West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on October 07, 2005, 11:06:31 PM
-
They are mostly said to be European Jews who have immigrated over the last half century into Palestine and they are now claiming Palestine as there own and calling Palestine and surrounding territories "Isreal".
-
damn jews.
-
?
They have withdrawn from the west bank
-
?
They have withdrawn from the west bank
lol
-
?
They have withdrawn from the west bank
Don't you mean the Gaza?
-
?
They have withdrawn from the west bank
lol
-
damn jews.
-
what? terror in palestine?
-
terrorist created the state of israel this is old news
-
terrorist created the state of israel this is old news
one question Don Shizzle, since Britain signed the Balfour declaration, do Palestinians have a right to attack the British govt and state?
-
it was not an internationally approved treaty only a letter of intent, and the years afterwards members of the british government softened and even reversed their stance, it should also be viewed in an international context taking into account the rivalry with france and it as bargening chip to gain support from america and russia against germany who had large jewish populations. Whilst we had our mandate we tried to ensure both sides were did not fight with each other, and latter on we stopped jews from entering palestine, however by the end of ww2 britiain's pro arab policy was becoming increasingly isolated and the british public was tired so we had to step aside, we left it up to the UN to sort out they came up with the seperation plan which the jews ignored.
in view of your question maybe at the time they would have done, however they would have been crushed..... but since then britain has acted more infavour palestinians and has probably been one of their best friends from the western world.
-
it was not an internationally approved treaty only a letter of intent, and the years afterwards members of the british government softened and even reversed their stance, it should also be viewed in an international context taking into account the rivalry with france and it as bargening chip to gain support from america and russia against germany who had large jewish populations. Whilst we had our mandate we tried to ensure both sides were did not fight with each other, and latter on we stopped jews from entering palestine, however by the end of ww2 britiain's pro arab policy was becoming increasingly isolated and the british public was tired so we had to step aside, we left it up to the UN to sort out they came up with the seperation plan which the jews ignored.
in view of your question maybe at the time they would have done, however they would have been crushed..... but since then britain has acted more infavour palestinians and has probably been one of their best friends from the western world.
History reveals to us that Britian encouraged Palestine to seek Independance from the Ottoman Empire before World War 1, as part of their global scheme to break up the Muslim world section by section, and thus weakening it; Britian has a great history of violence and oppression in their colonization and subjugation of the Middle East and Africa.
Still, that being said, the Palestinians should have known better than to trust Britian and seek independance from the Islamic Ottoman Empire, but they chose nationalism in place of loyalty towards the Muslim Kalifa.
-
of course we encouraged instability within the ottoman empire (the enemy) just like they tried to do to with us only we were more succesfful at it, the ottomans were doomed anyways.
yes we have a history of violence and oppression, but then what empires don't? its all about putting it into context and understanding the social norms of the time. When doing that you will see how britain acted much more honerably than other empires of our time for example we abolished slavery and used our navy to try and enforce the ban on other nations, but when i'm on this subject its not just european and arab nations who are to blame because slavery started in africa by africans, we didn't round them up they were sold to us....
-
"Still, that being said, the Palestinians should have known better than to trust Britian and seek independance from the Islamic Ottoman Empire, but they chose nationalism in place of loyalty towards the Muslim Kalifa."
well the arabs didn't want to follow a turkish Kalifa
i;m a chrisitian who's country was part of the ottoman empire so maybe my opinion is biased but even lebanese muslims think that the turks were cold hearted assholes who's 1st priority was turkish nationalism NOT Islam , they tried to "turkishise" (or whatever the term is)the region through the translation of the Qur'an (which is something that's banned) and many other measures .
so what ? we're supposed to take it up the ass from an oppressive regime so someone like u who doesn't even live anywhere near us and doesn't know what it's like to live under a dictatorship can feel good knowing that there is an islamic empire around?
-
Well first of muhammed stopped slavery in the 7th centry more than 1000 years before the honorable british
and about that all empires have a history of violence read this
In his book "Civilization of the Arabs," Dr. Gustav LeBon says, "The reader will find, in my treatment of the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Koranic[1] teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs. If it happened that some Christian peoples embraced Islam and adopted Arabic as their language, it was mainly due to the various kinds of justice on the part of the Arab victors, with the like of which the non-Moslems were not acquainted. It was also due to the tolerance and leniency of Islam, which was unknown to the other religions."
In another place of his book, Dr. LeBon adds, "The early Arab conquests might have blurred their common sense and made them commit the sorts of oppression which conquerors usually commit, and thus ill-treat the subdued and compel them to embrace the Faith they wanted to spread all over the globe. Had they done so, all nations, which were still not under their control, might have turned against them, and they might have suffered what had befallen the Crusaders in their conquest of Syria lately. However, the early Caliphs[2], who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples of Syria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practise their laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya[3] in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Arabs."
He further explains, "The mercy and tolerance of the conquerors were among the reasons for the spread of their conquests and for the nations' adoptions of their Faith and regulations and language, which became deeply rooted, resisted all sorts of attack and remained even after the disappearance of the Arabs' control on the world stage, though historians deny the fact. Egypt is the most evident proof of this. It adopted what the Arabs had brought over, and reserved it. Conquerors before the Arabs -- the Persians, Greeks and Byzantines -- could not overthrow the ancient Pharaoh civilization and impose what they had brought instead."
Then in another place he adds, "A few impartial European scholars, who are well-versed in the history of the Arabs, do confirm this tolerance. Robertson, in his book "Biography of Charlequin," says that the Moslems alone were the ones who joined between Jihad and tolerance toward the followers of other faiths whom they had subdued, leaving to them the freedom to perform their religious rites."
In his book "History of the Crusades," Michel Michaud says, "Islam, besides calling for Jihad, reveals tolerance toward the followers of other religions. It released the patriarchs, priests and their servants from the obligations of taxes. It prohibited, in special, the killing of priests for their performance of worship, and Omar Ibn Al-Khattab[4] did not inflict harm on the Christians when he entered Jerusalem as a conqueror. The Crusaders, however, did slay Moslems and burn the Jews when they entered the city."
In his book, "Islam: Impressions and Studies," Count de Castri says, "After the Arabs yielded to, and believed in the Koran, and people received enlightenment through the True Religion, the Moslems appeared with a new show to the peoples of the earth, with conciliation and treatment on basis of free thinking and belief. The Koranic verses then succeeded one another, calling on kind treatment, after those verses in which warnings had been addressed to the heretic tribes... Such were the instructions of the Apostle after the Arabs had embraced Islam, and the Caliphs who succeeded Mohammed followed his example. This makes me say with Robertson that the people of Mohammed were the only ones who combined kindness to others and the pleasure of seeing their Faith spread. It was this affection that pushed the Arabs on the way of conquest, a doubtless reason. The Koran spread its wings behind its victorious troops that invaded Syria and moved on like a thunderbolt to North Africa, from the Red Sea to the Atlantic, without leaving a trace of tyranny on the way, except what is inescapable in every war, and never did they massacre a nation who rejected Islam...
The spread of Islam and the submission to its authority seem to have another reason in the continents of Asia and North Africa. It was the despotism of Constantinpole which exercised extreme tyranny, and the injustice of rulers was too much for people to bear...
Islam was never imposed by sword or by force, but it got into the hearts of people out of longing and free will, due to the talents of stimulation and captivation of people's hearts, lodged in the Koran."
Many historians admit that the spread of Islam among the Christians
of the Eastern Churches, was mainly due to a feeling of dissatisfaction that arose from the doctrinal sophistry which the Hellenistic spirit brought over to Christian theology. It was also due to the abundance of good that such Eastern Christians found in Islam, and due to its ability to rescue them from the disorder they were struggling in. In Caetani, for instance, one reads, "Known for its preference of simple and plain views, the East suffered, religiously, a great deal from the evil consequences of the Hellenistic culture which turned the refined teachings of Christ into an ideology rampant with complicated doctrines and doubts. This led to the rise of a feeling of despair, and even shook the very foundations of religious belief. When, at last, news suddenly came from the desert of the New Revelation, such Eastern Christianity, being torn by inner splits, was shattered... Its foundations were shaken, and, due to such doubts, the clergy of the church were taken by despair. Christianity was incapable, after this, of resisting the appeals of the New Faith which eliminated, with a mighty blow, all the trivial doubts and offered graceful, positive qualities in addition to its doubtless, simple and plain principles. It was then that the East forsake Christ[5] and threw itself into the lap of the Prophet of Arabs."
and all these books are not written by muslims