The anti-semite squad

[Kondor3]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Oh Brother, What is your experience with Islam?

Doesn't matter... and you're far too close to the problem and have far too much invested in it, to be able to discern the truth of an outsider's observations.

One need only be a reasonably well-read amateur student of history, and to have read the Q'uran et al once or twice, to arrive at such conclusions.

 

[Kondor3]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Jesus was never a warlord. Muhammad was. Muhammad was also illiterate and insane.

Abraham was also a warlord. He was a Bedouin chieftain.

Genesis 14 portrays Abraham as the commander of his own company of troops, augmented by those of his Amorite allies.

Doesn't matter.

Most modern folk write-off much of the Old Testament as a tribal narrative replete with various morality plays, rather than a historically accurate document.

Adam... Noah... Abraham... and all of that earliest gaggle of characters... it's unlikely that some or all of them even existed, never mind what they were reputed to have done.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, is a historical figure reasonably-well documented, and did, indeed, exist.

Ditto for Muhammed... much to the eventual pain and agony and fear of much of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth was quite probably divinely inspired as a Bringer of Peace and Love.

Muhammed was quite probably hallucinating and suckered a gaggle of early followers and was satanically inspired as a Bringer of War and Slaughter.

Oh... you can have "peace" with Islam... so long as you convert or pay The Tax... but oppose them, or convert to another faith, and you bring a Death Sentence upon yourself.

To this very day Muslims treat non-Muslims as Second Class Citizens within its domains...

No to mention the misogyny...

Or its solution for homosexuality...

Or its punishment for marital infidelity...

Or its solution for discouraging theft...

Primitive Neanderthal phukks...

In the final analysis, Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and Western Democracy, and it needs to stay within its own old domains and not try infecting others.

You're not fooling anyone...

We've got your number...

 

[irosie91]

I do not entirely disagee-----but almost. I actually believe that most of the OT characters
from Moses on DID exist. I, certainly, believe that Jesus existed and that Muhummad did
(unfortunately) did exist. ------and so the EPIC story does move on

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Jesus was never a warlord. Muhammad was. Muhammad was also illiterate and insane.

Abraham was also a warlord. He was a Bedouin chieftain.

Genesis 14 portrays Abraham as the commander of his own company of troops, augmented by those of his Amorite allies.

Doesn't matter.

Most modern folk write-off much of the Old Testament as a tribal narrative replete with various morality plays, rather than a historically accurate document.

Adam... Noah... Abraham... and all of that earliest gaggle of characters... it's unlikely that some or all of them even existed, never mind what they were reputed to have done.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, is a historical figure reasonably-well documented, and did, indeed, exist.

Ditto for Muhammed... much to the eventual pain and agony and fear of much of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth was quite probably divinely inspired as a Bringer of Peace and Love.

Muhammed was quite probably hallucinating and suckered a gaggle of early followers and was satanically inspired as a Bringer of War and Slaughter.

Oh... you can have "peace" with Islam... so long as you convert or pay The Tax... but oppose them, or convert to another faith, and you bring a Death Sentence upon yourself.

To this very day Muslims treat non-Muslims as Second Class Citizens within its domains...

No to mention the misogyny...

Or its solution for homosexuality...

Or its punishment for marital infidelity...

Or its solution for discouraging theft...

Primitive Neanderthal phukks...

In the final analysis, Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and Western Democracy, and it needs to stay within its own old domains and not try infecting others.

You're not fooling anyone...

We've got your number...

Checkmate

 

[Rigby5]

When a Palestinian holds someone hostage, like at the Olympics, that is not terrorism but a desperate attempt to get his rights back.

You have to be JoeB131’s burner account. Nobody else makes such bat-shit crazy lies. You gave the textbook definition of terrorism (holding someone hostage) and then in the exact same sentence, you claim it’s “not” terrorism.

Wrong.
When police arrest a bank robber, you could call that was terrorism as will by your definition, (holding someone hostage).
That is not a valid definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is where you try to illegally force others to surrender their rights through threats of extortion or intimidation.
The Palestinians never did that because they were always in the right.
It was their homes that were illegally taken from them.
So it is impossible for them to be terrorists by any reasonable definition.
The Palestinians never tried to take anything from anyone else, but only wanted their own home returned to them.
Anyone preventing that is automatically a terrorist.

They are always in the right? There was no such thing as a Palestinian until 1967. Their homes were taken because they started the wars and lost them. They are terrorists because the International community identified them as terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups. You don’t know what the word impossible means. I am tired of your fucking bullshit polluting this board. I am going to call your ass out.

That is just totally wrong.
Palestine was created in 1920 and everyone in Palestine knew they were from then on Palestinians.

Name a war started by Palestinians? You can't because there aren't any.
But if you look at the history of what happened in 1946 and later, the constant massacre of Arab villages by Zionists is well documented.
And that is what started the 1948 war.
Look up "masssacre, Dier Yassin", for example.

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zionists are not just crazy, but evil.

Obviously it is the imperialists like the US who are the actual terrorists, and they claim anyone fighting back is a terrorist instead because it is better PR.
But everyone has to know the US is murdering innocents, like in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.

Bullshit you fat mother fucker. Find one just one written word that says those people were “Palestinians” before 1967. You cannot . What was the capital of these Palestinians? When did they compete in the Olympics? Who was their president? Everyone doesn’t know that. You believe that because you’re a deranged fat loser. Stop talking in absolutes you fat coward. When you “everyone” you mean you. I am sick and tried of you, why? You’re a fucking deranged monster. You are a murderer and everyone knows that.
Prove me wrong.

It is easy to prove Palestine was officially created in 1920.

{...
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".[4] A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8 March 1920.[5] The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel-Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
...
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre).[8][9][10]

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[11] Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the League_of_Nations_mandate#Types_of_mandates Class A mandates), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone"[12][13] . Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France also signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain[14] and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[7]

Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
...}

San Remo conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you are confused by what a Jewish homeland within Palestine, it does not mean the whole country was to be for Jewish immigrants, but only than Jews would be given immigration priority for a homeland WITHIN a primarily Moslem Arab Palestine.

To prove that, you need then to read Churchill's Whitepaper of 1922.

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Which clearly says Palestine was to be primarily for the Arab, Moslem, native, Palestinians, but just that Jewish immigration would be facilitated.

 

[Rigby5]

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Personally, I believe the disgusting idiot Palestinians need to be exterminated from the face of the Earth. But that's just me

So then to you might makes right, regardless of concepts like justice, ancestral ownership, etc.?
How have the Palestinians ever harmed anyone?
They were on the side of the Allies in WWI, under the promise of independence if they helped and won.
They kept their side of the bargain, but we did not keep our side.
We never allowed them to be free as we were supposed to.

Don't you Mulims pretending you aren't Muslim ever tire of your taqiyya?

The "Palestinian" people had not been invented yet, and the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi collaborator.

Its become fashionable lately to blame the Mufti and the Palestinians for the Holocaust in Europe. Do you think it justifies what the European refugees have done?

Fashionable or factual? LOL

Again, every mostly Muslim country in the world is a humanitarian nightmare for gays and women. You cannot dispute that so you constantly dodge this inconvenient fact. We don’t want nor need another Islamist country.

The whole point of Islam was to give women more rights than they had under the previous Judaism.
Under Judaism, women were considered to not have a soul, could not vote, divorce, inherit, own property, testify, etc.
Mohammad married a wealthy widow, and to show his gratitude, he tried to modify Judaism to be better for women.
Islam is nearly identical to Judaism except that women are considered to have a soul, could vote, divorce, inherit, own property, testify, etc.

The only problem with Islamic countries is that they have such a long history of Judaism that they are still practicing Judaism instead of Islam.
For example stoning adulterers and killing gays.
That is Judaism, not Islam.
The Quran does not allow for either of these capital punishments.

^^^^^ rigie has out rigied himself...... BUT it is so good to know that
MECCA was once a jewish town (like Medina) The arabs never PAID US
for it. We have a RIGHT ----under international law to GET IT BACK .....along
with Baghdad and Alexandria

Nonsense. Judaism of the Old Testament does not at all imply that modern Jews have any ownership.
In fact, the Old Testament is so bad, Jews should be embarrassed by it and disavowing it.

 

[Rigby5]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Jesus was never a warlord. Muhammad was. Muhammad was also illiterate and insane.

Abraham was also a warlord. He was a Bedouin chieftain.

Genesis 14 portrays Abraham as the commander of his own company of troops, augmented by those of his Amorite allies.

Doesn't matter.

Most modern folk write-off much of the Old Testament as a tribal narrative replete with various morality plays, rather than a historically accurate document.

Adam... Noah... Abraham... and all of that earliest gaggle of characters... it's unlikely that some or all of them even existed, never mind what they were reputed to have done.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, is a historical figure reasonably-well documented, and did, indeed, exist.

Ditto for Muhammed... much to the eventual pain and agony and fear of much of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth was quite probably divinely inspired as a Bringer of Peace and Love.

Muhammed was quite probably hallucinating and suckered a gaggle of early followers and was satanically inspired as a Bringer of War and Slaughter.

Oh... you can have "peace" with Islam... so long as you convert or pay The Tax... but oppose them, or convert to another faith, and you bring a Death Sentence upon yourself.

To this very day Muslims treat non-Muslims as Second Class Citizens within its domains...

No to mention the misogyny...

Or its solution for homosexuality...

Or its punishment for marital infidelity...

Or its solution for discouraging theft...

Primitive Neanderthal phukks...

In the final analysis, Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and Western Democracy, and it needs to stay within its own old domains and not try infecting others.

You're not fooling anyone...

We've got your number...

Checkmate

Wrong.
The penalties for theft, like cutting off a hand, comes from Judaism, not Mohammad.

9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

{...
Matthew 5:30
If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

2 Samuel 4:12
Then David commanded the young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hung them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-bosheth and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron.

Deuteronomy 25:12
then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Proverbs 26:6
He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence
Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

1 Samuel 5:4
But when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him.

Judges 1:6
But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued him and caught him and cut off his thumbs and big toes.

Judges 1:7
Adoni-bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and their big toes cut off used to gather up scraps under my table; as I have done, so God has repaid me.” So they brought him to Jerusalem and he died there.

Source: 9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet
...}

But Mohammad allows for so many ways to avoid it, that it likely never happened.
For example, all the thief has to do is pay compensation for what was stolen.

{...
Below are some of the restriction on the punishment of cutting off the hand of a thief:

• This penalty can only be prescribed by a judge. Therefore, either the owner of the property or other eyewitnesses must apply to the authorities for the judgment first.
• To be able to mention this penalty, the stolen property must be somewhere preserved. If the stolen property was not in a preserved area, the crime is not qualified as theft and the punishment is not implemented.
• Nobody’s hand can be cut off if a person or his/her family for whom he/she is responsible to take care of was starving and therefore stole food. In other words, if their life was in danger, the hand amputation punishment is not implemented.
• None of God’s verses address the children. That clearly means: children are not liable towards God. Their parents or guardians are responsible to teach them what is good or bad, what is lawful or forbidden, until they reach puberty. Then, when they reach the puberty, they become responsible for complying with God’s commands and prohibitions. So, a child who has not reached the puberty cannot be judged by the criminal law for his misdeeds, let alone having his/her hand cut off.
• If the crime was committed in threat of life or under any other type of coercion, the punishment is not implemented.
• If there are no witnesses and the thief himself/herself admits the crime and repents before being caught, the penalty is not implemented.

Still, some ignorant people rush to judge the laws of Islamic Shari’ah, their penalties and sentences as harsh. They grieve for the hand that is cut, but forget, or want to forget, the crime that this hand committed, and the permanent negative effect on the public peace and the evil that the crime entails. They take pity on the criminal and not on the victim.

It should be noted that the Prophet was not a violent or cruel man. Our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a righteous man who strove intensely for justice, and everything he did was in accordance with the commandments of Allah. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of great qualities. People, even who hated him, saw in him exceptional qualities. He was, as the Qur’an eloquently states, a man of exalted character:

“You are of a great nature and morals.” (al-Qalam 68: 4)

In all of the cases where hand amputation punishment is not implemented, the rights of the victim must also be protected. Then, the thief has to pay for a compensation fee and another fee as punishment. This is called “muqabalah bi’l mithl = equivalent retaliation”. Please see the following link about this:

http://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/on-what-circumstances-the-hand-of-a-thief-should-be-cut-off.html
...}

Were the hands of thieves cut off at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? - Islam and the Quran

The verses on the punishment of theft are as follows: .وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ فَمَنْ تَابَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ “Cut off...

www.islamandquran.org

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When a Palestinian holds someone hostage, like at the Olympics, that is not terrorism but a desperate attempt to get his rights back.

You have to be JoeB131’s burner account. Nobody else makes such bat-shit crazy lies. You gave the textbook definition of terrorism (holding someone hostage) and then in the exact same sentence, you claim it’s “not” terrorism.

Wrong.
When police arrest a bank robber, you could call that was terrorism as will by your definition, (holding someone hostage).
That is not a valid definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is where you try to illegally force others to surrender their rights through threats of extortion or intimidation.
The Palestinians never did that because they were always in the right.
It was their homes that were illegally taken from them.
So it is impossible for them to be terrorists by any reasonable definition.
The Palestinians never tried to take anything from anyone else, but only wanted their own home returned to them.
Anyone preventing that is automatically a terrorist.

They are always in the right? There was no such thing as a Palestinian until 1967. Their homes were taken because they started the wars and lost them. They are terrorists because the International community identified them as terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups. You don’t know what the word impossible means. I am tired of your fucking bullshit polluting this board. I am going to call your ass out.

That is just totally wrong.
Palestine was created in 1920 and everyone in Palestine knew they were from then on Palestinians.

Name a war started by Palestinians? You can't because there aren't any.
But if you look at the history of what happened in 1946 and later, the constant massacre of Arab villages by Zionists is well documented.
And that is what started the 1948 war.
Look up "masssacre, Dier Yassin", for example.

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zionists are not just crazy, but evil.

Obviously it is the imperialists like the US who are the actual terrorists, and they claim anyone fighting back is a terrorist instead because it is better PR.
But everyone has to know the US is murdering innocents, like in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.

Bullshit you fat mother fucker. Find one just one written word that says those people were “Palestinians” before 1967. You cannot . What was the capital of these Palestinians? When did they compete in the Olympics? Who was their president? Everyone doesn’t know that. You believe that because you’re a deranged fat loser. Stop talking in absolutes you fat coward. When you “everyone” you mean you. I am sick and tried of you, why? You’re a fucking deranged monster. You are a murderer and everyone knows that.
Prove me wrong.

It is easy to prove Palestine was officially created in 1920.

{...
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".[4] A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8 March 1920.[5] The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel-Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
...
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre).[8][9][10]

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[11] Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the League_of_Nations_mandate#Types_of_mandates Class A mandates), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone"[12][13] . Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France also signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain[14] and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[7]

Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
...}

San Remo conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you are confused by what a Jewish homeland within Palestine, it does not mean the whole country was to be for Jewish immigrants, but only than Jews would be given immigration priority for a homeland WITHIN a primarily Moslem Arab Palestine.

To prove that, you need then to read Churchill's Whitepaper of 1922.

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Which clearly says Palestine was to be primarily for the Arab, Moslem, native, Palestinians, but just that Jewish immigration would be facilitated.

Didn’t read one word you long winded loser. I said “Palestinian” when was the word “Palestinian” first used. Glad you wasted your time writing all that drivel.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Personally, I believe the disgusting idiot Palestinians need to be exterminated from the face of the Earth. But that's just me

So then to you might makes right, regardless of concepts like justice, ancestral ownership, etc.?
How have the Palestinians ever harmed anyone?
They were on the side of the Allies in WWI, under the promise of independence if they helped and won.
They kept their side of the bargain, but we did not keep our side.
We never allowed them to be free as we were supposed to.

Don't you Mulims pretending you aren't Muslim ever tire of your taqiyya?

The "Palestinian" people had not been invented yet, and the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi collaborator.

Its become fashionable lately to blame the Mufti and the Palestinians for the Holocaust in Europe. Do you think it justifies what the European refugees have done?

Fashionable or factual? LOL

Again, every mostly Muslim country in the world is a humanitarian nightmare for gays and women. You cannot dispute that so you constantly dodge this inconvenient fact. We don’t want nor need another Islamist country.

The whole point of Islam was to give women more rights than they had under the previous Judaism.
Under Judaism, women were considered to not have a soul, could not vote, divorce, inherit, own property, testify, etc.
Mohammad married a wealthy widow, and to show his gratitude, he tried to modify Judaism to be better for women.
Islam is nearly identical to Judaism except that women are considered to have a soul, could vote, divorce, inherit, own property, testify, etc.

The only problem with Islamic countries is that they have such a long history of Judaism that they are still practicing Judaism instead of Islam.
For example stoning adulterers and killing gays.
That is Judaism, not Islam.
The Quran does not allow for either of these capital punishments.

^^^^^ rigie has out rigied himself...... BUT it is so good to know that
MECCA was once a jewish town (like Medina) The arabs never PAID US
for it. We have a RIGHT ----under international law to GET IT BACK .....along
with Baghdad and Alexandria

Nonsense. Judaism of the Old Testament does not at all imply that modern Jews have any ownership.
In fact, the Old Testament is so bad, Jews should be embarrassed by it and disavowing it.

I am embarrassed by you. Why? You’re not a Jew. You’re an Islamist like that zombie, surada.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Jesus was never a warlord. Muhammad was. Muhammad was also illiterate and insane.

Abraham was also a warlord. He was a Bedouin chieftain.

Genesis 14 portrays Abraham as the commander of his own company of troops, augmented by those of his Amorite allies.

Doesn't matter.

Most modern folk write-off much of the Old Testament as a tribal narrative replete with various morality plays, rather than a historically accurate document.

Adam... Noah... Abraham... and all of that earliest gaggle of characters... it's unlikely that some or all of them even existed, never mind what they were reputed to have done.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, is a historical figure reasonably-well documented, and did, indeed, exist.

Ditto for Muhammed... much to the eventual pain and agony and fear of much of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth was quite probably divinely inspired as a Bringer of Peace and Love.

Muhammed was quite probably hallucinating and suckered a gaggle of early followers and was satanically inspired as a Bringer of War and Slaughter.

Oh... you can have "peace" with Islam... so long as you convert or pay The Tax... but oppose them, or convert to another faith, and you bring a Death Sentence upon yourself.

To this very day Muslims treat non-Muslims as Second Class Citizens within its domains...

No to mention the misogyny...

Or its solution for homosexuality...

Or its punishment for marital infidelity...

Or its solution for discouraging theft...

Primitive Neanderthal phukks...

In the final analysis, Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and Western Democracy, and it needs to stay within its own old domains and not try infecting others.

You're not fooling anyone...

We've got your number...

Checkmate

Wrong.
The penalties for theft, like cutting off a hand, comes from Judaism, not Mohammad.

9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

{...
Matthew 5:30
If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

2 Samuel 4:12
Then David commanded the young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hung them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-bosheth and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron.

Deuteronomy 25:12
then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Proverbs 26:6
He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence
Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

1 Samuel 5:4
But when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him.

Judges 1:6
But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued him and caught him and cut off his thumbs and big toes.

Judges 1:7
Adoni-bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and their big toes cut off used to gather up scraps under my table; as I have done, so God has repaid me.” So they brought him to Jerusalem and he died there.

Source: 9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet
...}

But Mohammad allows for so many ways to avoid it, that it likely never happened.
For example, all the thief has to do is pay compensation for what was stolen.

{...
Below are some of the restriction on the punishment of cutting off the hand of a thief:

• This penalty can only be prescribed by a judge. Therefore, either the owner of the property or other eyewitnesses must apply to the authorities for the judgment first.
• To be able to mention this penalty, the stolen property must be somewhere preserved. If the stolen property was not in a preserved area, the crime is not qualified as theft and the punishment is not implemented.
• Nobody’s hand can be cut off if a person or his/her family for whom he/she is responsible to take care of was starving and therefore stole food. In other words, if their life was in danger, the hand amputation punishment is not implemented.
• None of God’s verses address the children. That clearly means: children are not liable towards God. Their parents or guardians are responsible to teach them what is good or bad, what is lawful or forbidden, until they reach puberty. Then, when they reach the puberty, they become responsible for complying with God’s commands and prohibitions. So, a child who has not reached the puberty cannot be judged by the criminal law for his misdeeds, let alone having his/her hand cut off.
• If the crime was committed in threat of life or under any other type of coercion, the punishment is not implemented.
• If there are no witnesses and the thief himself/herself admits the crime and repents before being caught, the penalty is not implemented.

Still, some ignorant people rush to judge the laws of Islamic Shari’ah, their penalties and sentences as harsh. They grieve for the hand that is cut, but forget, or want to forget, the crime that this hand committed, and the permanent negative effect on the public peace and the evil that the crime entails. They take pity on the criminal and not on the victim.

It should be noted that the Prophet was not a violent or cruel man. Our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a righteous man who strove intensely for justice, and everything he did was in accordance with the commandments of Allah. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of great qualities. People, even who hated him, saw in him exceptional qualities. He was, as the Qur’an eloquently states, a man of exalted character:

“You are of a great nature and morals.” (al-Qalam 68: 4)

In all of the cases where hand amputation punishment is not implemented, the rights of the victim must also be protected. Then, the thief has to pay for a compensation fee and another fee as punishment. This is called “muqabalah bi’l mithl = equivalent retaliation”. Please see the following link about this:

http://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/on-what-circumstances-the-hand-of-a-thief-should-be-cut-off.html
...}

Were the hands of thieves cut off at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? - Islam and the Quran

The verses on the punishment of theft are as follows: .وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ فَمَنْ تَابَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ “Cut off...

www.islamandquran.org

You stupid long winded fat fuck. Kondor3 posted that not I. Judaism evolved you fucking loser. Islam is still primitive like you. Go into Tel Aviv and say you’re gay. Nothing happens. Now do the same in Gaza, or the KSA or Iraq…see how that goes for you. Fuck off. Until you can be concise and debate honestly, I am going to constantly embarrass your old unemployed ass.

 

[Rigby5]

Doesn't matter... and you're far too close to the problem and have far too much invested in it, to be able to discern the truth of an outsider's observations.

One need only be a reasonably well-read amateur student of history, and to have read the Q'uran et al once or twice, to arrive at such conclusions.

That isn't really true.
Jesus wrote nothing that we have now.
What was written about Jesus was done hundreds of years later by people intending to deliberately create a cult.
And while that does not have to be bad, since it was promoted by the Romans, it likely was done with bad intent.

 

[Rigby5]

When a Palestinian holds someone hostage, like at the Olympics, that is not terrorism but a desperate attempt to get his rights back.

You have to be JoeB131’s burner account. Nobody else makes such bat-shit crazy lies. You gave the textbook definition of terrorism (holding someone hostage) and then in the exact same sentence, you claim it’s “not” terrorism.

Wrong.
When police arrest a bank robber, you could call that was terrorism as will by your definition, (holding someone hostage).
That is not a valid definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is where you try to illegally force others to surrender their rights through threats of extortion or intimidation.
The Palestinians never did that because they were always in the right.
It was their homes that were illegally taken from them.
So it is impossible for them to be terrorists by any reasonable definition.
The Palestinians never tried to take anything from anyone else, but only wanted their own home returned to them.
Anyone preventing that is automatically a terrorist.

They are always in the right? There was no such thing as a Palestinian until 1967. Their homes were taken because they started the wars and lost them. They are terrorists because the International community identified them as terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups. You don’t know what the word impossible means. I am tired of your fucking bullshit polluting this board. I am going to call your ass out.

That is just totally wrong.
Palestine was created in 1920 and everyone in Palestine knew they were from then on Palestinians.

Name a war started by Palestinians? You can't because there aren't any.
But if you look at the history of what happened in 1946 and later, the constant massacre of Arab villages by Zionists is well documented.
And that is what started the 1948 war.
Look up "masssacre, Dier Yassin", for example.

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zionists are not just crazy, but evil.

Obviously it is the imperialists like the US who are the actual terrorists, and they claim anyone fighting back is a terrorist instead because it is better PR.
But everyone has to know the US is murdering innocents, like in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.

Bullshit you fat mother fucker. Find one just one written word that says those people were “Palestinians” before 1967. You cannot . What was the capital of these Palestinians? When did they compete in the Olympics? Who was their president? Everyone doesn’t know that. You believe that because you’re a deranged fat loser. Stop talking in absolutes you fat coward. When you “everyone” you mean you. I am sick and tried of you, why? You’re a fucking deranged monster. You are a murderer and everyone knows that.
Prove me wrong.

It is easy to prove Palestine was officially created in 1920.

{...
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".[4] A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8 March 1920.[5] The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel-Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
...
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre).[8][9][10]

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[11] Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the League_of_Nations_mandate#Types_of_mandates Class A mandates), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone"[12][13] . Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France also signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain[14] and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[7]

Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
...}

San Remo conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you are confused by what a Jewish homeland within Palestine, it does not mean the whole country was to be for Jewish immigrants, but only than Jews would be given immigration priority for a homeland WITHIN a primarily Moslem Arab Palestine.

To prove that, you need then to read Churchill's Whitepaper of 1922.

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Which clearly says Palestine was to be primarily for the Arab, Moslem, native, Palestinians, but just that Jewish immigration would be facilitated.

Didn’t read one word you long winded loser. I said “Palestinian” when was the word “Palestinian” first used. Glad you wasted your time writing all that drivel.

The word "Palestinian" referred to the Philistines around 1500 BC.
But "Palestinian" referred to all the Arabs of the Levant west of the Jordan River, after 1920.

 

[Rigby5]

I am embarrassed by you. Why? You’re not a Jew. You’re an Islamist like that zombie, surada.

Unlikely.
From Surada's speech pattern, I would say British or Indian, and more likely Hindi than Moslem.
Zionism is corrupt and evil, and it makes me angry not only because it harms others, but also will cause all Jews like me to be harmed as well.

 

[Rigby5]

You stupid long winded fat fuck. @Kondor3 posted that not I. Judaism evolved you fucking loser. Islam is still primitive like you. Go into Tel Aviv and say you’re gay. Nothing happens. Now do the same in Gaza, or the KSA or Iraq…see how that goes for you. Fuck off. Until you can be concise and debate honestly, I am going to constantly embarrass your old unemployed ass.

I just replied, so then can't have it wrong.
Your post said, "Checkmate", implying agreement with Kondor3.

But I will agree that Judaism evolved and I do like Judaism more than Islam for that reason.
However, don't you see that Zionism has NOT evolved, and is a throw back to even before and worse than Islam?
Who massacres hundreds of villages any more, except Zionists?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When a Palestinian holds someone hostage, like at the Olympics, that is not terrorism but a desperate attempt to get his rights back.

You have to be JoeB131’s burner account. Nobody else makes such bat-shit crazy lies. You gave the textbook definition of terrorism (holding someone hostage) and then in the exact same sentence, you claim it’s “not” terrorism.

Wrong.
When police arrest a bank robber, you could call that was terrorism as will by your definition, (holding someone hostage).
That is not a valid definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is where you try to illegally force others to surrender their rights through threats of extortion or intimidation.
The Palestinians never did that because they were always in the right.
It was their homes that were illegally taken from them.
So it is impossible for them to be terrorists by any reasonable definition.
The Palestinians never tried to take anything from anyone else, but only wanted their own home returned to them.
Anyone preventing that is automatically a terrorist.

They are always in the right? There was no such thing as a Palestinian until 1967. Their homes were taken because they started the wars and lost them. They are terrorists because the International community identified them as terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are terror groups. You don’t know what the word impossible means. I am tired of your fucking bullshit polluting this board. I am going to call your ass out.

That is just totally wrong.
Palestine was created in 1920 and everyone in Palestine knew they were from then on Palestinians.

Name a war started by Palestinians? You can't because there aren't any.
But if you look at the history of what happened in 1946 and later, the constant massacre of Arab villages by Zionists is well documented.
And that is what started the 1948 war.
Look up "masssacre, Dier Yassin", for example.

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zionists are not just crazy, but evil.

Obviously it is the imperialists like the US who are the actual terrorists, and they claim anyone fighting back is a terrorist instead because it is better PR.
But everyone has to know the US is murdering innocents, like in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.

Bullshit you fat mother fucker. Find one just one written word that says those people were “Palestinians” before 1967. You cannot . What was the capital of these Palestinians? When did they compete in the Olympics? Who was their president? Everyone doesn’t know that. You believe that because you’re a deranged fat loser. Stop talking in absolutes you fat coward. When you “everyone” you mean you. I am sick and tried of you, why? You’re a fucking deranged monster. You are a murderer and everyone knows that.
Prove me wrong.

It is easy to prove Palestine was officially created in 1920.

{...
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".[4] A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8 March 1920.[5] The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel-Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
...
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre).[8][9][10]

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[11] Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the League_of_Nations_mandate#Types_of_mandates Class A mandates), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone"[12][13] . Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France also signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain[14] and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[7]

Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
...}

San Remo conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you are confused by what a Jewish homeland within Palestine, it does not mean the whole country was to be for Jewish immigrants, but only than Jews would be given immigration priority for a homeland WITHIN a primarily Moslem Arab Palestine.

To prove that, you need then to read Churchill's Whitepaper of 1922.

{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Which clearly says Palestine was to be primarily for the Arab, Moslem, native, Palestinians, but just that Jewish immigration would be facilitated.

Didn’t read one word you long winded loser. I said “Palestinian” when was the word “Palestinian” first used. Glad you wasted your time writing all that drivel.

The word "Palestinian" referred to the Philistines around 1500 BC.
But "Palestinian" referred to all the Arabs of the Levant west of the Jordan River, after 1920.

Link…to Palestinians in the 20th century prior to 1967. Word was never used. Nice deflection.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am embarrassed by you. Why? You’re not a Jew. You’re an Islamist like that zombie, surada.

Unlikely.
From Surada's speech pattern, I would say British or Indian, and more likely Hindi than Moslem.
Zionism is corrupt and evil, and it makes me angry not only because it harms others, but also will cause all Jews like me to be harmed as well.

What does Zionism mean to you? Surada is from Pakistan.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You stupid long winded fat fuck. @Kondor3 posted that not I. Judaism evolved you fucking loser. Islam is still primitive like you. Go into Tel Aviv and say you’re gay. Nothing happens. Now do the same in Gaza, or the KSA or Iraq…see how that goes for you. Fuck off. Until you can be concise and debate honestly, I am going to constantly embarrass your old unemployed ass.

I just replied, so then can't have it wrong.
Your post said, "Checkmate", implying agreement with Kondor3.

But I will agree that Judaism evolved and I do like Judaism more than Islam for that reason.
However, don't you see that Zionism has NOT evolved, and is a throw back to even before and worse than Islam?
Who massacres hundreds of villages any more, except Zionists?

What the fuck is Zionism? To me it means that Jews should have their own country. Nothing more. You defend Islam to the death so spare me.

 

[Kondor3]

Doesn't matter... and you're far too close to the problem and have far too much invested in it, to be able to discern the truth of an outsider's observations.

One need only be a reasonably well-read amateur student of history, and to have read the Q'uran et al once or twice, to arrive at such conclusions.

That isn't really true.
Jesus wrote nothing that we have now.
What was written about Jesus was done hundreds of years later by people intending to deliberately create a cult.
And while that does not have to be bad, since it was promoted by the Romans, it likely was done with bad intent.

Au contraire...

 

[irosie91]

I am embarrassed by you. Why? You’re not a Jew. You’re an Islamist like that zombie, surada.

Unlikely.
From Surada's speech pattern, I would say British or Indian, and more likely Hindi than Moslem.
Zionism is corrupt and evil, and it makes me angry not only because it harms others, but also will cause all Jews like me to be harmed as well.

What does Zionism mean to you? Surada is from Pakistan.

is the surada jerk from Pakistan? I am fascinated. The very first muslims
I knew well were pakistani-----some of them never met a jew before meeting
me but they were TOLD ALL ABOUT JUDAISM during the Khutbah Jumaat FECES
FLINGS. They are thoroughly brain washed drones.

 

[Kondor3]

"But understand does it exist in the detriment of inequality for the Palestinian people? The detriment of not moving forward in a peaceful resolution," she continued. "We're never going to have peace, I truly believe, if separate but equal is the way they want to go.

I quite agree. She comes from a Palestinian family what the hell do you expect her to say, the Jews have a right to kill as many as the Palestinians as want and to steal all the land.

Is that it??

a practicing Jew and a Palestinian talking. He has the nerve to ask her those questions.

We expect her to represent the perspective of her constituency, not her own personal prejudices.

Of course, if the majority of her constituents are also anti-Semiters or anti-Israel scum, then they may be safely ridiculed and firmly refuted.

Lib-Prog-Dems can be every bit as obtuse and disingenuous in defense of their own as Rumpian scum - in ways both different AND similar.

Democrats have a lot of Jewish in Congress, more than republicans who have 1 or 2.

Yep.

Some understand the existential fight for Eretz Yisrael and support it and denounce filth like Omar.

Others, content to live in the Diaspora and shielded from EuroTrash and MuzzieScum by the Atlantic Ocean, betray and abandon their co-religionists.

Lib-Prog-Dems, foolishly trying to be All Things To All People and lacking the ball$ to take a stand, throw Israel under the bus, every chance they get.

Not all... mind you... but enough to create and sustain the stereotype.

You sure are a hater.

Nope... I don't hate anyone... but I believe that the idiot Palestinians need to be forcibly relocated to the East Bank of the Jordan forevermore.

Hitler inspired?

yes-----it seems ALL muslims are adolf lovers, even the non-arabs and
EVEN including the Iranians who actually despise the arabs

She was calling for removal of all Palestiinians. So much for Judeo/Christian morals.

To hell with the so-called Palestinians... fools, idiots, whiners and losers... time to shove 'em across the Jordan... for keeps...

Have you ever been to Jordan or East Jerusalem or the West Bank? Christian and Muslim Palestinians are quite friendly and hospitable.

Doesn't make any difference... they cannot co-exist with the new Masters of that land... vae victus... time for the Palestinians to face reality and relocate.

The world is tired of listening to Palestinian bull$hit and excuses... and the Israelis aren't going anywhere... one of 'em has to go... it will be the Palestinians.

Might as well get it over with sooner rather than later and spare the world their whining and more pointless bloodshed... leave... and live.

The European Zionists were refugees. Now they have been on the dole for 70 years.

Rubbish. They came. They saw. They conquered. The Jews are now the Masters of the old Romano-Turkic province of 'Palestine', not your Muzzie pals.

Yes, but you seem to forget that is illegal to "Come, Saw, and Conqueror", a crime, immoral and unethical.
The Muslim Arabs are the indigenous natives and had the right to live there in peace.
The illegal European Jewish immigrants are in violation of the law originally, and have only compounded it with much greater violations of law, such as murder and home confiscations.
What you seem to forget is that the Romans and Turks were also criminals for their illegal invasion and conquest.
The Palestinians had earned independence through their assistance to the Allies in WWI, and are now required to have that independence upheld.
The Allies signed the treaties ensuring Palestinian independence.
They can't legally renege now.

The Holy Land has changed hands so many times that "indigenous" has very little meaning.

Rather like having your living room in the middle of a four-lane high-speed highway...

To the Devil with the idiot Palestinians...

Not at all true.

The Canaanites were the first to prosper in the Levant we now call Palestine, and it still is largely inhabited by Canaanite Palestinians.
The Egyptians invaded a few times, but they did nothing to change the population or have much effect.
Same with the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrew, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, etc.
The invaders did not stay or change the demographics significantly.

The people who are indigenous natives and did stay, are the Palestinians.
They are the Canaanites, Chaldeans. Akkadians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Amorites, Urites, Nabatians, etc.

The Hebrew were not native, and did not stay.
The Israelis are attempting to implement a myth that was never true.
There likely was no King David, there is no Chosen People or Promised Land.

Rigby you weren’t there, you don’t know. Yes or no?

I do not have to have been there in order to know.
This is not prehistoric, and there are plenty of accounts written at the time that we now can read.
Just ask yourself if when Rome invaded Greece, if the demographics of Athens and Sparta suddenly became all Roman the Greeks are were killed or driven off?
Of course not.
The whole point of invasion is almost always just to add the economic strength and productivity to the empire.
That is always how imperialism works.
And historians can also tell by tracing culture, such as written language.
We know the Amorites were not killed off by the Hebrew invasion because we know the Hebrew did not have a written script and instead use Aramaic.
We know the Hebrew did not rule long because they were beaten by the Babylonians, then the Assyrians, and later by the Romans.

I also know the Hebrew were not the Chosen People and the Land of Canaan was not the Promised Land because that would be immoral.
To place one people over others would be immoral, and to take occupied land and give it to others would be immoral.
And if God is that immoral, I would prefer to believe God then did not exist.

Morality is subjective. I consider Your posts to be immoral. Why would that make me wrong? It would not. God is also based on faith not fact. Pretty convenient.

Human morality is not totally subjective.
Humans are not just social animals by conditioning after birth, but have inherent instincts that make them social.
Its like any primate, such as Meerkats, that survive through collective social instincts, like empathy.
That is why all but a few psychotic feel it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc., and that is why most people do not fool a lie detector test.

God is faith based, but the values we have built in would have to reflect the values of God, if we were created by God.
So an anti social God creating humans to be social, would be a contradiction.

So which religion is “moral”? Islam and Christianity blast gays and sex before marriage. So both are immoral then. Are Protestants or Catholics moral? Are Shia or Sunni moral? Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice? Which is more moral. Humans are social but not all humans hence we have introverts and extroverts. Hyenas travel in packs too and steal food and hunt cute little animals. Are they moral?

Is boxing moral? Is football moral? People die participating in those events. Is allowing transgender women to compete vs biological women in the Olympics moral? Pretty sure ancient Greeks would disagree. Yet me questioning this is immortal to many.

Morality is subjective. Next…

All religions tend to not be moral.
That is because religions are not according to our inherent instincts, but instead are attempts by the powerful elite to control and change what we think is moral or not, even when in conflict with our inherent instincts.
If religion was moral, then we would not need it since we already would do as we know is moral.
Religion is to get you to do what is immoral.

They morality of all animals differ.
It depends on evolution.

Transgender competing in sports is immoral in my opinion.

Morality is not subjective within the human species, just confusing.

Now it’s in your opinion but usually you say “everyone knows”. Islam was based on conquest and Muhammad was a warlord. That is indisputable. Morality is 100% subjective. Are you pro life or pro choice?

Muhammed never left the Arabian Peninsula after the Call.. after hiis caravan days.. ... so he wasn't "conquering".

What does abortion rights have to do with this discussion?

How is morality subjective? The ten commandments is pretty clear. Muslims follow the same ones. .. and also the Golden Rule.

Bull$hit...

Muhammed... P(eanut butter and jelly) B(e) U(pon) Him... was a Jim Jones type of hallucinatory televangelist in the pre-television age.

He got lucky and suckered a great many people into following him after inventing a collection of scripture largely plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity...

His is the last large-scale Warrior Religion remaining on the face of the planet... and therefore an ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the world...

He was a bloodthirsty self-excusing conqueror who shifted the blame to God for all of the blood he shed or that would later be shed in the name of Islam...

Worse yet... he promised his simple-minded followers that anyone who died in defense of Islam or Muslims got a free ticket to Paradise...

Muhammed wasn't a conqueror? You apparently haven't read much of his conquest of the Arabian peninsula or his slaughter of Jews and Christians when convenient.

You may be an idiot.

Everybody in the OT also had visions.

Abraham was also a warlord ..

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with ...

Genesis 21:22–34: Abraham makes seven-fold covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba

Abraham seals a contract with King Abimelech for a well and seals it with a seven-fold oath in the form of seven ewes.

hallel.info

Abraham is not just a wealthy nomad, Abraham was a warlord after he conquered the five kings that had conquered Sodom and the five cities of the plain. Abimelech also knew that Elohim, who called Abraham His prophet, had destroyed those cities Himself with fire and brimstone. Abimelech asks Abraham to promise not to “deal falsely” with him.

Fortunately for the world, Jesus of Nazareth set aside the worst elements of the Old Testament and served-up a new, peaceful and loving vision for Mankind.

Muhammed (a religious Johnny-come-lately who was ridiculed by Jews and Christians alike for his weird plagiarized pseudo-theology) was just a throw-back.

Poor Jesus----He was, clearly, a HILLEL man. He was very moderate----just like Hillel whom
he quoted incessantly-------unfortunately he was over-ruled by Constantine and his Minions---especially that maniac JUSTIN who galvanized genocides

Oh, there is no dispute over whether Christianity has been hijacked from time to time by secular rulers who connived to put a Divine spin on their agendas.

But, unlike Islam, the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth always provide a Self-Correcting Mechanism that Islam lacks and which it will never acquire.

Jesus was never a warlord. Muhammad was. Muhammad was also illiterate and insane.

Abraham was also a warlord. He was a Bedouin chieftain.

Genesis 14 portrays Abraham as the commander of his own company of troops, augmented by those of his Amorite allies.

Doesn't matter.

Most modern folk write-off much of the Old Testament as a tribal narrative replete with various morality plays, rather than a historically accurate document.

Adam... Noah... Abraham... and all of that earliest gaggle of characters... it's unlikely that some or all of them even existed, never mind what they were reputed to have done.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, is a historical figure reasonably-well documented, and did, indeed, exist.

Ditto for Muhammed... much to the eventual pain and agony and fear of much of the world.

Jesus of Nazareth was quite probably divinely inspired as a Bringer of Peace and Love.

Muhammed was quite probably hallucinating and suckered a gaggle of early followers and was satanically inspired as a Bringer of War and Slaughter.

Oh... you can have "peace" with Islam... so long as you convert or pay The Tax... but oppose them, or convert to another faith, and you bring a Death Sentence upon yourself.

To this very day Muslims treat non-Muslims as Second Class Citizens within its domains...

No to mention the misogyny...

Or its solution for homosexuality...

Or its punishment for marital infidelity...

Or its solution for discouraging theft...

Primitive Neanderthal phukks...

In the final analysis, Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization and Western Democracy, and it needs to stay within its own old domains and not try infecting others.

You're not fooling anyone...

We've got your number...

Checkmate

Wrong.
The penalties for theft, like cutting off a hand, comes from Judaism, not Mohammad.

9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

{...
Matthew 5:30
If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

2 Samuel 4:12
Then David commanded the young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hung them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-bosheth and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron.

Deuteronomy 25:12
then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Proverbs 26:6
He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence
Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

1 Samuel 5:4
But when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him.

Judges 1:6
But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued him and caught him and cut off his thumbs and big toes.

Judges 1:7
Adoni-bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and their big toes cut off used to gather up scraps under my table; as I have done, so God has repaid me.” So they brought him to Jerusalem and he died there.

Source: 9 Bible verses about Cutting Off Hands And Feet
...}

But Mohammad allows for so many ways to avoid it, that it likely never happened.
For example, all the thief has to do is pay compensation for what was stolen.

{...
Below are some of the restriction on the punishment of cutting off the hand of a thief:

• This penalty can only be prescribed by a judge. Therefore, either the owner of the property or other eyewitnesses must apply to the authorities for the judgment first.
• To be able to mention this penalty, the stolen property must be somewhere preserved. If the stolen property was not in a preserved area, the crime is not qualified as theft and the punishment is not implemented.
• Nobody’s hand can be cut off if a person or his/her family for whom he/she is responsible to take care of was starving and therefore stole food. In other words, if their life was in danger, the hand amputation punishment is not implemented.
• None of God’s verses address the children. That clearly means: children are not liable towards God. Their parents or guardians are responsible to teach them what is good or bad, what is lawful or forbidden, until they reach puberty. Then, when they reach the puberty, they become responsible for complying with God’s commands and prohibitions. So, a child who has not reached the puberty cannot be judged by the criminal law for his misdeeds, let alone having his/her hand cut off.
• If the crime was committed in threat of life or under any other type of coercion, the punishment is not implemented.
• If there are no witnesses and the thief himself/herself admits the crime and repents before being caught, the penalty is not implemented.

Still, some ignorant people rush to judge the laws of Islamic Shari’ah, their penalties and sentences as harsh. They grieve for the hand that is cut, but forget, or want to forget, the crime that this hand committed, and the permanent negative effect on the public peace and the evil that the crime entails. They take pity on the criminal and not on the victim.

It should be noted that the Prophet was not a violent or cruel man. Our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a righteous man who strove intensely for justice, and everything he did was in accordance with the commandments of Allah. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a man of great qualities. People, even who hated him, saw in him exceptional qualities. He was, as the Qur’an eloquently states, a man of exalted character:

“You are of a great nature and morals.” (al-Qalam 68: 4)

In all of the cases where hand amputation punishment is not implemented, the rights of the victim must also be protected. Then, the thief has to pay for a compensation fee and another fee as punishment. This is called “muqabalah bi’l mithl = equivalent retaliation”. Please see the following link about this:

http://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/on-what-circumstances-the-hand-of-a-thief-should-be-cut-off.html
...}

Were the hands of thieves cut off at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? - Islam and the Quran

The verses on the punishment of theft are as follows: .وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ فَمَنْ تَابَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ “Cut off...

www.islamandquran.org

1. when was the last time that there was an official hand-chopping in Israel for the crime of theft?

2. when was the last time that there was an official hand-chopping in nearby Saudi Arabia for the crime of theft?

------

Your Honor... the Prosecution rests.