Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Glad you now learned the difference.

I always knew it. Now all you need is to learn some linguistics and history, and we'll be on equal footing on this subject.

Posted
10 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Again, the Arab-Israeli Conflict was NOT ignited over water. In 1948, the Mufti didn't look-out over the land and think: those darn Jews aren't sharing the water fairly.

You are just picking an arbitrary time to start the clock. The conflict started more than 20 years before that with intercommunal violence in mandatory Palestine,  violence over access to the western wall etc. You could even go back and say it started many hundreds of  years before that.

But the modern conflict post-armistice  is very much just a garden variety spat over resources and economics like almost all other conflicts. The war that resulted in the current occupation was the DIRECT result of fighting over control of the headwaters of the Jordan river.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted
2 minutes ago, dre said:

You are just picking an arbitrary time to start the clock. The conflict started more than 20 years before that with intercommunal violence in mandatory Palestine,  violence over access to the western wall etc. You could even go back and say it started many hundreds of  years before that.

But the modern conflict post-armistice  is very much just a garden variety spat over resources and economics like almost all other conflicts. The war that resulted in the current occupation was the DIRECT result of fighting over control of the headwaters of the Jordan river.

No I'm not...and do you really want another fight about the Grand Mufti that you're going to lose again?

Posted
10 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

No it isn't.

Yes it is if we use the traditional definition. Seems like you are selective in what definitions you use. However, you are free to be wrong.

Posted
Just now, GostHacked said:

Yes it is if we use the traditional definition. Seems like you are selective in what definitions you use. However, you are free to be wrong.

 

You're free to think someone other than Wilhelm Marr invented the term 'Antisemitism'. I literally don't care what you think. Go think I made it all up if it suits you.

It won't change the facts.

Posted
4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to think someone other than Wilhelm Marr invented the term 'Antisemitism'. I literally don't care what you think. Go think I made it all up if it suits you.

It won't change the facts.

The facts are you are wrong about the traditional meaning of Anti-semitism.  Sure in a modern context you might be correct, but changing the old definition to match something new is still wrong. That's the fact that you can't even change, no matter how much you try. NEXT !!!

Posted
Just now, GostHacked said:

The facts are you are wrong about the traditional meaning of Anti-semitism.  Sure in a modern context you might be correct, but changing the old definition to match something new is still wrong. That's the fact that you can't even change, no matter how much you try. NEXT !!!

Okay...when was the term Antisemitism first used if it was NOT coined by Wilhelm Marr in the book I posted.

Tick tock.

Posted
10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Okay...when was the term Antisemitism first used if it was NOT coined by Wilhelm Marr in the book I posted.

Tick tock.

You can leave the LetterKenny references for someone who cares.   Do you have a cite? Wow this is twice today I ask, and twice I will get nothing.

Posted
29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

No I'm not...and do you really want another fight about the Grand Mufti that you're going to lose again?

So no response? BTW, I have never denied any of your claims about the Mufti. And yes... you are picking an arbitrary time and claiming that is when the conflict started but it clearly is not. Like I said there had already been mass Jewish Immigration in 20's and intercommunal violence, riots, slaughters etc.

The post-armistice conflict however started with competing water diversion projects as I explained.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted
Just now, dre said:

So no response? BTW, I have never denied any of your claims about the Mufti. And yes... you are picking an arbitrary time and claiming that is when the conflict started but it clearly is not. Like I said there had already been mass Jewish Immigration in 20's and intercommunal violence, riots, slaughters etc.

The post-armistice conflict however started with competing water diversion projects as I explained.

You're free to make-up any version of history you choose.

Posted
13 hours ago, Bryan said:

You know that the Palestinians are Semites too, right?

I'm using the phrase in the manner in which it has been popularized in the West over the past decades.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
12 hours ago, Bryan said:

The term is a little older than that. Been around since at least the 1700s. Arabs and Jews are both semites.  It really means people who speak any of the semitic languages. 

Ask anyone on the street what it means and they'll tell you it means hatred of Jews. Whatever the archaic meaning was is irrelevant to this discussion.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
2 hours ago, dre said:

You are just picking an arbitrary time to start the clock. The conflict started more than 20 years before that with intercommunal violence in mandatory Palestine,  violence over access to the western wall etc. You could even go back and say it started many hundreds of  years before that.

And all of them were about Arabs not being able to get along with Jews.

2 hours ago, dre said:

But the modern conflict post-armistice  is very much just a garden variety spat over resources and economics like almost all other conflicts.

No, it isn't. It's about the refusal of surrounding Muslim states to accept a Jew state in their midst. This is why, despite generations of former residents of the area called Palestine being born in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, none of them are allowed to call themselves citizens of those countries. Despite having identical cultural, religious, historical, cultural and linguistic identities their Muslim leaders are determined to send them back to Israel so Muslims will be in control there again.

The multiple attacks on Israel were about Israel being run by Jews, not about water.

 

 

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
1 hour ago, Argus said:

The multiple attacks on Israel were about Israel being run by Jews, not about water.

One of the problems now is about water and access to it. It may not have been a problem then, but it sure is one now.

Posted
4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

You screwed-up and should have said Israelis.

"Palestinians" were created in 1967.

I didn't screw up, I said what I meant, and it was accurate. Palestinians and israelites have existed for thousands of years.

Posted
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Ask anyone on the street what it means and they'll tell you it means hatred of Jews. 

Yes, the average person on the street is quite ignorant.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Bryan said:

I didn't screw up, I said what I meant, and it was accurate. Palestinians and israelites have existed for thousands of years.

Arabs arrived in the Levant in large numbers starting in the 7th century AD. At the heads of armies...like Mongols, Vikings and Huns.

Jews have a somewhat deeper connection...thousands of years.

Posted
41 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Arabs arrived in the Levant in large numbers starting in the 7th century AD. At the heads of armies...like Mongols, Vikings and Huns.

Jews have a somewhat deeper connection...thousands of years.

Did the Jews take it originally by force as well?

Posted
2 hours ago, Bryan said:

Yes, the average person on the street is quite ignorant.

No, the person on the street knows that a word means what the people say it does, not what some academic says it used to mean.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,922
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TheUnrelentingPopulous
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paxamericana earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • LinkSoul60 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...