ZIONIST Grip on American Films

[YmirGF]

Again, why did they warrant responses in the first place, and then after I refute them, they stop responding.. Hmm.

Oddly, I recall some rhetoric, but don't remember anything that could, in all honesty, be described as a refutation.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Again, why did they warrant responses in the first place, and then after I refute them, they stop responding.. Hmm.

Should we sit by the computer all day ready to respond the minute that you post a reply? Don't hold your breath. Besides, your posts clearly show that you have failed to do any adequate research on what it is you are trying to speak of here. Though I personally find very valid the words of the Tanach and have fallen in love with the People through those words, I don't need the Tanach to see what is the agenda that is intended by the OP in making this thread and neither do I need it to see who it is that is doing right over there by and for their People and who is not. Basic knowledge of human nature and thorough research of what it is going on in the region that we are discussing is all that is needed to see who it is that bias in this thread and who it is that has educated themselves. You, Dustin, are the former ... you are bias against Israel and against the Jewish People. Then, will what I say make a difference? Obviously not. Your mind is already set for reasons that are your own ... so be it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Then they should not have addressed them in the first place.

I'm just a little ticked I'm a "Jew-hater" because I don't think 'God says this' is a valid argument for one to do anything.

I think you misunderstand their position. I don't think they called you a "Jew hater" any more than they did me or Ymir.

I think the "Jew hater" was intended for the bigoted views of Aymen. In your case, I think they disagree with you based on your defense of your position (or lack thereof).

Then again, I may have been right in the first place. They may just not deem you worthy of a response.

 

[dust1n]

Oddly, I recall some rhetoric, but don't remember anything that could, in all honesty, be described as a refutation.

You are going to have to be more specific at which one of my responses was rhetoric because I still have a lot of unanswered arguments.

 

[YmirGF]

You are going to have to be more specific at which one of my responses was rhetoric because I still have a lot of unanswered arguments.

That might be an amusing assignment, Dust1n, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Do yourself a favor and read some real history books and leave fricken Google alone.

 

[dust1n]

I think you misunderstand their position. I don't think they called you a "Jew hater" any more than they did me or Ymir.

I think the "Jew hater" was intended for the bigoted views of Aymen. In your case, I think they disagree with you based on your defense of your position (or lack thereof).

Then again, I may have been right in the first place. They may just not deem you worthy of a response.

That is probably the case for Zardoz, except that he was saying that "Brother, the various Jew-haters on this thread will never accept this" In response to arimoff "No, G-d gave it to us", which was in response to me saying, "So Jews get the land... by default?", so I can only conclude that he was referring to me as a 'Jew-hater', because I don't think his scriptures justify causing Arab suffrage. If someone has an argument for it, then instead of using every logical fallacy to disgrace me, then they should refute or they are on the same level as me, including Ymir.

Zardoz has no need to deem worthy of a response, he never responded to me directly in the first place. arimoff on the other hand stated "No, G-d gave it to us" then quoted scriptures, and then told me to look up HIS archaeological proof that supports "No, G-d gave it to us."

I responded by saying, "Ok, well I don't believe such trivial ******** gives the right for anyone to take over any land, let alone displace them from their own homes or cause human suffering. It seems to me that Arabs have used the exact same argument, and you wonder why there will never be peace in the middle east."

So, apparently, either arimoff just thinks that a holy book promising land validates and moralizes the displacement of people from their homes and human suffering (which it has, unless someone wants to provide proof otherwise) or that this whole response isn't worth arguing towards. If I'm the one not worthy of responding to, then don't respond in the first place, if you aren't going to respond back to me. Obviously, I'm not the one spouting rhetoric, he was, and he isn't going to respond to me back to the fact his "g-d gave his people their land" has caused human suffering of Arabs, in a land that had more Arab than Jews in the first place, because it is ultimately unfounded, not with any particular evidence, but was poor rhetoric at that. The land 'G-d promised the Jews' is bigger than the state of Israel now.. so what is he suggesting.. further expansion, more settlements, more conflict at the cost of Arab's lives? If so, then he should say it. Other wise, Caladin was completely correct in his refute towards that particular post.

 

[dust1n]

That might be an amusing assignment, Dust1n, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. Do yourself a favor and read some real history books and leave fricken Google alone.

Do everyone a favor and actually refute something on this thread, instead of just randomly stating how 'uneducated' you think everyone is. No one even knows your stance is on this issue, because you don't include yourself in any argument, but rather act as a third party who supposedly knows everything and has the right to insult people as a result.

 

[dust1n]

Should we sit by the computer all day ready to respond the minute that you post a reply? Don't hold your breath. Besides, your posts clearly show that you have failed to do any adequate research on what it is you are trying to speak of here. Though I personally find very valid the words of the Tanach and have fallen in love with the People through those words, I don't need the Tanach to see what is the agenda that is intended by the OP in making this thread and neither do I need it to see who it is that is doing right over there by and for their People and who is not. Basic knowledge of human nature and thorough research of what it is going on in the region that we are discussing is all that is needed to see who it is that bias in this thread and who it is that has educated themselves. You, Dustin, are the former ... you are bias against Israel and against the Jewish People. Then, will what I say make a difference? Obviously not. Your mind is already set for reasons that are your own ... so be it.

You stated:

The Jewish lived right along side the Palestinians always in the Land. The land never *belonged* to the Palestinians. Thus, the Jews did not steal it.

And for me, it is not because the Bible says it was their home that I believe they should have it. It is because history has proved even before 1948 who it was that really found the land (and specificially *the* site in Jerusalem) to be sacred and who did not ... even before it became the center of attention for the whole of the world and convenient to become the 3rd most sacred site for the Muslims. the Jewish have ONE sacred site ... the Muslims have, NOW, 3. <---- when it becomes convenient again, will it become four? Educate yourself.

I responded by actually educating myself on the subject and responding:

In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census[9]). Gradually a large number of Jews immigrated to the area, most of whom were fleeing increasing persecution in Europe. This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew opposition from local Arabs.

Which shows that for everyone one Jew in Palestine, there were 8 Arabs.

"On 24 July 1922, the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement.[8]"

You stated that the land never belonged to the Palestinians. Which is technically the case, but nothing suggests it belonged to Jews either. It belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and it was taken from Turkey's control and given to the Jews after WW1. So the majority of people who lived there were Palestinians, and then Jews were immigrated into the region. The same powers that allotted the immigration of Jews helped create the state of Israel. You are stating that this is completely justifiable, because Jews claim that Jerusalem is THEIR holy site although, they never had control of it, and at the time that the region was considered "a Jewish national home."

"Between the time of the Israelite kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests, the Land of Israel fell under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanian, and Byzantine rule.[30][31] Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE.[32] In 628/9, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius conducted a massacre and expulsion of the Jews. Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel remained, with the Jewish population shifting from the Judea region to the Galilee.[33] The Mishnah and part of the Talmud were composed during this period.[34] The Land of Israel was captured from the Byzantine Empire around 636 CE during the initial Muslim conquests. Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads,[35] Abbasids,[36] and Crusaders over the next six centuries, before falling in the hands of the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260. In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century.[37]"

So because WW1 was won by the 'Allies', they decided to displace not only their enemies Jew's, but their own Jews, into a 'homeland' (which was only called such because of a 'holy' book.), although that 'homeland' was worked and controlled predominantly by Muslims.

From "The History of Jewish Persecution" by Alexandria Moss:

" The Jewish people's problems began long before the Common Era; they were persecuted long ago by King Nebuchadnezzer. Because of the treaty that was signed with King Nebuchadnezzer the Jews were uprooted from their home in Jerusalem and were forced into exile in the city of Babylon. The Jews were not treated poorly, though they were bitter because of being taken away form their beloved Jerusalem. Due to this bitterness they became more intensely Jewish than ever before. (1)
After seventy years of exile the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Most of them gave up this option and elected to stay in Babylon. Those who stay in Babylon became merchants, traders, and bankers, thus beginning their long history in these professions. They prospered greatly due to the extended trade routes that existed throughout this region. (1)
The peace the Jews experienced during this era after the exile continued for three hundred years. After this their problems were minimal up to the time of the Crusades. Because of the conflict between Christianity and Islam Jews suffered immeasurably, leading ultimately to two long centuries of persecution and expulsion. In the year 1095 a sermon was preached telling the Christians to regain control of the holy lands. Gangs would attack the Jewish communities, destroying their cities and torturing the people who lived in them. The Jews were such a threat because they did not believe in Jesus Christ a s the Son of God and were therefore non-Christian believers. A second wave of crusades emerged in 1146 and 1189. Riots against Jews even began to emerge through England. The crusades thus lead to Jews becoming the hated religious sect and they were cast out of almost every country throughout Europe. (2) Jews thus began to move and were forced into other countries, countries where they were also not wanted."

1) Fast, Howard. The Jews. The Dial Press, Inc., New York:1968.
2) Goldberg, David J. The Jewish People, A History and Their Religion. Viking, New York: 87.



So I'm expected to believe, that I should support this state of Israel, though they were outnumbered in the area because 1500 years ago they were expelled from it, and then persecuted by Christians for the next 1400 years until Christians took over predominantly Arab land and put all the Jews there, and that this Jewish state should be able to expand to into what "God promised it was" at the cost of further displacement of more Arabs; AND THAT IF I DON'T, that I am the one who is biased.. against Jews? I have a bias against Jews? NO, I have a bias against human suffering, which is what the creation of the state Israel instigated, because Christians had created their human suffering for centuries, when before the creation of the state, Arabs did not persecute Jews anywhere never like Christians did?
...
(Cont.)

 

[dust1n]

That's called ad hominem if you think I have a bias against Jews, and if this supports me having a bias against any Jew what so ever, than you are obviously biased against Muslims. Until you can offer any kind of refutation to why I should be supportive of the state of Israel, then just go back to not responding to my posts, instead of trying to personally attacking me without offering up any kind of information of your own. If there is information I am missing here, please, I WOULD LOVE TO BE FILLED IN, but if not, don't bother responding. And if you are actually going to respond reasonably, then you can respond to this as well.

Edited to add to the first sentence of second paragraph ... also, the Arab WORLD has initiated 4 wars on Israel since 1948, and even when odds were against them, Israel won them all. To say that THEY are attacking and killing other nations to steal their land calling it the Jewish home is ill-informed, dramatic and unnecessary.

First of all, the borders of Israel keep expanding, not shrinking.

Second of all, how was the odds against them with a budget and weapons provided by the Western powers that they had?

 

[Sunstone]

Nothing is weaker than the argument "God gave it to us". Nothing. Any fool can say it. There is no test of whether it is true. And what kind of person would believe it?

 

[dust1n]

Nothing is weaker than the argument "God gave it to us". Nothing. Any fool can say it. There is no test of whether it is true. And what kind of person would believe it?

Apparently a few Israel-supporters...

 

[IF_u_knew]

Ad hominem arguments are done to appeal to the one in which you are debating .... I was not trying to appeal to you as for now I see it to be a fruitless task and rather was stating the obvious w/out care as to whether it appealed to you or not.

Which shows that for everyone one Jew in Palestine, there were 8 Arabs.

I would appreciate seeing the source from which the information came from. Do not point me to wikipedia as you will find quickly I will then ignore your points of view as far as this topic goes.

"On 24 July 1922, the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement.[8]"

You stated that the land never belonged to the Palestinians. Which is technically the case, but nothing suggests it belonged to Jews either. It belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and it was taken from Turkey's control and given to the Jews after WW1. So the majority of people who lived there were Palestinians, and then Jews were immigrated into the region. The same powers that allotted the immigration of Jews helped create the state of Israel. You are stating that this is completely justifiable, because Jews claim that Jerusalem is THEIR holy site although, they never had control of it, and at the time that the region was considered "a Jewish national home."

"Between the time of the Israelite kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests, the Land of Israel fell under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Sassanian, and Byzantine rule.[30][31] Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE.[32] In 628/9, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius conducted a massacre and expulsion of the Jews. Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel remained, with the Jewish population shifting from the Judea region to the Galilee.[33] The Mishnah and part of the Talmud were composed during this period.[34] The Land of Israel was captured from the Byzantine Empire around 636 CE during the initial Muslim conquests. Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads,[35] Abbasids,[36] and Crusaders over the next six centuries, before falling in the hands of the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260. In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century.[37]"

So because WW1 was won by the 'Allies', they decided to displace not only their enemies Jew's, but their own Jews, into a 'homeland' (which was only called such because of a 'holy' book.), although that 'homeland' was worked and controlled predominantly by Muslims.

Before I read all the above and bother to respond, see my above statement and comply with it in regards to this here as well please.

From "The History of Jewish Persecution" by Alexandria Moss:

" The Jewish people's problems began long before the Common Era; they were persecuted long ago by King Nebuchadnezzer. Because of the treaty that was signed with King Nebuchadnezzer the Jews were uprooted from their home in Jerusalem and were forced into exile in the city of Babylon. The Jews were not treated poorly, though they were bitter because of being taken away form their beloved Jerusalem. Due to this bitterness they became more intensely Jewish than ever before. (1)
After seventy years of exile the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Most of them gave up this option and elected to stay in Babylon. Those who stay in Babylon became merchants, traders, and bankers, thus beginning their long history in these professions. They prospered greatly due to the extended trade routes that existed throughout this region. (1)
The peace the Jews experienced during this era after the exile continued for three hundred years. After this their problems were minimal up to the time of the Crusades. Because of the conflict between Christianity and Islam Jews suffered immeasurably, leading ultimately to two long centuries of persecution and expulsion. In the year 1095 a sermon was preached telling the Christians to regain control of the holy lands. Gangs would attack the Jewish communities, destroying their cities and torturing the people who lived in them. The Jews were such a threat because they did not believe in Jesus Christ a s the Son of God and were therefore non-Christian believers. A second wave of crusades emerged in 1146 and 1189. Riots against Jews even began to emerge through England. The crusades thus lead to Jews becoming the hated religious sect and they were cast out of almost every country throughout Europe. (2) Jews thus began to move and were forced into other countries, countries where they were also not wanted."

1) Fast, Howard. The Jews. The Dial Press, Inc., New York:1968.
2) Goldberg, David J. The Jewish People, A History and Their Religion. Viking, New York: 87.



So I'm expected to believe, that I should support this state of Israel, though they were outnumbered in the area because 1500 years ago they were expelled from it, and then persecuted by Christians for the next 1400 years until Christians took over predominantly Arab land and put all the Jews there, and that this Jewish state should be able to expand to into what "God promised it was" at the cost of further displacement of more Arabs; AND THAT IF I DON'T, that I am the one who is biased.. against Jews? I have a bias against Jews? NO, I have a bias against human suffering, which is what the creation of the state Israel instigated, because Christians had created their human suffering for centuries, when before the creation of the state, Arabs did not persecute Jews anywhere never like Christians did?
...
(Cont.)

Oh lovely, so you base your reasoning on the opinions of others. How is this any more productive than if I were to base all of mine on *gasps and God forbid* the Tanach? If I were to do what you have done here, that would be to copy and paste ALL the many differing opinions on this situation ... I could easily fill up well over 100 pages for this thread.

When I said "educate yourself," I did NOT mean to parrot the opinions of others.

True .... I am sure that you will accuse me of ad hominem again, but you must understand that when I went to educate myself on this matter, I went to THE ACTUAL sources, documents, pictures, etc that were necessary to draw up MY OWN conclusion based on the understanding that I have of human nature. When I see that you have done the same, then I doubt you will be bothering to try and argue with me here on this topic.

Thus, that you refuse to do such is why I know, despite your own denial, that you do have bias against the Jewish and against Israel.

And yes, I am bias *against* the Arab World right now. I have stated repeatedly across this forum that when the Palestinians wake up to who it is that is truly oppressing them and they decide to turn and question their own for why it is they are being kept isolated from the Arab Nations, they will have my FULL support in that regard and as humans being. :yes:

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Nothing is weaker than the argument "God gave it to us". Nothing. Any fool can say it. There is no test of whether it is true. And what kind of person would believe it?

God gave me your home could you move out by friday?

 

[Zardoz]

That's called ad hominem if you think I have a bias against Jews...

Ah, but your posts consistently show you do. 'If it quacks like a duck...'

And if you are actually going to respond reasonably, then you can respond to this as well.

How about we just put you on our ignore list instead? Ya, that works for me. Please put me on your ignore list as well.

 

[dust1n]

Ah, but your posts consistently show you do. 'If it quacks like a duck...'



How about we just put you on our ignore list instead? Ya, that works for me. Please put me on your ignore list as well.

Put up one example.. Oh. you won't.

Go ahead. I don't people on my ignore list, but feel free to do whatever you want.

 

[dust1n]

The Jewish lived right along side the Palestinians always in the Land. The land never *belonged* to the Palestinians. Thus, the Jews did not steal it.

Source please.

And for me, it is not because the Bible says it was their home that I believe they should have it. It is because history has proved even before 1948 who it was that really found the land (and specificially *the* site in Jerusalem) to be sacred and who did not ... even before it became the center of attention for the whole of the world and convenient to become the 3rd most sacred site for the Muslims.

Source please.

the Jewish have ONE sacred site ... the Muslims have, NOW, 3. <---- when it becomes convenient again, will it become four?

Source please.

Edited to add to the first sentence of second paragraph ... also, the Arab WORLD has initiated 4 wars on Israel since 1948, and even when odds were against them, Israel won them all. To say that THEY are attacking and killing other nations to steal their land calling it the Jewish home is ill-informed, dramatic and unnecessary.

Source please.

 

[dust1n]

<--link

So I guess this, which had nothing to do wikipedia, just wasn't worth your time to respond to. It was just pure opinion. You ignored it. Good job.


So, yeah.. where are you all the sources for all the claims you make?

 

[dust1n]

Ad hominem arguments are done to appeal to the one in which you are debating .... I was not trying to appeal to you as for now I see it to be a fruitless task and rather was stating the obvious w/out care as to whether it appealed to you or not.

Nah, you are trying to appeal to the audience of the conversation but continuously calling me anti-semitic and biased. I know you don't care what I think about you, you seem more to care what others do.

I would appreciate seeing the source from which the information came from. Do not point me to wikipedia as you will find quickly I will then ignore your points of view as far as this topic goes.

As you can see, my response includes the sources in which Wikipedia draws it's information. Of course, since you don't source anything at all, I guess I should do the same thing, but I don't.

Oh lovely, so you base your reasoning on the opinions of others. How is this any more productive than if I were to base all of mine on *gasps and God forbid* the Tanach? If I were to do what you have done here, that would be to copy and paste ALL the many differing opinions on this situation ... I could easily fill up well over 100 pages for this thread.

When I said "educate yourself," I did NOT mean to parrot the opinions of others.

In case you didn't notice, not only do I include reasoning based of INFORMATION (not OPINION, see the difference) in my arguments, this doesn't really hold valid at all. It would be different if I was copying opinions and saying SEE. Statistics aren't opinions, sourced historical facts aren't opinion, but the reasoning I can conclude from said statistics and facts is in fact, my opinion.

True .... I am sure that you will accuse me of ad hominem again, but you must understand that when I went to educate myself on this matter, I went to THE ACTUAL sources, documents, pictures, etc that were necessary to draw up MY OWN conclusion based on the understanding that I have of human nature. When I see that you have done the same, then I doubt you will be bothering to try and argue with me here on this topic.

Well, sadly if you weren't so mistaken, I probably wouldn't respond, or I would at least agree. You have not presented information from said sources, documents, or pictures at any point in time during this conversation. And then you repeat your understanding of human nature... so how does this 'human nature' relevant to the discussion at all.. Please.. let me know...

Thus, that you refuse to do such is why I know, despite your own denial, that you do have bias against the Jewish and against Israel.

If biased means "G-d gave us this land" is not an actual argument worthy of consideration, then sure.. I guess I'm biased. Besides that, you have failed to show in any way exactly how I am biased against Jewish people (Caladan has said the most reasonable thing here so far), or the state of Israel? I don't think we should deteriorate the state of Israel

And yes, I am bias *against* the Arab World right now. I have stated repeatedly across this forum that when the Palestinians wake up to who it is that is truly oppressing them and they decide to turn and question their own for why it is they are being kept isolated from the Arab Nations, they will have my FULL support in that regard and as humans being. :yes:

And who is truly oppressing Palestinians?

And that you have admitted your bias towards the Arab World, it makes a lot of sense why the insults you keep attempting to use against me (which are still unfounded) simply reflected your own personality.

 

[dust1n]

Before I read all the above and bother to respond, see my above statement and comply with it in regards to this here as well please.

And this one is particular funny. Like I said, the sources are there for you to look at, the sources in which the information even appeared on Wikipedia.

What I find hilarious is that you said "Before I read all the above and bother to respond", because you aren't going to read it, nor are you bothering to respond, even though I looked your above statement and provided it with the sources from which the information came.

All your sources so far have been your understanding of the Tanach, and your own personal understanding of human nature.

 

[YmirGF]

Do everyone a favor and actually refute something on this thread, instead of just randomly stating how 'uneducated' you think everyone is.

Here's the deal, Dustin. You don't have to listen to what I think. Got that? All you need do is hunker down and read a few history books. That may take a few months. You cannot possibly expect to understand the subtleties and nuances of the Middle East conflict by spending an hour here and there doing Google searches.

No one even knows your stance is on this issue, because you don't include yourself in any argument, but rather act as a third party who supposedly knows everything and has the right to insult people as a result.

I don't claim to know everything, Dustin, however I am a fairly astute political observer. Plus, I have read - a lot. It is unreasonable to expect me to boil down my understanding of the situation into one or two posts... or even five posts. The situation in the Middle East is far more complex than people realize and that IS a fact. Know that I fully support Caladan's perspective and am a strident supporter of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Other than Jayhawker Soule, Caladan is one of the few that can speak with any real understanding on this ongoing situation, so, you may be wise to listen to what he is saying.


Besides, my own personal views would be deemed so incendiary that I would likely be banned from RF for making them a part of the public record, as they would not be seen as being particularly politically correct. When you do not have the ability to call a spade a spade there isn't much point in talking about small gardening implements.