Yeah, a dufus who claims there was no King David proved it and made me an idiot.
Jesus was a common name 2000 years ago too, let me guess - JESUS WAS A MYTH TOO!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Life In Gaza Concentration Camp
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Jesus was a common name 2000 years ago too, let me guess - JESUS WAS A MYTH TOO!
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!Simply hilarious.The only point I made is that the descendants of David and all the Jews, Samaritans, Pagans etc. that lived in Palestine converted to Christianity after 380 AD, because it was the law of the Roman Empire. And, subsequently most of these Christians converted to Islam. So, the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are descendants of these former Jews, Samaritans, Pagans etc.
Archeologists do not agree on whether or not some guy named David ruled Judah. He may have.
The Old Testament is not a very reliable source for historical evidence. When did I say David or Arthur did not exist? A myth does not de facto mean that the myth does not have some basis in history. By the way, archeologists and historians disagree with respect to the existence of David, or Arthur.
" It should be noted that "David" is the name of an old Cannaanite god, which is likely the reason there would be an inscription with his name on it. In 1975 at Ebla, Syria, there were found 20,000 clay tablets, 4500 years old, a thousand years before the biblical David and Solomon supposedly lived. These tablets contain the names of various apparent Canaanite gods, such as "Ab-ra-mu (Abraham), E-sa-um (Esau), Ish-ma-ilu (Ishmael), even Is-ra-ilu (Israel), and from later periods names like Da-'u'dum (David) and Sa-'u-lum (Saul)."
Yahoo! Groups
Ooops. No David listed as being in the Canaanite religion.
You love having me box your ears over and over, don't you?
Ancient Canaanite religion - Wikipedia
Canaanite Religion | K. L. Noll
Your links don't state anything of the sort you silly little twat. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Da-'u'dum is the Canaanite equivalent of David as stated in the link above and the link below.
The Canaanite Gods
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!Simply hilarious.
Ooops. No David listed as being in the Canaanite religion.
You love having me box your ears over and over, don't you?
Ancient Canaanite religion - Wikipedia
Canaanite Religion | K. L. Noll
Your links don't state anything of the sort you silly little twat. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Da-'u'dum is the Canaanite equivalent of David as stated in the link above and the link below.
The Canaanite Gods
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
- Thread starter
- #264
Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!Your links don't state anything of the sort you silly little twat. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Da-'u'dum is the Canaanite equivalent of David as stated in the link above and the link below.
The Canaanite Gods
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Monte says he is a Christian & yet doubts that Jesus existed. Interesting.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!Your links don't state anything of the sort you silly little twat. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Da-'u'dum is the Canaanite equivalent of David as stated in the link above and the link below.
The Canaanite Gods
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
It is clear who is writing nonsense.
"The Bible is our only source of information about David. No ancient inscription mentions him. No archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him. The quest for the historical David, therefore, is primarily exegetical."
" Despite archaeology's contributions, on the whole we must affirm McCarter's statement: "The Bible is our only source of information about David"—at least our only direct source. Without the Bible we would barely know David's name, have only a vague idea of who he was, and know almost nothing of what he did. The Bible alone details his actions, reports his conversations, and explains his motives. David's biography, therefore, relies primarily on the Bible."
King David
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Monte says he is a Christian & yet doubts that Jesus existed. Interesting.
Making things up as usual. Of course Jesus Christ existed.
Oops again!Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Great link!
Nothing about David being a God of the Canaanites, but it does say: "Here we can find proof that Jerusalem was originally not a Jewish city and already existed for about 700 years before David conquered the city about 1050 BC."
A. No one ever claimed Jerusalem did not exist prior to David.
B. YOUR link says David conquered the city about 1050BC. Pretty hard to do for a fictional character!
THANKS!
Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
It is clear who is writing nonsense.
"The Bible is our only source of information about David. No ancient inscription mentions him. No archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him. The quest for the historical David, therefore, is primarily exegetical."
" Despite archaeology's contributions, on the whole we must affirm McCarter's statement: "The Bible is our only source of information about David"—at least our only direct source. Without the Bible we would barely know David's name, have only a vague idea of who he was, and know almost nothing of what he did. The Bible alone details his actions, reports his conversations, and explains his motives. David's biography, therefore, relies primarily on the Bible."
King David
BTW - I did some archeology in Israel, how about you?
The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130721215001.htm
Israel archaeology dig provides evidence of King David's reign
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
New Archaeology Supports Existence of King David
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
Oh dear, not again. You either don't read or don't know how to read in the English language. You insist on making a fool of yourself.
That was covered in my previous post. To wit:
"The Tel Dan Stele
The new discovery was a piece of an inscribed monument or "stele." It was found by accident, as such things usually are, at an archaeological dig in the ruin ("tel") of the ancient city of Dan in northern Israel. It had been reused as building material for a later wall and was near the wall's base. You can imagine the excitement of the person who found it. She was walking along looking at the ground when something about that one stone caught her eye. She knelt to take a closer look and noticed the lines of markings cut into the rock. She recognized it as writing of some kind and immediately called the project director.
The fragment measured 32 by 22 cm. at its widest point. It was broken on all sides except the right margin, so the size of the original monument could not be determined. It was made of basalt, which was a very expensive stone in antiquity. Since it would have been costly to produce, the monument could not have been erected by just anybody. It was most likely the work of a king (Fig. 2).
There were thirteen lines of writing preserved on the fragment in an early form of the alphabet. The letters were clear and elegantly inscribed. The language was instantly recognized as Aramaic, the mother tongue of ancient Syria. As with Hebrew, the writing went from right to left. It was the ninth line that caught the collective eye of the first readers. There were the consonants that spelled out the name of David: DWD.
But the name did not stand alone. It was part of a larger word rendered "house of David." This was one source of the controversy generated by the inscription in the first year after its discovery. The occurrence of David's name was not as obvious as it had appeared at first. The same letters used to write his name could have other meanings as well, especially since Aramaic, like ancient Hebrew, was written without vowels. One common proposal was that the phrase actually meant "temple of (a god named) Dod." The broken piece did not preserve enough of the original context to decide between these two (and other) possible readings.
Much of the controversy, however, ended a year later, almost to the day, when the same person who had found the initial fragment spotted two more pieces. Together, they filled in parts of eight of the thirteen lines found the previous year. The original translators read all three pieces together as follows (the portions within brackets are reconstructed and are not actually on the inscription):
1 [... ...] and cut [...]
2. [...] my father went up [against him when] he fought at [...]
3. And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors] (viz. became sick and died). And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king.
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven [...-]
6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]
10. their land into [desolation ...]
11. other [... and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael ... and I laid]
13. siege upon [... ]
It is obvious that the inscription is badly broken. Still, the two new fragments have provided additional context and helped to clarify the date and setting of the inscription. The monument was erected by one of the kings of Aram (ancient Syria) a little before 800 B.C.E. Dan was the northernmost city of ancient Israel and bordered on the territory of Aram (Map 1). The Bible uses the expression "from Dan to Beersheba" several times to refer to the full extent of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15). The two new fragments mention the names of Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, both of whom the author of the inscription claims to have killed. This claim contradicts the Bible, which credits the Israelite general Jehu with the two assassinations (2 Kings 9-10). The contradiction is further reason for considering the inscription genuine. A modern forger would almost certainly parrot the Bible rather than inventing a blatant contradiction to it. The context of the references to these two kings makes it relatively certain that the phrase in line nine means "the house of David."
However, "the house of David" was a title for the nation of Judah or its ruling dynasty. It tells us nothing about David the person or his life. Its occurrence in the Tel Dan stele does seem to support the Bible's claim that David was the founder of the country of Judah and its ruling family. The inscription was written within one hundred fifty years of David's lifetime. It is much closer than anything we had before and shows that David was not a late fiction. But a century and a half is still enough time for legends to develop, especially in a culture without photographs or newspapers. So we must be cautious. The Tel Dan inscription does not prove that David was a historical figure, though it does seem to tip the scales in that direction. Unfortunately, the other two inscriptions are just as ambiguous if not more so and add further complications."
King David
That was covered in my previous post. To wit:
"The Tel Dan Stele
The new discovery was a piece of an inscribed monument or "stele." It was found by accident, as such things usually are, at an archaeological dig in the ruin ("tel") of the ancient city of Dan in northern Israel. It had been reused as building material for a later wall and was near the wall's base. You can imagine the excitement of the person who found it. She was walking along looking at the ground when something about that one stone caught her eye. She knelt to take a closer look and noticed the lines of markings cut into the rock. She recognized it as writing of some kind and immediately called the project director.
The fragment measured 32 by 22 cm. at its widest point. It was broken on all sides except the right margin, so the size of the original monument could not be determined. It was made of basalt, which was a very expensive stone in antiquity. Since it would have been costly to produce, the monument could not have been erected by just anybody. It was most likely the work of a king (Fig. 2).
There were thirteen lines of writing preserved on the fragment in an early form of the alphabet. The letters were clear and elegantly inscribed. The language was instantly recognized as Aramaic, the mother tongue of ancient Syria. As with Hebrew, the writing went from right to left. It was the ninth line that caught the collective eye of the first readers. There were the consonants that spelled out the name of David: DWD.
But the name did not stand alone. It was part of a larger word rendered "house of David." This was one source of the controversy generated by the inscription in the first year after its discovery. The occurrence of David's name was not as obvious as it had appeared at first. The same letters used to write his name could have other meanings as well, especially since Aramaic, like ancient Hebrew, was written without vowels. One common proposal was that the phrase actually meant "temple of (a god named) Dod." The broken piece did not preserve enough of the original context to decide between these two (and other) possible readings.
Much of the controversy, however, ended a year later, almost to the day, when the same person who had found the initial fragment spotted two more pieces. Together, they filled in parts of eight of the thirteen lines found the previous year. The original translators read all three pieces together as follows (the portions within brackets are reconstructed and are not actually on the inscription):
1 [... ...] and cut [...]
2. [...] my father went up [against him when] he fought at [...]
3. And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors] (viz. became sick and died). And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king.
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven [...-]
6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]
10. their land into [desolation ...]
11. other [... and Jehu ru-]
12. led over Is[rael ... and I laid]
13. siege upon [... ]
It is obvious that the inscription is badly broken. Still, the two new fragments have provided additional context and helped to clarify the date and setting of the inscription. The monument was erected by one of the kings of Aram (ancient Syria) a little before 800 B.C.E. Dan was the northernmost city of ancient Israel and bordered on the territory of Aram (Map 1). The Bible uses the expression "from Dan to Beersheba" several times to refer to the full extent of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15). The two new fragments mention the names of Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, both of whom the author of the inscription claims to have killed. This claim contradicts the Bible, which credits the Israelite general Jehu with the two assassinations (2 Kings 9-10). The contradiction is further reason for considering the inscription genuine. A modern forger would almost certainly parrot the Bible rather than inventing a blatant contradiction to it. The context of the references to these two kings makes it relatively certain that the phrase in line nine means "the house of David."
However, "the house of David" was a title for the nation of Judah or its ruling dynasty. It tells us nothing about David the person or his life. Its occurrence in the Tel Dan stele does seem to support the Bible's claim that David was the founder of the country of Judah and its ruling family. The inscription was written within one hundred fifty years of David's lifetime. It is much closer than anything we had before and shows that David was not a late fiction. But a century and a half is still enough time for legends to develop, especially in a culture without photographs or newspapers. So we must be cautious. The Tel Dan inscription does not prove that David was a historical figure, though it does seem to tip the scales in that direction. Unfortunately, the other two inscriptions are just as ambiguous if not more so and add further complications."
King David
Ah, a Christian who denies King David existed. What a unique club!Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.Who said that David or Arthur were fictional. I said they were myths. Do you actually inderstand words in English?
"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Monte says he is a Christian & yet doubts that Jesus existed. Interesting.
Making things up as usual. Of course Jesus Christ existed.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
Ah, a Christian who denies King David existed. What a unique club!Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!A myth that everyone knows conquered Jerusalem and was King of Israel.
Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Monte says he is a Christian & yet doubts that Jesus existed. Interesting.
Making things up as usual. Of course Jesus Christ existed.
Did I say King David (or King Arthur) did not exist? I said there is no archeological proof that they existed, particularly as related in the writings.
The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible - Biblical Archaeology SocietyAh, a Christian who denies King David existed. What a unique club!Yeah, all those archeologiests are wrong, all those historical texts wrong, we got you blowing the lid off of the lies and exposing the truth!Like Arthur had his round table. Most believe it, but there is no proof.
Monte says he is a Christian & yet doubts that Jesus existed. Interesting.
Making things up as usual. Of course Jesus Christ existed.
Did I say King David (or King Arthur) did not exist? I said there is no archeological proof that they existed, particularly as related in the writings.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130721215001.htm
Israel archaeology dig provides evidence of King David's reign
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
New Archaeology Supports Existence of King David
Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 13,241
- 2,285
- 290
Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,106
- 280
Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
View attachment 120842
Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
David Cameron, not an enemy of Israel, described Gaza as a prison camp.
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
- Thread starter
- #276
Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
View attachment 120842Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
David Cameron, not an enemy of Israel, described Gaza as a prison camp.
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Yep! Sure looks like a prison camp. And I blame this on Israel's Zionists.
Gaza: In The Eyes Of The Beholder: Gaza's avant garde beauty revealed
Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
View attachment 120842Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
David Cameron, not an enemy of Israel, described Gaza as a prison camp.
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza Strip’s middle class enjoys spin classes, fine dining, private beaches
A prison camp where people can freely enter and exit?Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
View attachment 120842Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
David Cameron, not an enemy of Israel, described Gaza as a prison camp.
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Another unique club you belong to.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Since you want to quote David Cameron....Who's not allowed to leave? Egypt and Jordan are on the borders of the Pal vermin.Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
View attachment 120842Just a note on semantics: "concentration camp" means "internment camp", and the final goal is not necessarily the extermination of the occupants.
So the comparison is very correct in this case, in particular as both have poor living conditions.
Lots of places in the world have poor living conditions. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Lots of places in the world have border controls. That doesn't make them concentration camps.
Let's not misinterpret actual concentration camps just to demonize Israel.
If I have to go through a border control in order to visit the US -- that does not make Canada a concentration camp.
David Cameron, not an enemy of Israel, described Gaza as a prison camp.
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron
"We’ve got to show that if you say “yes I condemn terror – but the Kuffar are inferior”, or “violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter” – then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence."
"And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash. And like so many ideologies that have existed before – whether fascist or communist – many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it. We need to understand why it is proving so attractive."
"Individuals closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have supported suicide bombing and other attacks in Israel by Hamas, an organisation whose military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001 as a terrorist organisation, and which describes itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood."
xyz
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2016
- 7,892
- 1,343
- 195
Splitting the West BankA prison camp where people can freely enter and exit?
Another unique club you belong to.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Siege
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 202
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 160
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 88
- Replies
- 148
- Views
- 790
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 117
- Replies
- 701
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 173
- Views
- 981
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-