PDA

View Full Version : Palestinian terrorists learned from Jewish terrorists?



punk
Nov 26th 2007, 07:20 PM
I think it is worth remarking that the behavior and tactics of the Palestinians under Israeli rule isn't terribly different than that of Jewish groups when the area was still the British Mandate.

Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang

I believe the British deemed such Jewish groups as "terrorists" (basically making Israel a state founded by terrorists).

Perhaps the Palestinians simply took a good look at history and are emulating tactics that worked so well in the past.

Fenris
Nov 26th 2007, 07:38 PM
I am no fan of Lehi and neither are many Israelis. But at least they attempted to attack targets that had military value and not indiscriminately massacre civilians, which the present day Palestinian terrorists do.

punk
Nov 27th 2007, 01:51 AM
I am no fan of Lehi and neither are many Israelis. But at least they attempted to attack targets that had military value and not indiscriminately massacre civilians, which the present day Palestinian terrorists do.

Given that they were attacking the British and that British civilians were hardly a sizable group in the Mandate, that doesn't exactly stand proven.

It would probably have been harder for them to attack large numbers of British civilians as against government offices.

And as we went over before targets of "military value" have included civilians in Western wars since WWII (and especially including Vietnam).

I'd have to say that not too many Israelis look on the Stern Gang negatively given that Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister.

Fenris
Nov 27th 2007, 02:46 PM
Given that they were attacking the British and that British civilians were hardly a sizable group in the Mandate, that doesn't exactly stand proven. They attacked British military bases and such. I wasn't aware that there were many British civilians in Israel at the time.


It would probably have been harder for them to attack large numbers of British civilians as against government offices.Especially since there weren't large numbers of them there at the time.


And as we went over before targets of "military value" have included civilians in Western wars since WWII (and especially including Vietnam).
Great! Then Israel is no worse than any other country in this regard.


I'd have to say that not too many Israelis look on the Stern Gang negatively given that Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister.
He was elected by only about a quarter of the popular vote- that's how parliamentary elections work in Israel. That means that about 75% of the country voted against him. Go figure.

A Seeker
Nov 27th 2007, 07:58 PM
But at least they attempted to attack targets that had military value and not indiscriminately massacre civilians, which the present day Palestinian terrorists do.


Actually not strictly true. I refer you to the bombing of the king david hotel by israeli terrorists/freedom fighters in 1946. 91 dead 41 injured. Some of the british military command, a branch of the police force, some hotel staff and some guests in the wrong place at the wrong time. 28 british 41 arab 17 jewish and 5 other.

Other islamic terrorist groups learned not from israel but from us. Directly. Remember when the taliban were a brave band of freedom fighters fighting to preserve their ancient culture against the advance of the red menace? And when Iraq was the ally of the west which needed chemical weapons to protect itself from the evil iranians? It was not so long ago!

The lesson of history teachs over and over. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is nothing more or less than timing.

As much as we would like to live in a world where the good guys dress in white and the bad guys dress in black its never that simple. Wars are seldom fought between good and evil. Its usually simply us and them.

Regards
Seeker

punk
Nov 27th 2007, 08:06 PM
He was elected by only about a quarter of the popular vote- that's how parliamentary elections work in Israel. That means that about 75% of the country voted against him. Go figure.

Still, not too many countries can claim to have had a former terrorist as head of government.

But on the killing civilians thing:

Let's see, when Israelis kill civilians they are "no worse than other western governments", when Palestinians do it they are vile evil animals.

That sounds like something of a double standard.

Fenris
Nov 27th 2007, 09:01 PM
Actually not strictly true. I refer you to the bombing of the king david hotel by israeli terrorists/freedom fighters in 1946. 91 dead 41 injured. Some of the british military command, a branch of the police force, some hotel staff and some guests in the wrong place at the wrong time. 28 british 41 arab 17 jewish and 5 other.
By 1940's standards it would certainly qualify as a military target.

Fenris
Nov 27th 2007, 09:03 PM
Let's see, when Israelis kill civilians they are "no worse than other western governments", when Palestinians do it they are vile evil animals.

Does Israel intentionally target civilians? No

Do the Palestinians intentionally target civilians? Yes


And therein, my friend, lies all the difference.

A Seeker
Nov 28th 2007, 06:52 PM
Does Israel intentionally target civilians? No

Do the Palestinians intentionally target civilians? Yes


And therein, my friend, lies all the difference.
Oh come now.

Tell you what lets ask the residents of Deir Yassin. Oh no whoops we can't. It was wiped of the face of the map by israeli commandos. And then many of those who survived the battle were killed in cold blood. Men carted off to a nearby quarry and shot and, by the most conservative estimates, better than 50 women and children killed. Worst estimate 274 arabs killed. Oh and 4 israeli soldiers.

Obviously as with any event so contentious there are bound to be claims of atrocities on both sides. However the amound of first hand evidence is hard to ignore. I found the wiki article to be rather pro israel in its bias however it gives some unpleasant 1st hand accounts...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)
Meir Pa'il (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)'s eyewitness account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il) is one of the most detailed single eye witness accounts of the massacre, as he claims to have been at the scene while it happened. Pa'il was a spy for the mainstream Jewish organizations in Palestine monitoring the activities of the right-wing or "dissident" groups. He stated that he:
"... started hearing shooting in the village. The fighting was over, yet there was the sound of firing of all kinds from different houses ... Sporadic firing, not like you would [normally] hear when they clean a house.". He also stated that no commanders directed the actions, just groups of guerillas running about "full of lust for murder". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-40) Historian Uri Milstein says: "On a massacre following the battle there is only the account of Me’ir Pa’il, who claims that he was in the village during and after the battle," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-41) and subsequently brings evidence that Pa’il was not at Deir-Yassin at all. All other members of the Irgun denied seeing Pa'il there.
Yunes Ahmed Assad testified in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)Al Urdun (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Urdun&action=edit), a daily Jordanian newspaper: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)
"The Jews never intended to hurt the population of the village, but were forced to do so after they met enemy fire from the population, which killed the Irgun commander." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-AlUrdun) Mordechai Gihon's eyewitness account: Mordechai Gihon was a Haganah intelligence officer in Jerusalem. He was in the village at the afternoon of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_9). He reported:-
"Before we got to the village we saw people carrying bodies to the quarry east of Deir Yassin. We entered the village around 3:00 in the afternoon . . . In the village there were tens of bodies. The dissidents got them out of the roads. I told them not to throw the bodies into cisterns and caves, because that was the first place that would be checked..." "I didn't count the dead. I estimated that there were four pits full of bodies, and in each pit there were 20 bodies, and several tens more in the quarry. I throw out a number, 150." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-42) Eliahu Arbel's eyewitness account: Eliahu Arbel arrived at the scene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_10). He was an Operations Officer B of the Haganah's Etzioni Brigade. He reported:-
"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses. From my experience I know well, that there is no war without killing, and that not only combatants get killed. I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-43) Jacques de Reynier's eyewitness accout:Jacques de Reynier was a French-Swiss Representative of the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)International Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross). He came to the village on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_11). He reported:-
"... a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children. About 150 cadavers have not been preserved inside the village in view of the danger represented by the bodies' decomposition. They have been gathered, transported some distance, and placed in a large trough (I have not been able to establish if this is a pit, a grain silo, or a large natural excavation). ... [One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant, hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she'd been shot point-blank.". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-44) Dr. Alfred Engel's eyewitness account: Alfred Engel went to Deir Yassin with Jacques de Reynier, his conclusion is similar to de Reynier's. He reported:-
"In the houses there were dead, in all about a hundred men, women and children. It was terrible. ... It was clear that they (the attackers) had gone from house to house and shot the people at close range. I was a doctor in the German army for 5 years, in World War I, but I had not seen such a horrifying spectacle." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-45) Yeshurun Schiff's eyewitness account: Yeshurun Shiff was an adjutant to David Shaltiel. He was in Deir Yassin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_9) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_12). He reported:-
"[The attackers chose] to kill anybody they found alive as though every living thing in the village was the enemy and they could only think 'kill them all.'...It was a lovely spring day, the almond trees were in bloom, the flowers were out and everywhere there was the stench of the dead, the thick smell of blood, and the terrible odor of the corpses burning in the quarry.". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-46) Yair Tsaban's eyewitness accout: Yair Tsaban was one of several youths in the burial team at Deir Yassin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_12). He reported:-
"What we saw were [dead] women, young children, and old men. What shocked us was at least two or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes. I remember entering the living room of a certain house. In the far corner was a small woman with her back towards the door, sitting dead. When we reached the body we saw an old man with a beard. My conclusion was that what happened in the village so terrorized these old men that they knew being old men would not save them. They hoped that if they were seen as old women that would save them." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-47) In an article dated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)April 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)The Jerusalem Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerusalem_Post) describes a BBC program in which Abu Mahmud resident of Dir Yassin in 1948 stated: "... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-JP1998)
Khalidi was a prominent Palestinian Arab leader who pushed the editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, Hazem Nusseibeh, to make the most use of alleged atrocities in Dir Yassin.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Mohammed Radwan who fought in the battle:-
"I know when I speak that God is up there and God knows the truth and God will not forgive the liars," said Radwan, who puts the number of villagers killed at 93, listed in his own handwriting. "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin." This was reported by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)Paul Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Holmes), Middle East Times, 20-April-1998 Mohammed Jaber, a village boy, observed the guerillas:-
"break in, drive everybody outside, put them against the wall and shoot them." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-48) Ayish Zeidan, a teenager, known as Haj Ayish:-
"We heard shooting. My mother did not want us to look out of the window. I fled with my sister, but my mother and my other sisters could not make it. They hid in the cellar for four days and then ran away". He said he never believed that more than 110 people had died at Deir Yassin and that Arab leaders exaggerated the atrocities. "There had been no rape. The Arab radio at the time talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true. I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-49) Zeinab Akkel, a woman, offered money (about $400) to protect her brother. One guerilla took the money and:-
"then he just knocked my brother over and shot him in the head with five bullets.". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-50) Fahimi Zeidan stated that she and her wounded siblings encountered a captured pair of village males and:-
"When they reached us, the soldiers [guarding us] shot them. When the mother of one of the killed started hitting the fighters, one of them stabbed her with a knife a few times. When one of his daughters screamed, they shot her too. They then called my brother Mahmoud and shot him in our presence, and when my mother screamed and bent over my brother (she was carrying my little sister Khadra who was still being breast fed) they shot my mother too." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-51) Haleem Eid, a woman, saw:-
"a man shoot a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh who was nine months pregnant." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Pa%27il)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#_note-KZ55)

jeffreys
Nov 28th 2007, 07:01 PM
Still, not too many countries can claim to have had a former terrorist as head of government.

That may be true, but several countries can claim to have a CURRENT terrorist as head of government!

Fenris
Nov 28th 2007, 08:10 PM
Oh come now.

Well, we know which side you're on now.

What happened that day is not entirely clear, even today. Your number of casualties is far too high; there are only 107 listed names of the dead. And there are certainly other ways of looking at the situation:

Menachem Begin wrote that:-
Apart from the military aspect, there is a moral aspect to the story of Dir Yassin. At that village, whose name was publicized throughout the world, both sides suffered heavy casualties. We had four killed and nearly forty wounded. The number of casualties was nearly forty percent of the total number of the attackers. The Arab troops suffered casualties nearly three times as heavy. The fighting was thus very severe. Yet the hostile propaganda, disseminated throughout the world, deliberately ignored the fact that the civilian population of Dir Yassin was actually given a warning by us before the battle began. One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance to the village and it exhorted in Arabic all women, children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slopes of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle. A substantial number of the inhabitants obeyed the warning and they were unhurt. A few did not leave their stone houses — perhaps because of the confusion. The fire of the enemy was murderous - to which the number of our casualties bears eloquent testimony. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand grenades. And the civilians who had disregarded our warnings suffered inevitable casualties.


At the end of the day, if the arab nations had accepted the original UN vote none of the resulting violence would have occurred. Instead, Israel was immediately invaded by three of her neighbors plus arab troops from other countries. They wanted a war? They got a war. And when they lost, they went whining to anyone who would listen. How does the old expression go? 'Woe to the vanquished'.

punk
Nov 28th 2007, 08:11 PM
Does Israel intentionally target civilians? No

I think the history of Israeli occupation of the West Bank says otherwise.


Do the Palestinians intentionally target civilians? Yes

And therein, my friend, lies all the difference.

They certainly do, but here's the rub:

The Israelis have killed far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

If the Israelis aren't deliberately killing Palestinian civilians, then they are terrible shots.

The fact is, people only started complaining about Palestinian atrocities when the relative death toll became 3 Palestinians to 1 Israeli.

No one was complaining when it was closer to 15 Palestinians to 1 Israeli.

You know in the millennia of human history, one thing has never changed. When asked, people will always tell you "We never commit atrocities intentionally, but they do."

Teke
Nov 28th 2007, 08:13 PM
Still, not too many countries can claim to have had a former terrorist as head of government.

But on the killing civilians thing:

Let's see, when Israelis kill civilians they are "no worse than other western governments", when Palestinians do it they are vile evil animals.

That sounds like something of a double standard.

Yes indeed a double standard. Zionists practically invented terrorism to regain their land.
Israel got what it wanted, power, which corrupts. And Israels use of excessive force against a weaker people fits in the definition of terrorism.

Israel was one of the first countries to legalize torture of "political" prisoners, many which they called terrorists. The Human Rights Watch reports Israel also sanctions "exceptional interrogation" means in cases where they believe information will forestall an attack.

<edit>

punk
Nov 28th 2007, 08:17 PM
Well, we know which side you're on now.

It is interesting that defending the intrinsic dignity of a human being constitutes "taking sides".

Fenris
Nov 28th 2007, 08:23 PM
I think the history of Israeli occupation of the West Bank says otherwise.You'll have to bring some facts to prove that statement.




The Israelis have killed far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.Possibly so, but a couple of points: First, nearly every single person killed by Palestinian terrorism has been a civilian; they never target soldiers because they prefer soft targets, like girls waiting on line outside a disco or infants in a stroller. Secondly, Palestinian terrorists have the nasty habit of operating amongst civilians; are Israeli soldiers not supposed to shoot at armed and dangerous people because they are so doing?


If the Israelis aren't deliberately killing Palestinian civilians, then they are terrible shots.
Killing militants hiding amongst civilians is perfectly legal, even if some civilians get hit.


The fact is, people only started complaining about Palestinian atrocities when the relative death toll became 3 Palestinians to 1 Israeli.
During World War 2, we killed a lot more Germans than Germans killed Americans. Does that make German the 'good guys' and America the 'bad guys'?



You know in the millennia of human history, one thing has never changed. When asked, people will always tell you "We never commit atrocities intentionally, but they do."Yah, and sometimes when people say it, it's true.

Fenris
Nov 28th 2007, 08:28 PM
Careful now, I was accused of anti-semitism for saying something like that.Natan Sharansky has an interesting test to apply to criticism of Israel, to distinguish legitimate criticism from antisemitism. Read it; it's thought provoking, if nothing else.

Nevertheless, we must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.

Fenris
Nov 28th 2007, 08:31 PM
It is interesting that defending the intrinsic dignity of a human being constitutes "taking sides".I believe that every human being was created in the image of God. Indeed, we are all His children.

Having said that, one one of God's other children picks up a weapon and tries to kill me or some other innocent, I have the right, even the obligation, to stop him.

Teke
Nov 28th 2007, 11:25 PM
I believe that every human being was created in the image of God. Indeed, we are all His children.

Having said that, one one of God's other children picks up a weapon and tries to kill me or some other innocent, I have the right, even the obligation, to stop him.

"Stop him" how?

Teke
Nov 28th 2007, 11:33 PM
But it's not hard to see where the crazies live in that part of the world and there are far more crazies in the land of Islam than there are in the land of Zion.

And you base this on what?
Ever wonder why the later Muslim religion developed, in light of Zionism. IOW it's responsive to Zionism of Israel.

They both have their "crazies" of course, but the tribal ways of ancient times are gone. Sooner they accept that fact, they might actually resolve something in the east. That and stop the violence to one another.

Brother Mark
Nov 28th 2007, 11:37 PM
And you base this on what?
Ever wonder why the later Muslim religion developed, in light of Zionism. IOW it's responsive to Zionism of Israel.

They both have their "crazies" of course, but the tribal ways of ancient times are gone. Sooner they accept that fact, they might actually resolve something in the east. That and stop the violence to one another.

Israel has a right to exist. People in the Islamic world get shot for saying that. That is a non-negotiable issue and a great place to start. But alas, that is Zionism!

Israel is pretty much at peace with the world. Islam is pretty much at war with the world.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 12:05 AM
Israel has a right to exist. People in the Islamic world get shot for saying that. That is a non-negotiable issue and a great place to start. But alas, that is Zionism!

Israel is pretty much at peace with the world. Islam is pretty much at war with the world.

No nation has a "right to exist".

No nation except Israel has ever claimed that anyone has to accept its "right to exist".

You see a "right to exist" means that the Palestinians have to accept that the Israelis were perfectly justified in whatever they did to them to expell them from Israel.

Similarly Native Americans don't have to recognize the United States' "right to exist", since that would mean that the US was justified in everything it did to them.

Decades ago, everyone was prepared to accept that Israel was a de facto political entity with particular borders that should be recognized. Then the US and Israel demanded everyone recognize Israel's "right to exist" (which is ridiculous, as above), and everything went South.

You can demand people recognize that you are there, but you can't demand they recognize that every bad thing you did to them was perfectly within your right.

Nations are accepted as de facto entities all over the world (and that is all nations are, things that exist, and people accept that).

Why does Israel demand more?

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 12:08 AM
I believe that every human being was created in the image of God. Indeed, we are all His children.

Having said that, one one of God's other children picks up a weapon and tries to kill me or some other innocent, I have the right, even the obligation, to stop him.

The Palestinians would agree.

Now here are some facts:

More Palestinian civilians have been killed annually than Israeli civilians.

The death toll used to be totally lopsided against the Palestinians prior to the Intifada.

You see, the Palestinians noted that the Israelis were picking up weapons to kill them or an innocent, and exercised their right, nay obligation, to stop them.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 12:11 AM
The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

Notice that you've assumed that Israel will never commit evils on that scale.

Never ever.

By definition.

If Israel does it, it isn't comparable to Auschwitz.

By definition.

Regardless of the facts on the ground, and with no reference to what Israel actually does.

You see this is using ad hominems to prevent someone from looking at the facts on the ground.

Of course this has been the tactic for decades now: Call anyone criticizing Israel an anti-semite.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 12:21 AM
You'll have to bring some facts to prove that statement.

I've brought exactly as many facts to the table as you have.



Possibly so, but a couple of points: First, nearly every single person killed by Palestinian terrorism has been a civilian; they never target soldiers because they prefer soft targets, like girls waiting on line outside a disco or infants in a stroller. Secondly, Palestinian terrorists have the nasty habit of operating amongst civilians; are Israeli soldiers not supposed to shoot at armed and dangerous people because they are so doing?

Well they don't have bulldozers to mow houses down.


Killing militants hiding amongst civilians is perfectly legal, even if some civilians get hit.

Strange how every time a civilian gets killed the killer "swears" there was a militant there...somewhere.

It reminds me of the South Park bit where you can't hunt, but you can kill an animal if it is "coming right for you".


During World War 2, we killed a lot more Germans than Germans killed Americans. Does that make German the 'good guys' and America the 'bad guys'?

You are assuming someone is "the good guy".


Yah, and sometimes when people say it, it's true.

In my opinion it is true exactly never.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 12:28 AM
You are assuming someone is "the good guy".

At the very least, a lesser evil. But yea, there are good guys in war.

God favored....

David over Goliath
David over the Philistines
Saul over Amalekites
Joshua over the Canaanites

I could go on and on and on.

Not only did God favor these folks, but he also fought with them in the war.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 12:28 AM
No one is telling the US or Canada or Great Britain or Australia that they plan to drive them into the sea and that they won't stop until every American, Canadian, Brit, or Aussie is dead. There's a really big difference. If it were just about winning the battle then, game over, Israel has already done that, but you and I both know it's not. Israel is surrounded on all sides by those who wish to annihilate them, so they do what they have to do to survive. If native Americans started strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up buses and shopping centers, the US would do what must be done to protect its citizens.

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 12:30 AM
No one is telling the US or Canada or Great Britain or Australia that they plan to drive them into the see and that they won't stop until every American, Canadian, Brit, or Aussie is dead. There's a really big difference. If it were just about winning the battle then, game over, Israel has already done that, but you and I both know it's not. Israel is surrounded on all sides by those who wish to annihilate them, so they do what they have to do to survive. If native Americans started strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up buses and shopping centers, the US would do what must be done to protect its citizens.

God Bless!

Exactly! That's one reason God established governments... to protect people from evil through force if necessary.

Matthew
Nov 29th 2007, 12:43 AM
Last week I caught part of an interesting show on the History Channel about the Comanche in Texas. The Texas Rangers and Comanche were both pretty ruthless and I'm sure both thought they were justified in trying to destroy the other. A historian at the end of the program made a good point. To paraphrase, he said if you're looking at the fighting between the two and trying to label one side the good guys and one side the bad guys then you're heading down the wrong path. It's a futile exercise.

I think the same can be said for the Israelis and Palestinians. Just as sure as one side can look back to find what they believe is justification for violence so can the other side. But, what matters is the present and what can be done to prevent future violence.

RoadWarrior
Nov 29th 2007, 02:28 AM
I think it is worth remarking that the behavior and tactics of the Palestinians under Israeli rule isn't terribly different than that of Jewish groups when the area was still the British Mandate.

Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang

I believe the British deemed such Jewish groups as "terrorists" (basically making Israel a state founded by terrorists).

Perhaps the Palestinians simply took a good look at history and are emulating tactics that worked so well in the past.

And perhaps the Israelis just took a good look at Ireland and emulated tactics that worked so well there. If you question this statement, I recommend to you the movie "Michael Collins".

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 03:24 AM
Alrighty. Everyone continue your discussion, leave out the stuff that was deleted from entering the discussion, and back up what you are claiming. I'd close this, but it would make all the work I just an excercise in futility.

Remember - this is contro - but we are STILL on a Christian message board.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 05:26 AM
No nation has a "right to exist".

Are you serious here?

If yes, does this mean we can just tell the Palestinians they have no right to exist, and the whole problem will just go away?

A Seeker
Nov 29th 2007, 07:38 AM
Well gosh this thread has moved a long way since last night. And not in a good way.:cry:

For the record i'm not on anyones side. Except maybe the god who said thou shalt not do murder and to love your neighbor. For me killing civilians deliberatly in cold blood is indefensible whoever does it! Did you read the eye wittness statements i provided? And some of those were written by people who should have been sympathetic to the israeli position.

Its sad that to discuss history in any way which could be critical of Israel immediatly means you are considered to have a side. Thats no way to seek the truth. Where is the balance? Surely the actions of both israel and the arabs must be examined to have a meaningful debate!

It has often been said that the line between good and evil runs not between people but down the middle of all of us. I think thats true of nations as well. There is not a nation on the planet which has not at some point acted in a reprehensible way.

Not Britain, not america and certainly not israel.

To deny that is a dangerous thing. For when you stop looking for the evil in yourself / your nation it becomes free to grow unchecked. Only when you are alert to the possibility can you weed the evil out.

With sadness
Seeker

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 12:42 PM
This is what I don't get in this whole thing; from the very first mandate concerning the area of Palestine to the UN Partition plan of 1947, the group now called the Palestinian refugees were offered the lion's share of land to be self-governed. The British Mandate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate) The UN Partition plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan) Those Arabs that became citizens of the newly formed Israeli state are still legal citizens and NOT refugees. They and their children have all the rights that any other Israeli has. They even enlist and serve in the Israeli army and participate in Israeli politics. Only those who refuse to accept the Jews of the area refused citizenship and fled to return with the Arab armies that would push the Jews into the sea. Unfortunately for them,:rolleyes: that never happened so now they remain refugees. The zionists have ALWAYS agreed to share the land; the Arabs (Palestinians) have NEVER agreed to share the land. The modern Israelis, in general, who are mostly a liberal, non-religious, humanistic group of citizens, still want to share the land. There can be no treaty if one side is not willing to give. Given the history, there are only three ways that could bring some form of real, lasting peace to the region.

1) The Jews are pushed into the sea.
2) The Arabs (Palestinians) decide to accept the state of Israel and live peaceably with their neighbors.
3) The Lord Yeshua returns.

I'm not a gambler but if I were, my money would be on number 3. Even so, come Lord Jesus! :pray:

God Bless!

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:06 PM
"Stop him" how?By any means necessary.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:08 PM
The Palestinians would agree.

Now here are some facts:

More Palestinian civilians have been killed annually than Israeli civilians.


Again:

More German civilians were killed in WW2 than American civilians. Did that make the German right and us wrong?

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:09 PM
Notice that you've assumed that Israel will never commit evils on that scale.
No, I'm saying that Israel HAS NOT committed offenses on that scale.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:13 PM
I've brought exactly as many facts to the table as you have.You're making an assertion; it's your job to prove it, not my job to disprove it.





Well they don't have bulldozers to mow houses down.What does that have to do with anything?




Strange how every time a civilian gets killed the killer "swears" there was a militant there...somewhere.Yeah, I guess the IDF just goes into the west bank and guns down Palestinians for the hell of it. :rolleyes:




You are assuming someone is "the good guy".By my reasoning, there is. Not all violence is equal, and violence undertaken in the defense of innocents is not a bad thing.




In my opinion it is true exactly never.Then you're a pacifist and by your inaction you side with the aggressor. I do not find this to be a particularly moral stance.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:17 PM
And you base this on what?
Ever wonder why the later Muslim religion developed, in light of Zionism. IOW it's responsive to Zionism of Israel.

The Muslim religion appears to be quite violent wherever it finds itself; against Hindus in India, against Christian and Animists in Sudan, against Christians and Atheists in France, against Christians in Russia, against other Muslims in Iraq and Iran and Jordan and Egypt and Algeria, and yes, against Jews in Israel.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:19 PM
I think the same can be said for the Israelis and Palestinians. Just as sure as one side can look back to find what they believe is justification for violence so can the other side. But, what matters is the present and what can be done to prevent future violence.

If the arabs gave up their weapons there would be peace. If Israel gave up their weapons there would be genocide.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:20 PM
For the record i'm not on anyones side. That's like saying between the fire and the firefighter you aren't taking sides.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 01:28 PM
Yes indeed a double standard. Zionists practically invented terrorism to regain their land.
Israel got what it wanted, power, which corrupts. And Israels use of excessive force against a weaker people fits in the definition of terrorism. Yes, things were so much better when Jews were helpless and powerless, weren't they? Except for the Jews, of course, but who cares about them anyway?


Israel was one of the first countries to legalize torture of "political" prisoners, many which they called terrorists. The Human Rights Watch reports Israel also sanctions "exceptional interrogation" means in cases where they believe information will forestall an attack.

<edit>Israel does not arrest people for their political opinions, unlike her neighbors. When Israel arrests someone, it is because they are planning or already have committed a terrorist attack. That is not a 'political' prisoner. As far as torture goes, I am all for it if it produces information that will save lives. A terrorist's discomfort counts far far less to me than the innocent lives that would be lost if they were not tortured. I really don't see how a moral person could say otherwise.

diffangle
Nov 29th 2007, 02:29 PM
The Muslim religion appears to be quite violent wherever it finds itself; against Hindus in India, against Christian and Animists in Sudan, against Christians and Atheists in France, against Christians in Russia, against other Muslims in Iraq and Iran and Jordan and Egypt and Algeria, and yes, against Jews in Israel.
Don't forget about the Buddhists they're beheading in Thailand now.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 02:35 PM
Right, I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me!

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 02:59 PM
We always hear that Islam is a religion of peace. But the history of Islam is covered with violence and bloodshed, right back to its founder Muhammad, who was himself essentially a bloodthirsty terrorist and a pedophile.

Even so, I'd venture to say that most of your rank & file Muslims are not blood-thirsty and violent people. Most of them probably want what most of us want in life. I know there are many Muslims here in Omaha, and to the best of my knowledge, they cause absolutely no problems of any kind whatsoever. They are model citizens.

However, history seems to verify the fact that when Islam is present in government - especially to the point of being a theocracy - bloodshed, violence, terrorism, genocide and the absence of any civil rights will inevitably ensue. Is there a Muslim-ruled country, anywhere in the world, where there is peace and prosperity? Has there ever been?

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 03:53 PM
I'm not really sure how someone can claim to be Christian and at the same time deny the Jewish people's tie to the land of Israel.

Was God lying when He made the following promise?

I will restore My people Israel,

They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them,

They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,

They shall till gardens and eat their fruits,

And I will plant them upon their soil,

Nevermore to be uprooted

From the soil I have given them,

Said The Lord your God. (Amos 9:14).

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 03:58 PM
I'm not really sure how someone can claim to be Christian and at the same time deny the Jewish people's tie to the land of Israel.

Was God lying when He made the following promise?

I will restore My people Israel,

They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them,

They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,

They shall till gardens and eat their fruits,

And I will plant them upon their soil,

Nevermore to be uprooted

From the soil I have given them,

Said The Lord your God. (Amos 9:14).

The only "glitch" I would bring to this is the question of whether or not that restoration already happened.

Many would argue - and with merit - that these, and other OT prophecies, were fulfilled with Israel returned from captivity/exile in Babylon around 500 BC.

But I don't suppose that's what we ought to discuss here, lest this thread be moved to the End Times sub-forum! :)

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 04:01 PM
And for those who wish to rail against Israel, here's an ally for you to quote (he's a maniac who on the one hand denies a genocide, and on the other wishes to carry one out. That you may find yourself agreeing with him on Israel should be a cause for some introspection. In any case...):

"It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime." -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 04:04 PM
The only "glitch" I would bring to this is the question of whether or not that restoration already happened.

Many would argue - and with merit - that these, and other OT prophecies, were fulfilled with Israel returned from captivity/exile in Babylon around 500 BC.From the quote: Nevermore to be uprooted

Since the Jews were in fact uprooted means that it must be referring to a future return.

The same could be said for many prophecies. Ezekiel prophesises a rebuilt Temple whose dimensions do not fit any Temple built to date, for example. They must be referring to as-of-yet unfulfilled events.


But I don't suppose that's what we ought to discuss here, lest this thread be moved to the End Times sub-forum! :)Well, if it ends up there I'm out. I am not allowed to post there.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 05:53 PM
I'm not really sure how someone can claim to be Christian and at the same time deny the Jewish people's tie to the land of Israel.

The Jewish peoples tie to the land, is simply the fact that they live in that land (which is just a part of the world). Israel began with a man who had a tribe of sons. That man inherited from his father the privileges in the land which they enjoyed. Those privileges were given by the governing powers. ie. Babylonian and Persian empires
But "Israel" was never meant to be some super power like those empires. And when they tried to rebel against them, Israel had problems which were God ordained. And why scripture says, God, "abhors the excellence of Jacob".




Was God lying when He made the following promise?

I will restore My people Israel,

They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them,

They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,

They shall till gardens and eat their fruits,

And I will plant them upon their soil,

Nevermore to be uprooted

From the soil I have given them,

Said The Lord your God. (Amos 9:14).

The promise sounds as though they, Israel, can live peaceable in the land.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 05:56 PM
Then you're a pacifist and by your inaction you side with the aggressor. I do not find this to be a particularly moral stance.

Peace is a moral stance.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 05:57 PM
Peace is a moral stance.
Really? If someone was about to murder your son or daughter and you had a weapon and could stop them, would peace still be the moral stance?

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:01 PM
The Jewish peoples tie to the land, is simply the fact that they live in that land (which is just a part of the world).
The Torah ought to have started with "This month shall be to you..." (Exodus 12:2), which is the first mitzvah commanded to the people of Israel. Why, then, does it begin with, "In the beginning [G-d created the heavens and the earth]"? ... So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are thieves, for having conquered the lands of the seven nations", they would reply to them: "The entire world is G-d's; He created it, and He grants it to whoever He desires. It was His will to give it to them, and it was His will to take it from them and give it to us."

Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:1


In truth, there are numerous quotes in the bible where God states that He is giving the land of Israel to the Jews forever. Most Evangelicals understand this obvious point; why don't you?

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:08 PM
A Christian Zionist website was kind enough to package the quotes for me:


Genesis 12:7 - And the LORD appeared unto Abraham and said, "Unto your descendants will I give this land."

Genesis 13:14-15 - And the LORD said unto Abraham, "Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are standing, north, south, east, and west. For the land which you see, to you will I give it and to your descendants forever."

Genesis 17:1-8 - And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, "I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
Isaac "To you and your descendants I give this land." (Genesis 26:3)


Genesis 28:10-16 - And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. And he came upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, "I am the LORD God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed;

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:11 PM
And of course God promises that in the end we will get the land back, at the End of Days:


Deuteronomy 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee. 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 06:13 PM
Really? If someone was about to murder your son or daughter and you had a weapon and could stop them, would peace still be the moral stance?

Yes it would be. If God cannot save me and mine, then what could I do.
Violence only begets more violence.


Is. 53 "brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

_____________________


Hbr 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

Hbr 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Hbr 11:36 And others had trial of [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

Hbr 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

Hbr 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.

Hbr 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith,


Christians follow a path of peace.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:19 PM
Yes it would be. If God cannot save me and mine, then what could I do. Maybe God put you there to save yours. Violence can be a holy act if it is used to save lives.



Christians follow a path of peace.Thank God all Christians don't feel the way you do, or Hitler would rule the world.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:19 PM
Yes indeed a double standard. Zionists practically invented terrorism to regain their land.

Does that mean concentration camps aren't terrorist? They did occur before Israel became a state. The statement concerning Zionist inventing terrorism is over the top, in my opinion, and does not hold up to a historical study.


Israel got what it wanted, power, which corrupts. And Israels use of excessive force against a weaker people fits in the definition of terrorism.

So when God used force on Sodom was that terrorism? By this definition it is, if we define terrorism as when someone more powerful uses excessive force against someone that is weaker. I guess that would also make Saul a terrorist and many other Godly men throughout history.


Israel was one of the first countries to legalize torture of "political" prisoners, many which they called terrorists. The Human Rights Watch reports Israel also sanctions "exceptional interrogation" means in cases where they believe information will forestall an attack.

Now, if we want to argue facts, this is much more palatable. Israel is made up of human beings and we know humans are fallen. No country is perfect.

The bottom line, people have looked for reasons to kill Jews for years. During the dark ages, they were killed because they "crucified Christ". They were also blamed for causing the black plague. The list goes on and on. Surely those could be called acts of terror when one is warred against for "crucifying" Jesus. And why were those atrocities carried out? Because people blamed Jews for things that they were not guilty of. Jews have been hated for killing Jesus for centuries. But they did not kill him. We did.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:20 PM
I believe that is why this whole thing, the conflict with Israel, has carried on and on. Man is a nasty sort, messing with what God intended. Man will always do so, we can't change mans nature. And, that nature is to be against God.

Why would that be any different with land which man has always seen as a sign of power, importance and stature?

We can be sure that God will restore Israel. Until then, Israel is at the mercy of this world and the men in it.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:23 PM
Peace is a moral stance.

When appropriate, it is. But war is also a moral stance, when appropriate. But that's another thread.


Christians follow a path of peace.Yep. But peace often comes by war. It is not the preferred way, but it can be a way that God ordains, blesses and guides us to do, and will participate himself in.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:24 PM
Yes it would be. If God cannot save me and mine, then what could I do.
Violence only begets more violence.

So David was wrong to kill Goliath? Again, this probably should be discussed in anther thread. But it is related. Violence is not in and of itself sinful. The reasons for it can make it just or not just.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:26 PM
I believe that is why this whole thing, the conflict with Israel, has carried on and on. Man is a nasty sort, messing with what God intended. Man will always do so, we can't change mans nature.
I won't argue with this statement; from a theological perspective it's probably true. But from a practical perspective, what is Israel now to do? Turn the other cheek? Pretend that she isn't surrounded by enemies who wish to crush her? Accede to her enemies maximalist demands, knowing that doing so will only whet their appetite for more?

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:28 PM
I won't argue with this statement; from a theological perspective it's probably true. But from a practical perspective, what is Israel now to do? Turn the other cheek? Pretend that she isn't surrounded by enemies who wish to crush her? Accede to her enemies maximalist demands, knowing that doing so will only whet their appetite for more?

Governments were never called by God to turn the other cheek. Only individuals are to do that. God gave us authority to deal with evil and to protect us. I can turn the other cheek because both God and government will wield the sword to protect me. In my opinion, Israel is not perfect. (What country is?) She, like all of us, has sinned. But she is now a government and a country. The government, ordained by God, is responsible to protect her people from those that wish to destroy her.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:31 PM
Governments were never called by God to turn the other cheek. Only individuals are to do that. God gave us authority to deal with evil and to protect us. I can turn the other cheek because both God and government will wield the sword to protect me. In my opinion, Israel is not perfect. (What country is?) She, like all of us, has sinned. But she is now a government and a country. The government, ordained by God, is responsible to protect her people from those that wish to destroy her.AMEN.

You're a wise man, Brother Mark. I bolded the sentence I particularly like.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 06:33 PM
In truth, there are numerous quotes in the bible where God states that He is giving the land of Israel to the Jews forever. Most Evangelicals understand this obvious point; why don't you?

I am not an evangelical.

I already stated, Israel (who was a person) was given land by his father who made the land deal. That the people associated with that tribe (Israel) were rebellious doesn't negate that fact.

Scripture proves they were wrong in what they did (Judges, Kings). Because if they were right they could not have failed, because God doesn't fail, people do.

The reality of the matter is history. Just because we are able to look back and see what people did, doesn't mean that what they did was right, IOW we don't have to justify it. Looking back at Israel attempts at being a nation shows their failure. How could they fail if that is really what God wanted for them.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:34 PM
I won't argue with this statement; from a theological perspective it's probably true. But from a practical perspective, what is Israel now to do? Turn the other cheek? Pretend that she isn't surrounded by enemies who wish to crush her? Accede to her enemies maximalist demands, knowing that doing so will only whet their appetite for more?


Nope. When something is cornered it's natural to fight. They don't want to be pushed into the sea. Drowning isn't any fun. Of course they are going to fight back! ;)

Yet there is a God ordained path this is going to take, and no matter what Israel or Palastine think of beating the snot out of each other, ultimately God's will is going to prevail. It's a nasty thing to have it be war torn, nobody wants that. Peace will come as God ordained peace, but until then the fighting will continue.

Now, how does any of this relate to terrorists from one side learned from the other? Really, it's man's nature at it's worst. Threaten enough and man will do some crazy things. Same thing for making man hungry for power and being the one in the right.

So, are the terrorists from the Palestinian or Israeli side better? To point fingers is mute! They negate each other. Both are horrid. Nobody is better!

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:35 PM
Governments were never called by God to turn the other cheek. Only individuals are to do that. God gave us authority to deal with evil and to protect us. I can turn the other cheek because both God and government will wield the sword to protect me. In my opinion, Israel is not perfect. (What country is?) She, like all of us, has sinned. But she is now a government and a country. The government, ordained by God, is responsible to protect her people from those that wish to destroy her.

Also agreed. :)

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:37 PM
I already stated, Israel (who was a person) was given land by his father who made the land deal. That the people associated with that tribe (Israel) were rebellious doesn't negate that fact.Please read the verses I posted. They do not cite a land deal. They cite a promise made by God, giving the land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants forever.

I don't think that God lied. Do you?

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:40 PM
So, are the terrorists from the Palestinian or Israeli side better? To point fingers is mute! They negate each other. Both are horrid. Nobody is better!I was in agreement with you up until this point.

I state emphatically that the state of Israel does not commit terror attacks, nor does it condone or encourage terrorism. And no one here has demonstrated otherwise.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:46 PM
Yet there is a God ordained path this is going to take, and no matter what Israel or Palastine think of beating the snot out of each other, ultimately God's will is going to prevail. It's a nasty thing to have it be war torn, nobody wants that. Peace will come as God ordained peace, but until then the fighting will continue.

True. But in the mean time, many things happen that are not God's will. Suicide bombing is not the will of God. Israel should do everything she can to make sure such things do not occur.


So, are the terrorists from the Palestinian or Israeli side better? To point fingers is mute! They negate each other. Both are horrid. Nobody is better!

Actually, if we look deeper, there may indeed be a right and wrong side. God told Saul to destroy all the Amalekites. Today, we would call that terrorism. But Saul lost his kingdom because he let Agag and some sheep live.

In Israel's case, they now have the land. They are now the governing authority over that land. From proverbs we know this...

Dan 2:19-21

19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven; 20 Daniel said,

"Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever,
For wisdom and power belong to Him.
21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs;
He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men
And knowledge to men of understanding.
NASU

If a country is established, God did it. Even if that country was established in sin, it was lifted up by the hand of the Lord. I am not saying God endorsed the way it occurred as we know that God raised up Babylon and then chastised her for what she did when he raised her up.

God raised up the nation of Israel, China, the US, Russia, etc. Every government on earth was raised up by God.

There are evil governments and some that act righteously. But one of governments responsibilities as laid out in scripture, is to wield the sword against evil. It is designed to protect people from wicked.

In this case, Israel is called by God to defend her people from Palestinian terrorism.

Does that make previous Isreali sins right? Nope. But to say they are wrong for defending themselves because of what occurred in the past, doesn't seem to fit scripture either.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 06:47 PM
Does that mean concentration camps aren't terrorist? They did occur before Israel became a state. The statement concerning Zionist inventing terrorism is over the top, in my opinion, and does not hold up to a historical study.


There were concentration camps before Joshua (1st Zionist)?



The bottom line, people have looked for reasons to kill Jews for years. During the dark ages, they were killed because they "crucified Christ". They were also blamed for causing the black plague. The list goes on and on. Surely those could be called acts of terror when one is warred against for "crucifying" Jesus. And why were those atrocities carried out? Because people blamed Jews for things that they were not guilty of. Jews have been hated for killing Jesus for centuries. But they did not kill him. We did.

I am not of the camp that says that Jews should be killed, for Jesus or any other reason.

While the Jews did not do the actually killing of Jesus, they orchestrated it to rid themselves of Him, while also not taking any responsibility for it. They broke quite a few of their own laws in doing so also. Which implicates them in the conspiracy.
Jesus is who pointed out that they killed their own prophets He sent. Is Jesus a liar about His own ethnic people.:rolleyes:

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:48 PM
I was in agreement with you up until this point.

I state emphatically that the state of Israel does not commit terror attacks, nor does it condone or encourage terrorism. And no one here has demonstrated otherwise.

Nope, not like the radical Islamists. But, there is domestic terrorism, I could claim terrorism at work. Basically being a terrorist is being a really evil bully. I am sure that in Israel's attempt to fight for their land they have used tactics that would be considered terroristic in nature. As I said, man does some nasty things when threatened.

And, lets also take into account that the term terrorist has a heavier meaning and is more broad since 9/11. The world is sensitive to that definition. Maybe, terrorist is a not the best word to use. ;)

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:50 PM
Nope, not like the radical Islamists. But, there is domestic terrorism, I could claim terrorism at work. Basically being a terrorist is being a really evil bully. I am sure that in Israel's attempt to fight for their land they have used tactics that would be considered terroristic in nature. As I said, man does some nasty things when threatened.

And, lets also take into account that the term terrorist has a heavier meaning and is more broad since 9/11. The world is sensitive to that definition. Maybe, terrorist is a not the best word to use. ;)

It's not. By modern definition, God is a terrorist.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:53 PM
I am sure that in Israel's attempt to fight for their land they have used tactics that would be considered terroristic in nature. As I said, man does some nasty things when threatened.
Israel does not intentionally murder civilians, which I consider to be the modern standard definition of terrorism.

Israel's enemies do.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:53 PM
Does that make previous Isreali sins right? Nope. But to say they are wrong for defending themselves because of what occurred in the past, doesn't seem to fit scripture either.


No, it doesn't make them right. But which evil act is better? Is there a good terrorism? There is war in defense of evil and then there is terrorism. For the purpose of this thread, it's terrorism that is being looked into.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:53 PM
There were concentration camps before Joshua (1st Zionist)?

If we go back that far in defining a Zionist, then perhaps Moses would better be called the first one. Better, yet, since God orchestrated all of it, he might fit the bill even better.


I am not of the camp that says that Jews should be killed, for Jesus or any other reason.

While the Jews did not do the actually killing of Jesus, they orchestrated it to rid themselves of Him, while also not taking any responsibility for it. They broke quite a few of their own laws in doing so also. Which implicates them in the conspiracy.
Jesus is who pointed out that they killed their own prophets He sent. Is Jesus a liar about His own ethnic people.:rolleyes:
No argument on that Jews and Romans played a significant role in Christ crucifixion. But we also know that it was us that caused it.

And people have wrongly used the roles of the Jews in Christ crucifixion to persecute them all the while overlooking our own role and the role of the Romans. Not only that, it is also overlooked that it was the Jews that brought Christianity to the world. Like us, they both crucified Jesus and preached him.

Without Paul, Peter, Barnabas and the efforts of many other Jews, we would not know Christ today as we do.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 06:54 PM
There were concentration camps before Joshua (1st Zionist)?So Joshua was evil for doing what God told him to do? That's a new concept to me.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 06:55 PM
Israel does not intentionally murder civilians, which I consider to be the modern standard definition of terrorism.

Israel's enemies do.

Fair enough .

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 06:55 PM
I was in agreement with you up until this point.

I state emphatically that the state of Israel does not commit terror attacks, nor does it condone or encourage terrorism. And no one here has demonstrated otherwise.In the context of the OP the Jewish terrorist would be considered pre-state of Israel, not the Israeli government though I know there would be those who would disagree. :rolleyes:

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 06:59 PM
No, it doesn't make them right. But which evil act is better? Is there a good terrorism? Whether it's in defense or on the offensive, there is war in defense of evil and then there is terrorism. For the purpose of this thread, it's terrorism that is being looked into.

Was it good for Saul to destroy all of the Amelekites? Or was it good for Joshua to displace all of the Canaanites? Was that terrorism? :hmm:

I won't defend some of how Israel was founded. But there is certainly a preponderance of evidence that suggest their acts were far less evil than what we are seeing today by Islam in general when it comes to terrorism and other things. As Fenris has pointed out, the early fighting was mostly against military targets. But there were civilian casualties.

The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The early Israelis did not make a habit of it like the Palestinians did.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 07:02 PM
In the context of the OP the Jewish terrorist would be considered pre-state of Israel,Correct. And some of the groups fighting for Israeli independence used some harsh methods, no doubt. I am not saying that I agree with what they did. But regardless, they did not intentionally target civilians. They attacked British military targets and post-independence they fought with Arab soldiers.



not the Israeli government though I know there would be those who would disagree. :rolleyes:Sigh. yeah, I know.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 07:06 PM
Was it good for Saul to destroy all of the Amelekites? Or was it good for Joshua to displace all of the Canaanites? Was that terrorism? :hmm:

I won't defend some of how Israel was founded. But there is certainly a preponderance of evidence that suggest their acts were far less evil than what we are seeing today by Islam in general when it comes to terrorism and other things. As Fenris has pointed out, the early fighting was mostly against military targets. But there were civilian casualties.

The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The early Israelis did not make a habit of it like the Palestinians did.

In some ways, we have to dissociate with the past. Every race, every tribe, every religion and every socio-economic group has some past grievance they can dredge up.

For instance, were the Native American Indians screwed over by the white man? Yes. In many cases, and sometimes repeatedly. But does that mean that they should sit on a reservation, doing nothing but drinking hard liquor, today? I'd have to say "no" because now they are victimizing themselves a hundred-times over.

In like manner, some of the "it used to be OUR land" and "look what the Israelites did 2000 years ago!" rants have to be dropped. While their veracity and credibility can be debated, those rants have nothing to offer us today.

The Muslims - including the Palestinians - need to STOP working to annihilate Israel. Period! Israel needs to STOP retaliating in such broad, sweeping ways that said retaliation kills hundreds of civilians. Period!

This is the 21st Century. It's time both sides of the war get out of the dark ages and into today.



ps... I'm not accusing you of anything here, BrotherMark. I just used your last sentence as a springboard for my rant. :)

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 07:06 PM
Please read the verses I posted. They do not cite a land deal. They cite a promise made by God, giving the land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants forever.

I don't think that God lied. Do you?

Scripture doesn't state land deals, historical documents do. Those documents show that Abraham was a prince of Babylon and his progeny were the inheritors.

If God gave it to them then who could possibly take it from them. The land is still there if they want it. I don't recall reading that God said for them to do violence to have that right (to live in the land).

Last night the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was on. What the actor Orlando Bloom says at the end of the bloody battle in Jerusalem is quite true. "If this is the kingdom of heaven, let God do what He will with it".
Such violence is not worth a pile of rocks (city of Jerusalem).

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 07:11 PM
Scripture doesn't state land deals, historical documents do. So we just ignore what God said? I didn't realize we were allowed to play so fast and easy with God's word.



Such violence is not worth a pile of rocks (city of Jerusalem).If Israel didn't fight for their existence, every day, then they would all be killed. Maybe that's an outcome you can live with, but they can't. It's disingenuous to ask a people to commit suicide.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 07:14 PM
In some ways, we have to dissociate with the past. Every race, every tribe, every religion and every socio-economic group has some past grievance they can dredge up.

For instance, were the Native American Indians screwed over by the white man? Yes. In many cases, and sometimes repeatedly. But does that mean that they should sit on a reservation, doing nothing but drinking hard liquor, today? I'd have to say "no" because now they are victimizing themselves a hundred-times over.

In like manner, some of the "it used to be OUR land" and "look what the Israelites did 2000 years ago!" rants have to be dropped. While their veracity and credibility can be debated, those rants have nothing to offer us today.

The Muslims - including the Palestinians - need to STOP working to annihilate Israel. Period! Israel needs to STOP retaliating in such broad, sweeping ways that said retaliation kills hundreds of civilians. Period!

This is the 21st Century. It's time both sides of the war get out of the dark ages and into today.



ps... I'm not accusing you of anything here, BrotherMark. I just used your last sentence as a springboard for my rant. :)

I agree with you Jeffreys. What you are saying is what I am saying. Regardless of how Israel came into being, they are now the authority over that land. God raised them up as he does all nations. They have a God given responsibility to protect their citizens regardless of how said government came into being. We do have to disassociate from the past and recognize the present reality, Israel now is a country with a government.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 07:16 PM
I agree with you Jeffreys. What you are saying is what I am saying. Regardless of how Israel came into being, they are now the authority over that land. God raised them up as he does all nations. They have a God given responsibility to protect their citizens regardless of how said government came into being. We do have to disassociate from the past and recognize the present reality, Israel now is a country with a government.
Absolutely.

And the sooner the Muslim world understands and accepts that, the better. Sadly, I have serious doubts as to whether that is ever going to happen.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 07:23 PM
I already stated, Israel (who was a person) was given land by his father who made the land deal. That the people associated with that tribe (Israel) were rebellious doesn't negate that fact.Where is this 'land deal' in scripture? :hmm: Abraham NEVER possessed the land to be able to give it physically to Isaac or his grandson Israel (Jacob). Jacob NEVER possessed the land God had promised his grandfather for his descendants. I'm not sure where you're coming up with the idea that Israel's father made some sort of land deal. With whom was this deal made?

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 07:25 PM
Was it good for Saul to destroy all of the Amelekites? Or was it good for Joshua to displace all of the Canaanites? Was that terrorism? :hmm:

I won't defend some of how Israel was founded. But there is certainly a preponderance of evidence that suggest their acts were far less evil than what we are seeing today by Islam in general when it comes to terrorism and other things. As Fenris has pointed out, the early fighting was mostly against military targets. But there were civilian casualties.

The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. The early Israelis did not make a habit of it like the Palestinians did.

Uh, thought we were talking modern day. Sorry, missed the memo! :lol:

No, God founded Israel the way that He saw as a perfect plan. I hardly think God asked the two sides to compare notes for terrorism.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 07:31 PM
Uh, thought we were talking modern day. Sorry, missed the memo! :lol:

We are. But we can know right and wrong by looking in scripture. It has been alluded that perhaps there is no right and wrong in this situation. I say that perhaps there is. Hence, the reference to scripture. Personally, I think we have labeled God a terrorist in this thread by saying things he condoned are terrorist acts. Now, if we want to remove the evil significance tied to being a terrorist, then no problem. But it is a worthwhile study to see what God does and does not approve of when it comes to acts of war.


No, God founded Israel the way that He saw as a perfect plan.Agreed. But it is a very important point.


I hardly think God asked the two sides to compare notes for terrorism.Only if we wish to blanket accuse. War is sloppy. If we are going to condemn one side, the other side, or both sides, we ought to know as much as we can about the facts and what scripture has to say about the acts performed.

There is a big difference in how Israel came into being in 1948 and how the present day Palestinians are handling their affairs.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 07:33 PM
Scripture doesn't state land deals, historical documents do. Those documents show that Abraham was a prince of Babylon and his progeny were the inheritors.

If God gave it to them then who could possibly take it from them. The land is still there if they want it. I don't recall reading that God said for them to do violence to have that right (to live in the land).

Last night the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was on. What the actor Orlando Bloom says at the end of the bloody battle in Jerusalem is quite true. "If this is the kingdom of heaven, let God do what He will with it".
Such violence is not worth a pile of rocks (city of Jerusalem).

Land deal?? :confused Abraham didn't sit down with the family and explain his will or sell it to them and sign closing documents.

Israel was given to them by God. Let's say I give you a car. There, it's yours. Now, someone tries to steal it. Will you let them take it or will you do something to stop it? Now, God Himself gave you that car. Has more worth, doesn't it?

That pile of rocks will be heaven on earth someday, and indeed that time will come and God will do what He will with it before restoring it to glory.

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 07:39 PM
We are. But we can know right and wrong by looking in scripture. It has been alluded that perhaps there is no right and wrong in this situation. I say that perhaps there is. Hence, the reference to scripture.

There is God's way and the way of this world. It's one or the other, and those who know God know His ways. ;)

Explaining it would be quite difficult for those who don't.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 07:51 PM
Land deal?? :confused Abraham didn't sit down with the family and explain his will or sell it to them and sign closing documents.

Israel was given to them by God. Let's say I give you a car. There, it's yours. Now, someone tries to steal it. Will you let them take it or will you do something to stop it? Now, God Himself gave you that car. Has more worth, doesn't it?

Right. But in Israel's case, it was like God said "see that car? It's yours. Go take it from Fred".

But he did that for a nation. Not an individual. He gave the land to Abraham while it belonged to someone else. But told Joshua and Moses, as leaders of a country to take it from those that possessed it. God waited until the iniquity of the Canaanites was grevious before he dispossessed them from the land.

I agree with your earlier post. It can get confusing if we are not careful.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 07:51 PM
If we go back that far in defining a Zionist, then perhaps Moses would better be called the first one. Better, yet, since God orchestrated all of it, he might fit the bill even better.

If Moses was a Zionist, then Egypt would be Zion.:P
Moses was a prophet not a man of violence.

Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)

Act 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Personally I wouldn't compare Moses and Jesus to Joshua or anyone else.



No argument on that Jews and Romans played a significant role in Christ crucifixion. But we also know that it was us that caused it.

"us that caused it":confused I am not responsible for the sins of others.


Not only that, it is also overlooked that it was the Jews that brought Christianity to the world. Like us, they both crucified Jesus and preached him.

Without Paul, Peter, Barnabas and the efforts of many other Jews, we would not know Christ today as we do.

It is God who brought Christianity and gave the ability to the Jews to do their part.
Surely as Jesus said, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

A Seeker
Nov 29th 2007, 07:54 PM
There is God's way and the way of this world. It's one or the other, and those who know God know His ways. ;)


I agree with what you say (but not what you mean;))

God does things his way.

We all do thing the way of the world.


Only if we wish to blanket accuse. War is sloppy. If we are going to condemn one side, the other side, or both sides, we ought to know as much as we can about the facts and what scripture has to say about the acts performed.

That is a true thing!



In some ways, we have to dissociate with the past. Every race, every tribe, every religion and every socio-economic group has some past grievance they can dredge up.

For instance, were the Native American Indians screwed over by the white man? Yes. In many cases, and sometimes repeatedly. But does that mean that they should sit on a reservation, doing nothing but drinking hard liquor, today? I'd have to say "no" because now they are victimizing themselves a hundred-times over.

In like manner, some of the "it used to be OUR land" and "look what the Israelites did 2000 years ago!" rants have to be dropped. While their veracity and credibility can be debated, those rants have nothing to offer us today.

The Muslims - including the Palestinians - need to STOP working to annihilate Israel. Period! Israel needs to STOP retaliating in such broad, sweeping ways that said retaliation kills hundreds of civilians. Period!



And thats another true thing.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 07:55 PM
So we just ignore what God said?

How do you know what God said unless you heard Him.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 07:58 PM
How do you know what God said unless you heard Him.Uh, I have this really old book. It's called the Bible. In it, I find many instances where God makes promises to people about a certain land. I even took the time to post the actual text of those promises. Did you take the time to read them?

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 07:58 PM
If Moses was a Zionist, then Egypt would be Zion.:P
Moses was a prophet not a man of violence.

Moses wanted to conquer Canaan just as Joshua did. Joshua simply followed in Moses steps. The whole reason for the extra 40 years was because the people were afraid of the giants. Moses would have led them in right then, had they agreed to go.


Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)

Right. Which goes to show that one can be a warrior and be meek.


"us that caused it":confused I am not responsible for the sins of others.

Because of your sin, Jesus had to die. It was the sin of each of us that required the crucifixion of Jesus.



It is God who brought Christianity and gave the ability to the Jews to do their part.
Surely as Jesus said, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."


Of course. My point being, that the Jews who believed Jesus, were the ones enabled by God to bring Christianity to the world! Gentiles now have a place and have always had a place at the table of faith (i.e. Ruth).

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 08:06 PM
Where is this 'land deal' in scripture? :hmm: Abraham NEVER possessed the land to be able to give it physically to Isaac or his grandson Israel (Jacob). Jacob NEVER possessed the land God had promised his grandfather for his descendants. I'm not sure where you're coming up with the idea that Israel's father made some sort of land deal. With whom was this deal made?

The land deal isn't in scripture (I already stated this). The indication is tho. Why do you think that Abraham went to battle with the kings at Chedorlaomer? IOW why would someone who isn't royalty of some sort be involved in a royal battle.

I've posted the references before on the historical documents which indicate that Abraham was a prince of Babylon and his descendent's had rights by this. But that was in Shorashim, so I'm not sure if I can find it again. I'll look.....

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 08:10 PM
Because of your sin, Jesus had to die. It was the sin of each of us that required the crucifixion of Jesus.


Jesus died because He was fully human (as well as fully God), not because of my sins. I am responsible for my own sins. I do not hold to the belief of substitutionary atonement.

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 08:11 PM
Jesus died because He was fully human (as well as fully God), not because of my sins. I am responsible for my own sins. I do not hold to the belief of substitutionary atonement.

That will make for an interesting discussion in another thread. Perhaps you can start one and explain your position. For instance, how can your sins be forgiven or paid for without a scape goat or sacrifice? But again, that's another thread if you wish to start it.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 08:18 PM
That will make for an interesting discussion in another thread. Perhaps you can start one and explain your position. For instance, how can your sins be forgiven or paid for without a scape goat or sacrifice? But again, that's another thread if you wish to start it.

I've done threads in the past on the subject.;)

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 08:30 PM
Uh, Studyin2Show, I found the thread where I posted the original references. If you recall the thread was titled "Law facts" and you didn't want to participate. IOW you refused the information given because you don't or didn't believe the laws of Israel were of Babylonian (Code of Hammurabi) origin.

Here (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=83134&pageno=1)is the info online, titled
"Early Israel and the Surrounding Nations by Archibald Henry Sayce"

To date no one has refuted these historical references. Read the book it lays it all out for you.:)

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 08:45 PM
Here (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=83134&pageno=1)is the info online, titled
"Early Israel and the Surrounding Nations by Archibald Henry Sayce"

To date no one has refuted these historical references. Read the book it lays it all out for you.:)
That great, I am sure it will win over many secular historians to the truth of the bible. Do you intend to address any of the biblical quotes I posted?

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 08:58 PM
That great, I am sure it will win over many secular historians to the truth of the bible. Do you intend to address any of the biblical quotes I posted?

I thought I did, and even gave an overview. I didn't see where you addressed any scripture I posted. ie. Isaiah on, sheep to slaughter or Israel killing their prophets

As I told you previously, I am not an evangelical. I am a Christian. You misunderstand much about Christianity in stereotyping it with evangelicals.

In fairness, all groups, Jews, Christians and Muslims, have their violent sects. But they also have their peacemakers.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 09:04 PM
Uh, Studyin2Show, I found the thread where I posted the original references. If you recall the thread was titled "Law facts" and you didn't want to participate. IOW you refused the information given because you don't or didn't believe the laws of Israel were of Babylonian (Code of Hammurabi) origin.

Here (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=83134&pageno=1)is the info online, titled
"Early Israel and the Surrounding Nations by Archibald Henry Sayce"

To date no one has refuted these historical references. Read the book it lays it all out for you.:)Uh, what? :confused I may have refused to participate in a one-sided rant at some point in the past but no FACTS were given that I have rejected. I have read the ebook you have in the link through page 18 and though I enjoy reading and may continue to peruse Archibald's book to see what can be gleaned from it, I would, for the purpose of this thread, like to come to a point. Possibly one that includes this land deal to which you refer. Nowhere did I say that Abram was not a prince of Babylon. It is clear he was from Ur of the Chaldeans which is pretty much present day Iraq. This fact is recorded in scripture. Please give me the page number in this ebook where it explains that this FACT has anything to do with God's promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants. Yes, give me the page number or take the time to explain your very obscure position so we can have a proper dialog. ;)

God Bless!

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 09:33 PM
I thought I did, and even gave an overview.
No you didn't. I posted verses from the bible where God promises the land of Israel to the Jews forever. If you responded to it I sure didn't see it.


I didn't see where you addressed any scripture I posted. ie. Isaiah on, sheep to slaughter or Israel killing their prophetsYou made posts about that here in this thread? When?


As I told you previously, I am not an evangelical. I am a Christian. And this gives you the right to ignore bible verses?

threebigrocks
Nov 29th 2007, 10:02 PM
Alrighty, this one has fallen off the bandwagon and I think it's circled back around to take aim again.

This is closed.