This is comforting to know

[coolwhip]

Are we a nation of idiots or what??? I guess we will never learn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071101895.html

[chillbilly]

Scary, isn't it?
And now we have Chertoff predicting a terrorist strike on our soil this summer as a "gut feeling". The head of DHS predicting terrorist attacks.
If he's right, he can say "I told you so".
If he's wrong, 'Well, it was just a gut feeling".
Either way, that type of rhetoric from someone supposedly in charge of DHS doesn't inspire much confidence.

[acmanko]

In a capitalist republic anyone should be able to buy anything as long as the price is right, quit trying to find fault with a system that 's been working. If anybody buys stuff thaey arent supposed to have ,kill them.:p

[Carnak]

you figure the rules would be stricter, of similar magnitude at least, like the rules that say who can buy guns.

[chillbilly]

you figure the rules would be stricter, of similar magnitude at least, like the rules that say who can buy guns.


I don't see the rules as the problem.
I see abuse of the rules stemming from apathy and greed as the problem.

[Carnak]

greed?

A person is so greedy they want to make a dirty bomb so they can sell it and get rich?

Or, they are terrorists and are greedy in that they want a high death count when they strike? They are greedy for knotches in their gunhandles?

[acmanko]

they are really Hired republicans trying to prove how safe we are and it backfired.

[chillbilly]

greed?

A person is so greedy they want to make a dirty bomb so they can sell it and get rich?

Or, they are terrorists and are greedy in that they want a high death count when they strike? They are greedy for knotches in their gunhandles?

Yes, yes and yes. They want Americans, Israeli's and all other opposition dead, plain and simple.
And there are even Americans that will sell out their country for profit.
Big suprise? Hardly.

[Carnak]

Yes, yes and yes. They want Americans, Israeli's and all other opposition dead, plain and simple.
And there are even Americans that will sell out their country for profit.
Big suprise? Hardly.

If you reworded that to 'Isreal and its allies' it is quite a profound context, similar to royc's "If Americans only knew"

[chillbilly]

If you reworded that to 'Isreal and its allies' it is quite a profound context, similar to royc's "If Americans only knew"

Americans do know. Who cares what is perceived as profound on this forum or elsewhere?
The point is clear and concise. There are a ton of myths that surround the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Islamic mentality about us and the rest of their enemies.
If you need to separate fact from myth about it, you read guides that explain the chronology of events and the quotes from the leaders involved.
If you don't care about separating fact from fiction, you read an op-ed article.

[Carnak]

Pre WWII, the US had no problems with muslims, what has changed?

[coolwhip]

Its crazy, if arab countries are not trying to kill eachother, then their attacking israel or the US or executing some mothers son somewhere. Reminds me of american history, where indian tribes were always at odds with eachother and sending out war parties. Its amazing we still have tribal mentalities in this day and age. These people can have so many choices, yet they choose to be ignorant and closeminded, which in and of itself can make a person hateful and envious. Its a vicious cycle that can only be eradicated by conditioning their future generations which aint going to happen in a dictatorship society.
The future holds nothing but problems with people of this mindset.

[chillbilly]

Pre WWII, the US had no problems with muslims, what has changed?
Absolutely not true.
The US has looked at the Middle East with nervousness long before WW2.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Britain in 1917 and formalized by 52 governments created anti-Jewish sentiment even though many Arab Palestinians agreed that a Jewish settlement there aided regeneration of the region.
Emir Faisal even signed an agreement with Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that acknowledged the ancient bonds that existed between Arabs and Jews. The agreement was never enacted primarily due to extremist influence.

[Carnak]

Absolutely not true.
The US has looked at the Middle East with nervousness long before WW2.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Britain in 1917 and formalized by 52 governments created anti-Jewish sentiment even though many Arab Palestinians agreed that a Jewish settlement there aided regeneration of the region.
Emir Faisal even signed an agreement with Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that acknowledged the ancient bonds that existed between Arabs and Jews. The agreement was never enacted primarily due to extremist influence.

You absolutely did not give an example of a US problem with Muslims prior to WWII. Barbary pirates was not 'fundamentalism' was money, turf, piracy

[lhatton]

Pre WWII, the US had no problems with muslims, what has changed?

That is so NOT true dude,:eek: :eek: where do you read your history from? The back of a cereal box? Please, PLEASE read this article. It is fairly short, and should prove to be educational. I am interested to hear your comments, and wait with baited breath.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/

[lhatton]

You absolutely did not give an example of a US problem with Muslims prior to WWII. Barbary pirates was not 'fundamentalism' was money, turf, piracy

You are so wrong Mr carnak. Please follow these links, take 5 minutes to educate yourself so next time you will know what you speak.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

[Carnak]

That is so NOT true dude,:eek: :eek: where do you read your history from? The back of a cereal box? Please, PLEASE read this article. It is fairly short, and should prove to be educational. I am interested to hear your comments, and wait with baited breath.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/ lol "To the shores of Tripoli"

[Carnak]

You are so wrong Mr carnak. Please follow these links, take 5 minutes to educate yourself so next time you will know what you speak.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

Better facts on a ceral box. Maybe read a real history book , like your parents read.

I could write a book based on the same time frame showing the evils of Christianinty, how they took people not of their faith, made them into slaves, banged their woman. It was okay to do it because they were not of the Christian Faith, damn near sub-human. Extrapolating the writings of a slave owning president who banged his own slaves.

A feeble attempt to show there was some on going jihad against the USA prior to WWII

[lhatton]

Better facts on a ceral box. Maybe read a real history book , like your parents read.

I could write a book based on the same time frame showing the evils of Christianinty, how they took people not of their faith, made them into slaves, banged their woman. It was okay to do it because they were not of the Christian Faith, damn near sub-human. Extrapolating the writings of a slave owning president who banged his own slaves.

A feeble attempt to show there was some on going jihad against the USA prior to WWII

A typical response from a liberal. The link, if you read it, it is historical information that is in the history books that my parents read. I wasn't even talking about the eveils of Christianity, lets save that for another thread. we were talking about one specific point, and that was the problem with muslims pre wwII. No matter how much you don't like it, you cant change history because it doesnt fit your agenda.

[lhatton]

Better facts on a ceral box. Maybe read a real history book , like your parents read.

I could write a book based on the same time frame showing the evils of Christianinty, how they took people not of their faith, made them into slaves, banged their woman. It was okay to do it because they were not of the Christian Faith, damn near sub-human. Extrapolating the writings of a slave owning president who banged his own slaves.

A feeble attempt to show there was some on going jihad against the USA prior to WWII

Let me help you out here. As you read this, refer to the list at the bottom of the post. These tell you where the information stated came from, and I think poit number one came directly from a letter that Thomas Jeferson wrote.


Thomas Jefferson and the Koran
by Gary DeMar (http://www.americanvision.org/garydemarbio.asp)
1/9/2007
http://www.americanvision.org/images4/keith_ellison_quran.jpgThe opening line of the “Marines’ Hymn”—“From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli”—commemorates the Mexican War (1846–1848) and the war with Tripoli when Marines took part in the capture of Derna on April 27, 1805. There is a new war going on, a war over history. Keith Ellison (D. Minn.), the first Muslim Congressman, told the Detroit Free Press that he used Thomas Jefferson’s two-volume copy of the Koran to take his oath of office because the book helped influence the founding fathers of America. According to Ellison, the Koran is “definitely an important historical document in our national history and demonstrates that Jefferson was a broad visionary thinker who not only possessed a Quran, but read it. . . . It would have been something that contributed to his own thinking.” There is no doubt about that, but in what way?
Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”1 (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftn1) Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In Joseph Wheelan’s well researched and highly readable book on America’s first war on terror with Islam, we learn that “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”2 (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftn2) Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target. “Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim—openly hostile toward Christians.”3 (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftn3)
http://www.americanvision.org/images4/bombardment_tripoli.jpgDumas Malone, Jefferson’s biographer, writes: “Treaties had been made with these petty piratical powers in the past, all of them calling for what amounted to tribute. The United States was acting like the other nations with commerce to protect, but Jefferson had opposed this sort of policy from the time he was in France, believing that the only effective language to employ against these brigands of the sea was that of force. He never believed in buying peace with them, and actually he was the first President to use force against them.”4 (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftn4)

So what did Jefferson learn from the Koran? As early as 1786, Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But as we saw above, there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that the United States were not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:
http://www.americanvision.org/images4/jefferson_quran.jpgThe Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.5 (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftn5)
Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.” Unless a nation submitted to Islam, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. It’s no wonder that Jefferson studied the Koran. He realized that if Americans ever capitulated, the Muslims would be singing “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of A-mer-i-ca.”
1. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftnref1) Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102
2. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftnref2) Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, xxiii.
3. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftnref3) Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, 7.
4. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftnref4) Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801–1805 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 4:97–98.
5. (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/01-09-07.asp#_ftnref5) Quoted in Wheeler, Jefferson’s War, 40–41.

[Carnak]

Read all the books it refers to. I could write the same book about slave owning North Americans and show it was their religion. It was all about economics, pirates wanting your money, their cut.

Could write a book about evil Catholics exorting money from the people, white slavery, and say that it was an Irish and Italian plan to take over the USA and quote a lot of references and slant it to brainwash a few sheep.


"Shock and Awe" worked back then as it was not about their land or fundamentalism. You ever hear of the word jihad before the Russinas Invded Afghanistan?

[Carnak]

the "Wheelan" reference seems to be published in 2003 or 2004. Not finding any links at all to Wheeler, maybe it is confused with Wheelan.

Find something pre 1948

[Carnak]

The Malone quote seems to support that Shock and Awe works against pirates.

Better facts on a cereal box, you need to really read the links you stumble upon, and see where they get the crap from.

[geerair]

Check out the "about us" on the website of the author, Gary DeMar, of "Thomas Jefferson and the Koran."

The link leads to an outfit called American Vision, A biblical worldview ministry of which Gary DeMar is the president.


Just a cursory reading of the website reveals that American Vison is a whacked out, conservative back to biblical roots organization.


Vision: An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians apply a biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be a "city on a hill" drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to SUBDUE THE EARTH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF HIS KINGDOM.




Substitute Allah, Islamists and the Koran for God, Christians and the Bible and you have the Islamic manifesto.

[Carnak]

A typical response from a liberal. The link, if you read it, it is historical information that is in the history books that my parents read. I wasn't even talking about the eveils of Christianity, lets save that for another thread. we were talking about one specific point, and that was the problem with muslims pre wwII. No matter how much you don't like it, you cant change history because it doesnt fit your agenda.

You are the one clinging to something feeble to make history fit your agenda.

I know you were not talking about the evils of Christianity. I was not calling Christianity evil. But I could take the lives of everyday Christians from back then, and write a slanted book that would make it appear that 'historically' Chirstians did bad things to people who were not of their faith because their religion said it was okay.

So anyways, if you want me to eat my words, dig up something written before 1948, that shows a US problem with Arabs or Muslims that is attributed to the Muslim World domination scheme.

[lolson]

Yes, yes and yes. They want Americans, Israeli's and all other opposition dead, plain and simple.
And there are even Americans that will sell out their country for profit.
Big suprise? Hardly.

loose lips sinks ships and i hope there on it when it goes down

[lhatton]

You are the one clinging to something feeble to make history fit your agenda.

I know you were not talking about the evils of Christianity. I was not calling Christianity evil. But I could take the lives of everyday Christians from back then, and write a slanted book that would make it appear that 'historically' Chirstians did bad things to people who were not of their faith because their religion said it was okay.

So anyways, if you want me to eat my words, dig up something written before 1948, that shows a US problem with Arabs or Muslims that is attributed to the Muslim World domination scheme.

Not a problem, here is an exerpt taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson penned himself, if you don't know who Thomas Jefferson is, he is one of our founding fathers, and the third president of these great United States of America.

Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”

The source: Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102

In case you havent caught it, Jefferson is pre 1948

[lhatton]

You are the one clinging to something feeble to make history fit your agenda.Facts are facts dude.

I know you were not talking about the evils of Christianity. I was not calling Christianity evil. But I could take the lives of everyday Christians from back then, and write a slanted book that would make it appear that 'historically' Chirstians did bad things to people who were not of their faith because their religion said it was okay.

So anyways, if you want me to eat my words, dig up something written before 1948, that shows a US problem with Arabs or Muslims that is attributed to the Muslim World domination scheme.


Any question?

[chillbilly]

A feeble attempt to show there was some on going jihad against the USA prior to WWII
No need to backtrack like a duck with water up your a$s.
"You didn't ask for a jihad example".
You made the blanket statement that we (I'm assuming you mean the USA) had no problems with Muslims, Pre-WW2, did you not?
The suggestion obviously being that 1948, The League of Nations and the Jews caused the entire problem, so it must be their fault. :rolleyes:
Low blow, even by your standards.

Read a history book.
Christians, as well as Christian and non-Christian Americans have had literally centuries of problems with Muslims and their idealogues.
The problem for Muslims as I see it is that Americans will die on their feet before they die on their knees surrendering to tyrants.

[scrogdog]

Whether or not you accept the bible as a religious work, it is still generally accepted that King David conquered Jerusalem around 1000 BC. David’s armies did not fight Muslims, but rather various tribes of Semitics, Hittites and Philistines. Many of the tribes were thought to originate in Mycenea, which were Greek settlements.

After that came conquests by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and Alexander the Great. After the death of Alexander, his generals divided the empire. One of them, Seleucus, controlled Palestine by about 200 BC. The practice of Judaism was allowed until Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. The Jews revolted and then founded a kingdom in Palestine with its capitol in Jerusalem which was recognized by Rome. Judah Maaccabee was made “friend of the Roman Senate and people” in 164 BC.

About 61 BC Roman troops under Pompei and in support of King Herod sacked Jerusalem. The land was then divided in to districts; Judea, Gallilee and Peraea. After that, Rome put down a couple of Jewish rebellions and finally, in 135 AD, Rome drove the Jews from Jerusalem renaming the area Palaestina.

Rome held these lands until about 300 AD then along came the Byzantine Empire. FINALLY, in 600 AD Muslim Arab armies moved North from Arabia under Caliph Umar and conquered most of what we know as the Middle East today.

Certainly, these were Jewish homelands WELL before the Arabs came. In fact, even Napoleon as early as 1799 supported the return of the Jews to Palestine.

What the hubbub is all about and why the Arabs feel as they do occurred around WWI. At that time Palestinian Arabs AND Jews felt oppressed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Both Germany/Austria and the Allies courted support from both of these groups.

The Allies promised liberation from the Turks, and a resulting self-governed lands.

Acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows:

"The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded."

No maps were drawn up and the area only loosely defined as you can see. Further complicating the issue was the wording of the Balfour Declaration, which stated Britain's goal of establishing a Jewish State. There was also a third document called Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which described how Britain and France would devide the Ottoman territories after the war.

So, while the letter said that Palestine could not be considered wholly Arab, the conflicting wording from the three documents taken together is basically why the Arabs felt they were robbed.

But, there is no question that the Jews were in these religious homelands WELL before a single Arab was.

Both sides of this discussion are right to some degree. One could accurately say that the Arabs have been trying to take things by force since 600 AD. There is also a bit of a misconception of what the Crusades were all about. They were most certainly NOT conversion wars, but rather a defensive response to incursions by arabs in to already Christian lands.

It is really not a matter of whether or not Arabs have historical rights to Palestine, in my mind they clearly do not. The question is, were the Arab's cheated by the conflicting wording of the three documents and the resulting actions of the West (the establishment of Israel)?

To me, no. But that's what the debate should be.

At one time, both sides imagined Jews and Arabs living side-by-side in peace in the holy lands. Believe it or not.

[Carnak]

Any question?

Jeffersons words “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”

Faith in Allah, faith in Jesus-- no faith in treaties. Nothing to do with religion.

Barbarian - Barbary

Here is the slant written after 9/11 "Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented" it leads up to Jeffersons words, and sheep like you get sucked into believing Jefferson saying it was Islamic Terrorists. You want to get technical then Blackbeard, Captian Kid and Jean Lafitte were contemporary "Christian Terrorists" to the Barbary Pirates.

Baaaaaaaaaaaah

Here is about the only other part from your link that was not written post 9/11 "“Treaties had been made with these petty piratical powers in the past, all of them calling for what amounted to tribute. The United States was acting like the other nations with commerce to protect, but Jefferson had opposed this sort of policy from the time he was in France, believing that the only effective language to employ against these brigands of the sea was that of force. He never believed in buying peace with them, and actually he was the first President to use force against them.”

only way to deal with pirates or "brigands of the sea" was with force not treaties, is pretty much what it says. All the Koran crap, Islamic Jihad crap is written post 9/11.

So the Barbary pirates was not an Islamic jihad against the USA. Maybe find an actual case of this pre-1948. Not going to happen.

[Carnak]

No need to backtrack like a duck with water up your a$s.
"You didn't ask for a jihad example".
You made the blanket statement that we (I'm assuming you mean the USA) had no problems with Muslims, Pre-WW2, did you not?
The suggestion obviously being that 1948, The League of Nations and the Jews caused the entire problem, so it must be their fault. :rolleyes:
Low blow, even by your standards.

Read a history book.
Christians, as well as Christian and non-Christian Americans have had literally centuries of problems with Muslims and their idealogues.
The problem for Muslims as I see it is that Americans will die on their feet before they die on their knees surrendering to tyrants.

Lol, I was the first to mention the Barbary Pirates on this thread. Then some one posted a bogus link showing how histroy is bent to suit an agenda.

In fact you could not even come up with the Barbary pirates on your own, and you are telling me to read a history book. They are damn near Italian :)

So anyways find a problem about Islamic plot to take over the US, problems with Islamic fundamentalism targetting the USA, pre 1948.

Then think what has changed since 1948, it is more than just Isreal.

[Carnak]

Whether or not you accept the bible as a religious work, it is still generally accepted that King David conquered Jerusalem around 1000 BC. David’s armies did not fight Muslims, but rather various tribes of Semitics, Hittites and Philistines. Many of the tribes were thought to originate in Mycenea, which were Greek settlements.

After that came conquests by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and Alexander the Great. After the death of Alexander, his generals divided the empire. One of them, Seleucus, controlled Palestine by about 200 BC. The practice of Judaism was allowed until Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. The Jews revolted and then founded a kingdom in Palestine with its capitol in Jerusalem which was recognized by Rome. Judah Maaccabee was made “friend of the Roman Senate and people” in 164 BC.

About 61 BC Roman troops under Pompei and in support of King Herod sacked Jerusalem. The land was then divided in to districts; Judea, Gallilee and Peraea. After that, Rome put down a couple of Jewish rebellions and finally, in 135 AD, Rome drove the Jews from Jerusalem renaming the area Palaestina.

Rome held these lands until about 300 AD then along came the Byzantine Empire. FINALLY, in 600 AD Muslim Arab armies moved North from Arabia under Caliph Umar and conquered most of what we know as the Middle East today.

Certainly, these were Jewish homelands WELL before the Arabs came. In fact, even Napoleon as early as 1799 supported the return of the Jews to Palestine.

What the hubbub is all about and why the Arabs feel as they do occurred around WWI. At that time Palestinian Arabs AND Jews felt oppressed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Both Germany/Austria and the Allies courted support from both of these groups.

The Allies promised liberation from the Turks, and a resulting self-governed lands.

Acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows:

"The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded."

No maps were drawn up and the area only loosely defined as you can see. Further complicating the issue was the wording of the Balfour Declaration, which stated Britain's goal of establishing a Jewish State. There was also a third document called Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which described how Britain and France would devide the Ottoman territories after the war.

So, while the letter said that Palestine could not be considered wholly Arab, the conflicting wording from the three documents taken together is basically why the Arabs felt they were robbed.

But, there is no question that the Jews were in these religious homelands WELL before a single Arab was.

Both sides of this discussion are right to some degree. One could accurately say that the Arabs have been trying to take things by force since 600 AD. There is also a bit of a misconception of what the Crusades were all about. They were most certainly NOT conversion wars, but rather a defensive response to incursions by arabs in to already Christian lands.

It is really not a matter of whether or not Arabs have historical rights to Palestine, in my mind they clearly do not. The question is, were the Arab's cheated by the conflicting wording of the three documents and the resulting actions of the West (the establishment of Israel)?

To me, no. But that's what the debate should be.

At one time, both sides imagined Jews and Arabs living side-by-side in peace in the holy lands. Believe it or not.
Lol same as saying "give North America back to the Indians , European descendents have no historical rights."

Rome held then along came the Byzantines? Same thing.Rome held and then spilt into an East and West Empire.

Maybe it is not just recognizing Isreal, maybe it has something to do with vetoing resolutions that go against them.

Ottomans did not control the entire Muslim world. First oil strike in the middle east was not under Turkish control or on Arab lands.

[scrogdog]

I don't necessarily disagree, but that's what the argument boils down to on the world stage.

I never said the Ottoman's controlled the whole middle-east or all ofthe Muslim world. What I said was that in WWI a discussion by several parties was had with regards to what to do with Ottoman holdings after the war, of which the disputed lands were a part. That was the beginnings of the Arabs feeling "ripped off". Then I go on to say that the argument should not be over "historical rights", but rather, do the Arabs have a legit claim with the regards to the division of lands after the war taking the wording of the three documents in to account?

There is no easy answer to that question.

The US has snubbed the UN over our own concerns many more times than we have vetoed stuff on the behalf of Israel.

[Carnak]

Ottomans were a secular control of a region. Problems with muslims is more than just Arabs. Muslims who were never controlled by the Ottomans.

[scrogdog]

I am afraid I am a bit puzzled over your post. Of course, something could be zooming right over me head here.

Did I say otherwise?

[Carnak]

Nothing you said scrog, before 1948 there was no Isreal, not many years after that trouble starts in Iran. A former British Problem that gets made a US problem as well. CIA over throws a government and US oil companies are in there with BP making money.

[chillbilly]

Nothing you said scrog, before 1948 there was no Isreal, not many years after that trouble starts in Iran. A former British Problem that gets made a US problem as well. CIA over throws a government and US oil companies are in there with BP making money.
A common misconception. Jewish people have maintained ties to their homeland for 4 thousand years.
And since we are on the subject, how would these Muslim nations have progressed further than camelback if Western and other nations' oil export dollars had not helped them?
You want to make this a Jewish issue when Israels roots are just as strong and deserved in the region as anyone else's.
Jews were massacred in the 12th century by Muslim crusaders yet they endured and established communities in Safed and Jerusalem.
The establishment of Israel was no spur of the moment decision.
78 years of nation building beginning in 1870 culminated in the REESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish state.

[Carnak]

Hey Indians would still be shooting deer with arrows and running buffalo off of a cliff. What exactly are you trying to argue now?

Christians have massacred a few jews in there day and not as far back as the 12th century.

Are you trying to smoke my cohiba again?

[chillbilly]

I'm pointing out to you that the west as well as many other countries have had problems with Muslim idealogy before WW2 which directly contradicts what you posted.
In your original statement, you tried to suggest that America has never had a problem with Muslims before WW2, although you didn't state what specific problems you were referring to.
Sort of another general statement with no backbone.
It's apparent that you don't know the history of Jewish people in the ME or the effects of Muslim idealogy on Judaeo/Christian people and vice-versa, so what's the point?
Do you expect everyone to hold your hand and give you a guided history tour?

Like I told you before, read a history book and put down your obvious hatred of Israel and their purported "right to exist" in a place where they have thrived for centuries.

[Carnak]

I'm pointing out to you that the west as well as many other countries have had problems with Muslim idealogy before WW2 which directly contradicts what you posted.
In your original statement, you tried to suggest that America has never had a problem with Muslims before WW2, although you didn't state what specific problems you were referring to.
Sort of another general statement with no backbone.
It's apparent that you don't know the history of Jewish people in the ME or the effects of Muslim idealogy on Judaeo/Christian people and vice-versa, so what's the point?
Do you expect everyone to hold your hand and give you a guided history tour?

Like I told you before, read a history book and put down your obvious hatred of Israel and their purported "right to exist" in a place where they have thrived for centuries.
I have lots of backbone, and so far, you have not come up with anything. US problems started after 1948. Google around, you are not going to find anything. So start looking at events from 1948 and on.

Have I said no right to exist or have I said the US vetoes resolutions against Isreal?

[corny]

Check out the "about us" on the website of the author, Gary DeMar, of "Thomas Jefferson and the Koran."

The link leads to an outfit called American Vision, A biblical worldview ministry of which Gary DeMar is the president.


Just a cursory reading of the website reveals that American Vison is a whacked out, conservative back to biblical roots organization.


Vision: An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians apply a biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be a "city on a hill" drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to SUBDUE THE EARTH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF HIS KINGDOM.




Substitute Allah, Islamists and the Koran for God, Christians and the Bible and you have the Islamic manifesto.

Demar is a wackjob....probably molests his own kids or grand kids...... I'd like to see his research on jefferson.... we will probably see him in the news one day...one of his boys will finally break down and admit how his daddy sodomized him as a child.

He is a religous extremist who has advocated executing abortion doctors and homosexuals. I doubt jesus would condone that.....

[geerair]

Demar is a wackjob....
He is a religous extremist who has advocated executing abortion doctors and homosexuals. Yeah, I got that impression as well. :eek: