the "Hero."

That is just ONE, minor example. The list could go on Ad infinitum.

Religious beliefs/political ideologies can never be affected by "Facts" as "bias" is, unfortunately in the human make-up at present, more important than "Truth" (whatever that may be). It has been that way since tribes first seperated themselves from each other, and it will be that way 'til the Sun expands and swallows us all.

I know, a strange place for me to choose my first post on a forum that is supposed to be about a video-game, but I have been watching this thread and I was wondering when someone would realize that there will be no "victor" in this thread. No one is going to be converted to either position.

Facts are meaningless when matched against ideologies.

Oh, yeah...and this game looks like it is going to be great! When is the release date!?!?! (JOKE!)

Be well all!

noobfun
03-23-2007, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hassan-Sabbah:

I know, a strange place for me to choose my first post on a forum that is supposed to be about a video-game, but I have been watching this thread and I was wondering when someone would realize that there will be no "victor" in this thread. No one is going to be converted to either position.

Facts are meaningless when matched against ideologies.

Oh, yeah...and this game looks like it is going to be great! When is the release date!?!?! (JOKE!)

Be well all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol welcome to the mad house

depends what you deffine as victory http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if you mean me getting geist to admit israels bad palestine good, then thats never going to happen and frankly wouldnt want it to. That would be an insult to his and my intelegence and the intelegnce of people bothering to read this

dont you feel better now geist?, i know about the work currently bieng done that started in february,

bit of a shaky start, large group of police and idf appearing and closing off the area(understandable to expect a strong reaction through paranoia and mistrust)and minimising news coverage was only going to make this stronger

stopping and asking turkey to send a team of specialists to act as independant observers, and the webcams to allow constant monitoring and viewing by everyone is a master stroke of clarity and openness

bit sneaky to throw in excavation work at the same time though, but the opptunities there so understandable, gold star for israel

i was reffering to the works in 1986(the date of the un resolution) cant find any records or specifics, have to have a good hunt around on the iaa website.

i know there were a lot of digs around al-asqua that came to light in 81 over fears it was starting to effect the stability of the complex, wondering if it was a continuation of that work

also aware of the ticking bomb analogy and what it grants, an average of 800 ticking bombs per year with almost all released without charge, doesnt seem excessive at all does it...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

and are you seriously trying to compaire UNRWA to a UN task force or peace keeping force?

UNRWA blue hats vans and bags of instant noodles

UN task force blue hats guns and tanks ... have a habbit of getting in the way so people have a bit more trouble shooting each other

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Palestinian state would make it much easier for Israel - after all, going to war with an actual state lets you do much more to stop your enemies. Clearly you're not thinking this one through. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

now take that thought further, israel declaires war, several neighbours declair war to protect palestine, USA declairs war to protect israel, russia declaires war to protect iran, everyone that has nukes pulls them out(usa russia israel) everyone with chem weapons pulls those out too(syria iran israel russia USA)

so what actually happens is everyone just stands around with a stupid look on thier faces and does nothing, becasue its a better idea then wiping man kind off the face of the earth

and they just call each other names in the UN and the news ...

ill end on a joke i found hunting around, stop us taking our selves to seriously

Israeli Defense Force HELPLINE

IDF: "Hello, you've reached the Israeli Defense Force Helpline. All of our operators are busy helping other bombing targets. Please hold. Your call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes."

UNIFIL Employee: "Hello!?! SOMEONE?!"

(Music: Kylie's "I could be so lucky.."

UNIFIL Employee: "GOOD GOD, SOMEONE PICK UP! This is the UN calling. That last bomb was way too $%#(@ close!"

IDF: "Please continue to hold. Did you know that you can get most of your questions answered online? Just visit the IDF website and click on "Why are you bombing me?"

UNIFIL Employee: "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HELP! SOMEONE-"

IDF: "Hi, this is Hanah. How can I help you?"

UNIFIL Employee: "Oh, thank God! I'm calling from the UN post near the border. The bombs are getting closer and closer. Please radio your planes and tell them we're here."

IDF: "OK, calm down. Did you say you were with the UN?"

UNIFIL Employee: "YES! We're near the-" (LOUD EXPLOSION)
"JESUS CHRIST! DID YOU HEAR THAT!"

IDF: "I did. Is that your TV? You should turn it down-"

UNIFIL Employee: "IT'S NOT MY GOD DAMN TV YOU ZIONIST IDIOT. THAT'S YOUR GOD FORSAKEN WAR PLANES BOMBING THE &$(# OUT OF US!"

IDF: "OK. I'll see what I can do. But first, a couple questions."

UNIFIL Employee: "What?"

IDF: "How long has UNIFIL been in Lebanon?"

UNIFIL Employee: "Huh? I have no idea. Why are you-" (LOUD EXPLOSION)
HOLY %&#$ WHAT THE-"

IDF: "The correct answer is 28 years."

UNIFIL Outpost: "YOUR #$&# MOTHER $%%# GOATS YOU $#&# JEWISH $&#$ GIVE ME SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP-"

(EXPLOSION)

UNIFIL Outpost: 'ARRGGH, IT BURNS OK, OK 28 YEARS."

IDF: "That's much better. Are you ready for Question 2?"

UNIFIL EMPLOYEE: "Look, you sound like a reasonable woman. Please. I'm worried about-" (EXPLOSION)

"SWEET JESUS OK, OK, QUESTION 2."

IDF: "In those 28 years, how many times has UNIFIL prohibited Hezbollah from crossing over into Israel to meance Israelis?"

UNIFIL Outpost: "UH. UM. TWICE?"

IDF: "Wrong answer."

(EXPLOSION)

UNIFIL OUTPOST: "HOLY #$@& PIERRE YOU ARE ON FIRE DROP AND ROLL"

IDF: "The correct answer is never."

UNIFIL OUTPOST: "KOFI ANNAN IS GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THIS WE ARE PROTECTED BY UN CHARTER. YOU CAN'T DO THIS"

IDF: "Hold on....My pilot is asking if you are the building with the large UN painted on the outside."

UNIFIL OUTPOST: "YES YES YES THAT'S US SWEET MOTHER OF GOD, TELL HIM-"

IDF: "Yes, he sees you. Thanks for calling the IDF."

UNIFIL OUTPOST: "Huh? Are we safe now? Can I-"

(EXPLOSION)

ENDS

FableB
03-23-2007, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, it is not wrong at all. First of all, Turkey and Iran are Muslim nations. As for the others that are no longer Muslim they were conquered by Muslims, and then reconquered by non-Muslims. For example, have you not learned about the Reconquista? The fact that they are no longer Muslim lands isn't for lack of trying. In Orthodox Islam it is by no means uncommon to hear a Friday sermon about al-Andalus.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said Muslims feel insulted when they are driven out of a certain place that they have already conquered, shouldn't we feel that way about Spain? Or the lands that stretch between Iran and China? No, we don't. Because we didn't conquer them for the sake of religion or land. When you notice danger constantly coming to you from a certain place, you can't just keep standing in a defensive position.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While this is a nice idea, it is also false. Reading through history shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Islam does have a history of forced conversion that sadly continues to this day. Terrorists in Iraq have forced people they kidnap to convert to Islam or for a slightly less radical example consider the practice of kidnapping Christian children in places like Nigeria and forcing them to convert.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&l...ement=4800&backpage=

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind you, it is NOT an "idea", it is clearly stated in The Holy Qur'an not to start a war. Or let's say, not to be a "bully".

And you can't picture a whole nation through several individuals. For example, I can't say that all Jews rape young women just because I saw a bunch of soldiers doing so to Palestinian women, right? Same applies here, those who kidnap people and force them to be Muslims are clearly not Muslims themselves, at least, that's what Islam state. So you can't assume that all Muslims around the world were forced to be Muslims, or the most of them, just because you see several low terrorists doing so. You look like a smart man, I didn't expect that kind of conslusion from you.

And I live in Iraq, and I have never heard of terrorists kidnapping people to convert them into Muslims. They usually kidnap either for money or they ask the country from which they came to pull their forces out of Iraq. Plus it's stupid to kidnap someone and ask him to believe in something, because once he's free, he will be back to his old belief.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FableB:
The wars that the Muslims led upon the non-Muslims in the Middle-East were againt The Romans and The Persians, both occupied a large piece of The Arabian Peninsula at that time and therefore we had the right to reclaim our lands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would only make sense if the wars were contained in the Arabian Peninsula. Since they were not, clearly they were wars of conquest. In point of fact, initially the wars were against other Arab tribes, Jews and Christians. These weren't wars for the sake of nationalism but for the sake of religion.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is awfully wrong, I don't know where you get these information, but maybe you are just stating the part that benifit your point; After The Muslims entered Mecca, ALL the Arabian Tribes came to Mohammed and declared their faith. And for the Jews, they were driven out of The Arabian Peninsula because they broke The Peace Agreement they had with Mohammed. The one he made with them when he came to Yathrib. They broke it by working with the infidels in Mecca against Mohammed, by telling them to war against him, by letting them enter through Khaibar "The village where the Jews lived, which was beside Yathrib" creating a backdoor to surprise the muslims.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Again, that is historical revisionism that is not borne out by factual data. Syria-Palestine, Egypt, Persia, Turkey, Morroco and Spain (just to name a few) were never "occupied" Muslim lands until Muslims invaded them and occupied them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they were the place from where the Muslims constatly were invaded, no? Need I to clear how many times Persia conquered Iraq?

FableB
03-23-2007, 04:58 PM
NOTE: I devided the reply into two because I had problems posting a one long post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Okay. There was a constant Jewish presence in the land and had been for over 2,000 years - well before Islam was created. Beyond that, there were a number of waves of immigration with the first large wave taking place in the late 1800's/early 1900's. They bought land that the local Arab tribes did not want such as swamplands and began to turn them into some pretty impressive farms. This increase in farmland led to increased Arab immigration to come work there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually it was quite the opposite. While the Balfour Declaration was pro-Jewish, actual British policy and immigration controls were clearly anti-Jewish. The English were by and large opposed to it, even to the extent of abstaining from the 1947 partition vote. Even at the height of the Holocaust and after it the British were sending Jews away and keeping very rigid immigration controls on Jews. They did not place any restrictions on Arab immigration to Israel, which only increased as the Jewish pioneers created more arable land.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This constant old Jewish persence, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has a problem with. The problem lies with these immigrations, and Arabs sold some lands, but as you can read from history things started to get nasty. You need to read more in history, when the English occupied Palestine, Arabs where killed and Jewish were immigrated to Palestine, under the protection of the English, The English even left some of their war machinary to the Jews after the left Palestine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is patently false, and I won't bother trying to assume where you read or heard that. The Al-Aqsa mosque is still right where it has been since the mad caliph al-Hakim built it and revised Muslim history to make Jerusalem important and is still in the hands of Muslims. Israel has never taken it or other mosques away despite the fact that many mosques were built on Jewish holy sites that were desecrated by Muslims rather than protected the way Jews do to Muslim sites in Israel such as the continuing illegal excavations under the Temple Mount that destroy Jewish antiquities as part of the Waqf's continued campaign to deny the existence of the Jewish Temples. There was no digging under the mosque, and the reinforcement of the al-Mugrahbi gate poses no threat to the structural stability of the mosque. Even the UN team agreed with that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have clearly never been there, or atleast, never watched TV, Every single time I see Al-Aqsa, I see a bunch of Israelli soldiers patroling the place, if the prayers are lucky, they get to pray, if the soldiers are not in the mood, they start trouble and then claim that the muslims started a riot. I think Israel is the last country to talk about desecrating holy belongings, How many times have the Israelli soldiers got into Al-Aqsa and desecrated The place and the Qur'an? How can illegal excavations under the Temple Mount take place with Israelli soldiers all over the place? That isn't true. Al-Aqsa was built near Al-Sakhra "The Rock" which was there long before Islam, Christainity, Judaisim, near Al-Burak Wall, the wall Mohammed's Camel was left near it when he was rised to the sky. And now the Jews are digging under it claiming they are looking for Sulaiman's Temple, but what they are trying to do is destroy every evidence of Islamic History in the area, believe it, or not. You can check yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, there weren't any and that's the point. There weren't Jewish "massacres and violations." Bear in mind that Jews were in the region of Palestine since before the rise of Islam and generally were non-violent (for all sorts of reasons, many practical). Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine was also by and large peaceful, and it was only in response to Arab raids that they began to arm themselves.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...

Are you serious? Because you definitly...CAN'T be! What about Sabra and Shatila massacre? How many houses did they ruined and ruining now? How many farms? How many famimlies did they through out of their houses? out of their COUNTRY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When people have attacked Muslims or attacked holy sites the Israeli police and/or military stop them, arrest them, charge them and see them tried. When Muslims outright destroy Jewish holy sites, even ones that they have sworn to protect they are not punished in any way.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make it sound like those soldiers love Arabs, it's funny how those soldiers punish the outlawed Israelli civilians and then kill more Palestinian civilains and destroy their houses...

***

To finish my post, I'd like to mention that you can't build a country based on religion, countries are build for the sake of nationalism not for religion, you can't build a country for the muslims, or for the jews, or for the christians, countries are build by those who already live in that place, because they belong there. Take any country, you'll see that it wasn't build for the sake of religion. Sadly the Jews make the word "Jew" sound like a nationality...Which makes the Russian, the French, the American (etc) Jew come and say that this is his country and not only that, but call those who already lived their "terrorists" for defending their country.