Mail Condemns Guantanamo Abuses
- Thread starter Carrera
- Start date
Carrera said:
1000 BC is old enough but 0BC isn't old enough?
You're a chancer.
I told you that you were a chancer from day one, and now you confirm it.
When I told you that the land occupied by Israel was called Palestine in time of Christ - you said that the time of Christ did not represent ancient history,
Now you use 1,000 prior to Christ to imply that the Jews owned that land.
WHAT ABOUT THE TIME BEFORE THAT?
WHAT ABOUT CHAPTERS 1-34 OF GENESIS?
You're a chancer.
Oh and no one suggested that Jews were not allowed to LIVE in the Holy Land.
People have contended that the creation of a ZIONIST STATE is what is at issue and the theft of land by ZIONISTS.
Finally Aramaic predates Hebrew : hebrew is derived from Aramaic.
Now answer Fred's questions.
This soapbox has officially become a "private club" of sorts. Of all the offensive people on here I would rate Carerra waaaay down the list. Many people jump to personal insults and questionable posts much before Carerra would. This says nothing of my agreement or disagreement with his views - but of his overall conduct. I have rarely agreed with Carerra in my few discussions with people on here - but he is one of the roughly 50% of "regulars" in the soapbox that has NOT aggressively insulted me and become blatantly offensive in posts with me.
Have you noticed that 95% of the posts in the soapbox come from the same group of <10 people? You all insult and demonize any newcomer with anything but views in perfect agreement with the norm - and then carry on lengthy discussions about whether or not to ban people from your little club. Seriously. If you are in search of healthy debate and expanding your horizons, you desperately need to go somewhere else in my opinion.
Have you noticed that 95% of the posts in the soapbox come from the same group of <10 people? You all insult and demonize any newcomer with anything but views in perfect agreement with the norm - and then carry on lengthy discussions about whether or not to ban people from your little club. Seriously. If you are in search of healthy debate and expanding your horizons, you desperately need to go somewhere else in my opinion.
The fact that the us guards its borders means absolutely nothing.Every country guards its borders.wolfix said:
If the number of attempted illegal entrants to the us is compared to the number of people who have no interest in entering the us to live,legally or illegally,then a more realistic picture will be obtained regarding the us as a desirable place to live.
Post 9/11,the embassies of oz and nz were besieged with applications to emigrate, from americans.
O.K., you affirm Aramaic predates Hebrew and that Hebrew was derived from Aramaic. Then how come nobody else on the Classics forum has reached this conclusion? How come experts in the field such as Michael Grant don't agree with this statement?
At best, Aramaic was spoken close to 1000 B.C. outside of Israel, probably as an Eastern dialect of the language. However, everyone on my forum places Aramaic around 800 B.C. so your quarrel is with them, not just with me.
Next point: I didn't say the Jews owned land. I said they have a long history of having been in that land which gives them the same rights as anyone else has. I didn't imply there weren't other races in Israel before the Jews but what I can state with confidence is those people (such as the Jebusites) didn't represent an Islamic culture and that's a crucial point in this debate since it's a debate that has a lot to do with religion.
It's a crucial point because countries such as Iran seek control of the religious sites within Jerusalem and they don't have that assumed right in my opinion. Not if you compare the Judiac culture with the Islamic culture in terms of age. Canaanites were there first, Jews second, Christians after that and finally Moslems.
"and no one suggested that Jews were not allowed to LIVE in the Holy Land."
That may be true. That's where we differ in opinion. My belief is that Jews wouldn't object to Arabs living with them as a community if radical Palestinians were not making the comments they have made in the past or firing rockets. But I appreciate Israelis fears that if Hamas was given half a chance it would use terrorism to drive Israelis out of Jerusalem altogether - which is what the radicals want. I don't see how these 2 communities could live peacefully together so I suggested a compromise - one state for Palestinians and another for Jews. But Darkboong rejected that idea and says it's no good.
At best, Aramaic was spoken close to 1000 B.C. outside of Israel, probably as an Eastern dialect of the language. However, everyone on my forum places Aramaic around 800 B.C. so your quarrel is with them, not just with me.
Next point: I didn't say the Jews owned land. I said they have a long history of having been in that land which gives them the same rights as anyone else has. I didn't imply there weren't other races in Israel before the Jews but what I can state with confidence is those people (such as the Jebusites) didn't represent an Islamic culture and that's a crucial point in this debate since it's a debate that has a lot to do with religion.
It's a crucial point because countries such as Iran seek control of the religious sites within Jerusalem and they don't have that assumed right in my opinion. Not if you compare the Judiac culture with the Islamic culture in terms of age. Canaanites were there first, Jews second, Christians after that and finally Moslems.
"and no one suggested that Jews were not allowed to LIVE in the Holy Land."
That may be true. That's where we differ in opinion. My belief is that Jews wouldn't object to Arabs living with them as a community if radical Palestinians were not making the comments they have made in the past or firing rockets. But I appreciate Israelis fears that if Hamas was given half a chance it would use terrorism to drive Israelis out of Jerusalem altogether - which is what the radicals want. I don't see how these 2 communities could live peacefully together so I suggested a compromise - one state for Palestinians and another for Jews. But Darkboong rejected that idea and says it's no good.
limerickman said:
Here is my challenge to anyone on the forum to prove me wrong and it's open to all. Here is my proof that what the Palestinians really want is control over the religious sites of Jerusalem and the removal of all Jews. Here is proof, plain and simple that the dispute is about religion and the whole idea that Islam supposedly has more claim to the Holy Land than Judaism - which I proved is a theory not backed by history.
Here I quote from the Hamas Covenant and chip in with the odd comment:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hamas.htm
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered:"
My comment: Islam didn't originate till way after the time of Christ. Prior to that, as far back as 1000 B.C. Jews inhabited Israel and Palestine. So how do they conclude Palestine was meant to be Islamic?
"it, or any part of it, should not be given up...liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be...in the face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised..."
Again you hear the claim, Jews stole Palestine from Moslems. Where were the Moslems in 500 B.C.? Where were the mosques in 60 A.D.? There was no Islamic culture at that time, only pre-Islamic Assyrians or Babylonians. My challenge to anyone is to prove it was there.
The final statement speaks for itself and beggars belief:
"In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness… We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma... introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries... "
Here I quote from the Hamas Covenant and chip in with the odd comment:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hamas.htm
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered:"
My comment: Islam didn't originate till way after the time of Christ. Prior to that, as far back as 1000 B.C. Jews inhabited Israel and Palestine. So how do they conclude Palestine was meant to be Islamic?
"it, or any part of it, should not be given up...liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be...in the face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised..."
Again you hear the claim, Jews stole Palestine from Moslems. Where were the Moslems in 500 B.C.? Where were the mosques in 60 A.D.? There was no Islamic culture at that time, only pre-Islamic Assyrians or Babylonians. My challenge to anyone is to prove it was there.
The final statement speaks for itself and beggars belief:
"In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness… We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma... introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries... "
limerickman said:
Carrera said:
Who commited the terrorist acts of 1948?
The Zionists.
Who continues the military ocupation of Palestine?
The Zionists.
As regards what language was used first in that territory - it was Aramaic.
Class forum ? I have no idea what you're spouting about.
But this link tells you that Hebrew derived from Aramaic.
http://www.krysstal.com/writing_hebrew.html
So whatever you classic forum is discussing, it's incorrect.
And the compromise you suggest (two separate entities) was mandated in 1947 by the UN.
that was until the Jews/Zionists engaged in terrorism and seceded from Palestine to occupy Palestinian land.
Carrera said:
It's YOU who made the claim of Israel based upon religion.
It is YOU who claimed that the Palestine/Israel is about religion.
It is YOU who invoke the Zionist/Jewish claim that God entrusted that land to the Jews from time in memorial?
Only that claim is a lie - isn't it?
If time in memorial, means time in memorial - how come the Jewish text Genesis doesn't mention Israel in chapters 1-34?
How come there is no mention of the statelet of Israel?
How come there is no mention of land being given to anyone for 34 chapters?
And what of the people who were there during chapters 1-34?
They were the ancestors of people that are Muslims.
I did make the point that from 12-20th century that territory happened to be under Muslim rule and everyone (Jew/Christian.Muslim) lived in relative piece.
There are scores of links that make various statements about these issues - you only have to consider that The Passion was run in Aramaic to suit certain sensibilities more than likely. In truth, the crucifixion events would have reflected Greek language at that period. So, the Passion script writers were out of tune.
Leading scholars don't believe Aramaic was spoken in Israel before around 400 B.C.
To settle this debate once and for all I issued a challenge and it's open to everybody. I reprinted a summary of Hamas's objectives which are clearly stated. The challenge is to prove on historical terms that Islam preceded Judaism and that, therefore, Jerusalem should be Islamic e.t.c. Prove Islam was there first is my challenge. I can state there were Judaic religious shrines in the Holy Land as far back as 1000 B.C. So, I ask, in all fairness, where were the mosques, the Clerics, the Imams and Mullahs that were supposedly pushed asided by Jews? Because this is what people are being told took place and they believe it on face value, it seems.
Leading scholars don't believe Aramaic was spoken in Israel before around 400 B.C.
To settle this debate once and for all I issued a challenge and it's open to everybody. I reprinted a summary of Hamas's objectives which are clearly stated. The challenge is to prove on historical terms that Islam preceded Judaism and that, therefore, Jerusalem should be Islamic e.t.c. Prove Islam was there first is my challenge. I can state there were Judaic religious shrines in the Holy Land as far back as 1000 B.C. So, I ask, in all fairness, where were the mosques, the Clerics, the Imams and Mullahs that were supposedly pushed asided by Jews? Because this is what people are being told took place and they believe it on face value, it seems.
limerickman said:
"They were the ancestors of people that are Muslims.'
That's perfectly true. But that's my point in a sense. Hamas, in its political statement, seems to me to make its claim to the Holy Land on the basis of Islam. They are saying Jerusalem ought to be Islamic. They are saying Islamic religion is the best and you guys should make way and give us control of all the sites you claimed are part of your heritage. This is what I personally hear them stating on the basis of what they write in that document.
There isn't the remotest hint that maybe, just maybe, Jews and Christians also have historical connections in that land and it's important to understand that's what this debate is about. Religion.
Why don't the three sides simply come to a reasonable agreement? Why don't they simply give and take and negotiate a peaceful agreement?
That's perfectly true. But that's my point in a sense. Hamas, in its political statement, seems to me to make its claim to the Holy Land on the basis of Islam. They are saying Jerusalem ought to be Islamic. They are saying Islamic religion is the best and you guys should make way and give us control of all the sites you claimed are part of your heritage. This is what I personally hear them stating on the basis of what they write in that document.
There isn't the remotest hint that maybe, just maybe, Jews and Christians also have historical connections in that land and it's important to understand that's what this debate is about. Religion.
Why don't the three sides simply come to a reasonable agreement? Why don't they simply give and take and negotiate a peaceful agreement?
limerickman said:
Carrera said:
Let's stick to the topic : I have shown you a Jewish website link that states that Hebrew derived from Aramaic.
http://www.krysstal.com/writing_hebrew.html
Aramaic predates Hebrew - which means that the Arabs were there long before the Jews.
Genesis itself states that there were no Jews there in chapters 1 - 34.
You have been proven wrong - again.
Proven wrong by your own Jewish references I might add.
Now we're back to exactly the same situation where we were last night - when confronted with proof, you go off on a tangent and attempt to ignore the proof.
This is tiresome Carerra.
I really feel that I am wasting my time indulging you any further.
As I said to Eoin C/JH/CR who pleaded on your behalf last night - I allowed you latitude against my better judgement.
And within 24 hours it is evident that I am right.
A spokesman for the us state department has just said that the un report alleging widespread abuse of prisoners at guantanamo bay lacks credibility..."because it is based on hearsay"!
The us intends to allow hearsay evidence at the military tribunals,if the prisoners are ever tried.
This means that any hearsay evidence presented to the tribunals will also lack credibility,obviously.
Do these people have any idea what they are saying when they come out with statements like this?
The us intends to allow hearsay evidence at the military tribunals,if the prisoners are ever tried.
This means that any hearsay evidence presented to the tribunals will also lack credibility,obviously.
Do these people have any idea what they are saying when they come out with statements like this?
Carrera said:
Hamas did not exist in 1948.
Fatah didn't exist in 1948.
Zionism existed in 1948.
Zionism is a political movement based upon religion.
Who invoked religion to justify their actions.
The Zionists.
The Arabs agreed to the UN mandate for Palestine containing a holemand for Jews (in Palestine) and a homeland for Arabs (in Palestine).
Two entities in one state.
The problem occured when the Zionists decided to secede from that arrangement and put it's sole claim on Jerusalem to the exclusion of all others
in 1948.
That's the genesis of the current situation.
I can assure that soapbox is not a' Private Club' at all. Careera is a bigot and fabricator of anti Islamic rhetoric. Personal insults are taken care of within our rules, and are not inclusive of a posters family.roadhog said:
Many have called but few have stayed, this has more to do with volition and persistance . I call upon our hillybilly Redneck friends to shoot you yankees, great men they all are. If you think that Lim and I are in cahoots, then you're totally wrong, We spent two years trying to verbally kill each other over LA.
BTW why don't you go elsewhere?
Er, you provided me with a link that backs up your own view Hebrew originated from Aramaic. So what does that prove? It proves there is somebody else writing articles on the internet that endorses your view.
I'm now entitled to ask how credible your source is. Because everything I read so far puts Aramaic in the fourth century B.C. within Israel. Syria goes back before that, maybe 800 B.C. according to most. It was only at the time 400 B.C. you had duel texts composed of Hebrew and Aramaic by the side in Israel. That's according to archeologists at any rate.
I could quote you a site that claims men didn't land on the moon and the whole thing was all a set-up but mainstream scientists (the Russians included) know people landed on the moon.
My sources tend to be established historians such as Michael Grant, Robert Graves, Richard Pipes, the Greek writer Herodotus, e.t.c. e.t.c.
You claim you've proven me wrong. Let me tell you I've found the biggest hotch-potch of disinformation on Jewish history on the internet that's imaginable, according to whether Jews, Christians or Moslems are writing the articles. There is all sorts of baloney being written which is why I'd like to know who your source is exactly, and for my part, here is a summary of Michael Grant who also knows Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Incidentally he certainly doesn't endorse your views in his history of Israel.
"Michael Grant was born in 1914. Educated at Harrow, he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1933 to read classics. After graduating, he took up a research fellowship to write the thesis that he would publish as his first book, From Imperium to Auctoritas, in 1946. Perhaps surprisingly, he began his writing career in academic numismatics. Grant’s work ethic was prodigious; rarely two years went by without a new volume appearing, and as he grew older, so his remit widened."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1306228,00.html
I'm now entitled to ask how credible your source is. Because everything I read so far puts Aramaic in the fourth century B.C. within Israel. Syria goes back before that, maybe 800 B.C. according to most. It was only at the time 400 B.C. you had duel texts composed of Hebrew and Aramaic by the side in Israel. That's according to archeologists at any rate.
I could quote you a site that claims men didn't land on the moon and the whole thing was all a set-up but mainstream scientists (the Russians included) know people landed on the moon.
My sources tend to be established historians such as Michael Grant, Robert Graves, Richard Pipes, the Greek writer Herodotus, e.t.c. e.t.c.
You claim you've proven me wrong. Let me tell you I've found the biggest hotch-potch of disinformation on Jewish history on the internet that's imaginable, according to whether Jews, Christians or Moslems are writing the articles. There is all sorts of baloney being written which is why I'd like to know who your source is exactly, and for my part, here is a summary of Michael Grant who also knows Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Incidentally he certainly doesn't endorse your views in his history of Israel.
"Michael Grant was born in 1914. Educated at Harrow, he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1933 to read classics. After graduating, he took up a research fellowship to write the thesis that he would publish as his first book, From Imperium to Auctoritas, in 1946. Perhaps surprisingly, he began his writing career in academic numismatics. Grant’s work ethic was prodigious; rarely two years went by without a new volume appearing, and as he grew older, so his remit widened."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1306228,00.html
limerickman said:
