The Jews and the Native Americans

[toastman]

no one in my family has walked in to a public school with an automatic weapon, but that doesn't mean such things don't happen.

the trajedy at newtown doesn't make me chuckle, honestly.

it makes me weep.

Eh?

it was merely an emphatic illustration of your statement.

i suppose i could have used slavery, or anything else...

imagine someone in georgia in the 1850s saying...

my family has lived in georgia since the 1700s and has never owned a slave.

so this whole "slavery" thing just makes me chuckle, honestly.

i am not criticising your family at all and i am sure that they were honourable people and not "land stealers" but that is not any kind of proof that it doesn't occur...and it is certainly not something to to elicit "chuckles".

Funny , you say you are not criticizing her or her family, but how many times have you told her to leave 'Palestine' and go back where she came from !

 

[Lipush]

Jewish lived everywhere, In Yemen and Iraq also, for hundred years , but that doesn't mean they have the right to own the whole land and invade the country ,, right?

Yemen and Iraq are not our homelands

Who make it your homeland ???
Your Holly Book ??

Jewish Twisted the Book to create any reason to invade Palestine, they wrote their own ideas and claim it is the True Bible

In your book , they claim that the God give Jewish permission to kill people, and burn green land and destroy their buildings !!!

They insult Prophets and some of their wives and daughters, they accused them of making adultery, rape and Killing
They said that Prophet David killed 100 of Palestinians children(boys) to offer their genitals as a dowry to marry
etc ,,,
There is no God would ever say such thing, or ask people to do

This is not a holly book from God
and still ,, you believe it !!!

What I believe is my own issue, and has nothing to do with the argument right now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think you need to read history very carefully ,, from "credible source" also

Anthropological and archeological facts don't lie.

Arabs are late comers.

Medes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What !!!!

"the god," as you call him, al-Ilah. This was the title of Hubal, the pre-Islamic Djin who lived in the Black (or Phallic) stone in the Kaaba. Of course we know that Muhammad destroyed all the idols of the Kaaba - except one - the Black Stone. We know that you and all Muslims bow to that idol 5 times each day, the idol of Hubal. You will strive to travel to Mecca on Hajj, so that you may kiss the idol of Hubal.

The idol of Hubal (in Hebrew, Ba'al)

Hubal, pagan god of the moon. The Hebrews wrote of Allah/Hubal in 1 Kings 18, where, Elijah the prophet offering a sacrifice to Yahweh, Baʿal's followers did the same. According to the Hebrew text, Baʿal did not light his followers' sacrifice, but Yahweh sent heavenly fire to burn Elijah's sacrifice to ashes, even after it had been soaked with water.

So you're saying that Muslims are idol-worshippers?

 

[MHunterB]

I don't think 'Flowery' is actually a Muslim: I think it's some wanker of a Muslim-hater out to create a caricature of radical Islamist views......

 

[Michelle420]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

A partition plan was implemented in 1947 to split the , now read carefully, BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE' Not Palestine. It was a territory controlled by the British. Even though the territory offered to the Jews was a small fraction of what was originally offered to them in the early 1900's. The Jews were not happy with the smaller amount of land that was offered in 1947, but they gracefully accepted the deal nonetheless . The Arabs, who spoke on behalf of the Palestinians (btw, in 1947 they were not reffered to as Palestinians) rejected the deal.

 

[Michelle420]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its irrelevant to you.

 

[toastman]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the British who encouraged Zionist immigration to the land. It's not like the Jews cam out of nowhere . But I agree with you when you say that it doesn't really matter who was their first. They both are entitled to live there.

 

[Michelle420]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

A partition plan was implemented in 1947 to split the , now read carefully, BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE' Not Palestine. It was a territory controlled by the British. Even though the territory offered to the Jews was a small fraction of what was originally offered to them in the early 1900's. The Jews were not happy with the smaller amount of land that was offered in 1947, but they gracefully accepted the deal nonetheless . The Arabs, who spoke on behalf of the Palestinians (btw, in 1947 they were not reffered to as Palestinians) rejected the deal.

Seems generous.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're saying that Muslims are idol-worshippers?

They bow to an idol 5 times each day.

Yeah, I guess I am.

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the British who encouraged Zionist immigration to the land. It's not like the Jews cam out of nowhere . But I agree with you when you say that it doesn't really matter who was their first. They both are entitled to live there.

It's a complicated history with a lot of myth building on both sides. In the end, what matters is what is happening now

 

[toastman]

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the British who encouraged Zionist immigration to the land. It's not like the Jews cam out of nowhere . But I agree with you when you say that it doesn't really matter who was their first. They both are entitled to live there.

It's a complicated history with a lot of myth building on both sides. In the end, what matters is what is happening now

Very true !

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its irrelevant to you.

Well...you kind of show me that you aren't a simple sojourner of truth. But all that aside, if it's "important" in terms of deciding who is deserves to be there, then where do you draw the line?

What about native American claims to US territories - surely they deserve to have their original territories returned? Or is Israel a special case?

What about Jews who's heritage did not originate there? What about semitic peoples (not Arabs) who aren't Jewish but trace back? Proving 2000 plus claims is problematic at best as there have been many migrations and mixing of peoples in that regions before and since and archaelogical evidence is scarce and incomplete.

That is why I say it's irrelevant - states are not determined by ancestral claims vacated thousdands of years ago.

 

[Michelle420]

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its irrelevant to you.

Well...you kind of show me that you aren't a simple sojourner of truth. But all that aside, if it's "important" in terms of deciding who is deserves to be there, then where do you draw the line?

What about native American claims to US territories - surely they deserve to have their original territories returned? Or is Israel a special case?

What about Jews who's heritage did not originate there? What about semitic peoples (not Arabs) who aren't Jewish but trace back? Proving 2000 plus claims is problematic at best as there have been many migrations and mixing of peoples in that regions before and since and archaelogical evidence is scarce and incomplete.

That is why I say it's irrelevant - states are not determined by ancestral claims vacated thousdands of years ago.

I am just learning here and ask questions at my own pace.

Sorry if the way my thought processing isn't up to you par Coyote.

Do you have answers to all those questions you are asking?

If yes, go ahead and answer them with your point of view.

At the end of the day, everything is coming form a point of view and experience.

Again if you don't like my questions or thought processes feel free to ignore me, no need to be sarcastic or use sly dig.

 

[Lipush]

I am not sure why Israel had to to split a state and share it but they did and that seems nice. In reading the posts it appears that the Jewish people were there first and they came back home.

They didn't split a state.

And it's irrelevant who was there "first" when you are talking about both sides being there for thousands of years and intermingling.

You don't just leave and return two thousand years later claiming a state and expecting others to move out and accommodate you.

Arab people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, it was the British who encouraged Zionist immigration to the land. It's not like the Jews cam out of nowhere . But I agree with you when you say that it doesn't really matter who was their first. They both are entitled to live there.

Fair enough

 

[Coyote]

Its irrelevant to you.

Well...you kind of show me that you aren't a simple sojourner of truth. But all that aside, if it's "important" in terms of deciding who is deserves to be there, then where do you draw the line?

What about native American claims to US territories - surely they deserve to have their original territories returned? Or is Israel a special case?

What about Jews who's heritage did not originate there? What about semitic peoples (not Arabs) who aren't Jewish but trace back? Proving 2000 plus claims is problematic at best as there have been many migrations and mixing of peoples in that regions before and since and archaelogical evidence is scarce and incomplete.

That is why I say it's irrelevant - states are not determined by ancestral claims vacated thousdands of years ago.

I am just learning here and ask questions at my own pace.

Sorry if the way my thought processing isn't up to you par Coyote.

Do you have answers to all those questions you are asking?

If yes, go ahead and answer them with your point of view.

At the end of the day, everything is coming form a point of view and experience.

Again if you don't like my questions or though processes feel free to ignore me, no need to be sarcastic or use sly dig.

I don't ask questions if I have the answers.

The questions illustrate the problems of trying to use "who was here first" as a means of trying to justify claims by historic peoples. It's problematic yet you seem to endorse it.

 

[Michelle420]

Well...you kind of show me that you aren't a simple sojourner of truth. But all that aside, if it's "important" in terms of deciding who is deserves to be there, then where do you draw the line?

What about native American claims to US territories - surely they deserve to have their original territories returned? Or is Israel a special case?

What about Jews who's heritage did not originate there? What about semitic peoples (not Arabs) who aren't Jewish but trace back? Proving 2000 plus claims is problematic at best as there have been many migrations and mixing of peoples in that regions before and since and archaelogical evidence is scarce and incomplete.

That is why I say it's irrelevant - states are not determined by ancestral claims vacated thousdands of years ago.

I am just learning here and ask questions at my own pace.

Sorry if the way my thought processing isn't up to you par Coyote.

Do you have answers to all those questions you are asking?

If yes, go ahead and answer them with your point of view.

At the end of the day, everything is coming form a point of view and experience.

Again if you don't like my questions or though processes feel free to ignore me, no need to be sarcastic or use sly dig.

I don't ask questions if I have the answers.

The questions illustrate the problems of trying to use "who was here first" as a means of trying to justify claims by historic peoples. It's problematic yet you seem to endorse it.

no it was because I wanted to know.

I will PM folks who invited me to ask questions and duck out of the thread.

Have a good day.

 

[Lipush]

Don't take things too personally, we're just having a healthy discussion is all