Justifiable Muslim anger.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Sorry for the way the thread is framed, in actuality the topic supposed to be a question.

But I posted this to start a discussion that should obviously be geared towards Dispensationalist eschatology.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
This might have the tiniest credibility (it doesn't) if you were to completely ignore the fact that Palestine was created out of a larger British protectorate, with the Jews sharing the land of Palestine, and the Arabs being given the entire land of Jordan (the Hashemites who rule Jordan are a small minority). There is a Palestinian state. It is called Jordan.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
This might have the tiniest credibility (it doesn't)

Perhaps if it was called, "So that's why the Muslims are angry" it would sound more appropriate?

(Note: I sound sarcastic, but I'm not!)
 

Average Joey

Puritan Board Junior
The problem is that there has been a rewritten history with the islamist palestinians that has been passed on for the past few generations,and each time the generation gets more and more violent.
 

CalsFarmer

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Cottonball
Originally posted by fredtgreco
This might have the tiniest credibility (it doesn't)

Perhaps if it was called, "So that's why the Muslims are angry" it would sound more appropriate?

(Note: I sound sarcastic, but I'm not!)

I would STRONGLY reccomend that you read a book by Robert Spenser called The politically Incorrect Guide To Islam. If you are worried about them and feel sorry for them now...perhaps you will have a different view when you finish the book.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
The question ought to be, is it justifiable for one people to colonize land already settled by another people? I don't think so.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by CalsFarmer
Originally posted by Cottonball
Originally posted by fredtgreco
This might have the tiniest credibility (it doesn't)

Perhaps if it was called, "So that's why the Muslims are angry" it would sound more appropriate?

(Note: I sound sarcastic, but I'm not!)

I would STRONGLY reccomend that you read a book by Robert Spenser called The politically Incorrect Guide To Islam. If you are worried about them and feel sorry for them now...perhaps you will have a different view when you finish the book.

I would also recommend Paul Johnson's Modern Times, which gives an excellent account of the late 1940s through 1960s.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Paul Johnson also wrote a very favorable history of the Jews but I don't think he wrote one about the Arabs :um:
 

CalsFarmer

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Peter
The question ought to be, is it justifiable for one people to colonize land already settled by another people? I don't think so.

:banghead:

Oh sort of like the PILGRIMS coming to America??? Hey lets all go back to Merry Olde England.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Peter
The question ought to be, is it justifiable for one people to colonize land already settled by another people? I don't think so.

You're right. The Arabs should then get out, since they were not originally in the area. And while they are at it, they can get out of North Africa also.
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by fredtgreco


You're right. The Arabs should then get out, since they were not originally in the area. And while they are at it, they can get out of North Africa also.

While you do have a point by looking at the situation from a macroscopic point of view, we have to keep in mind that what the zionists are doing in Israel came after Colonialism was thrown out of favor in the world with direct support of the world community.

What I found even more disturbing is the U.S support of Israel in direct opposition to the Monroe Doctrine, eventhough the Monroe Doctrine specifically relates to the Americas.

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by Slippery]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Peter
The question ought to be, is it justifiable for one people to colonize land already settled by another people? I don't think so.

You're right. The Arabs should then get out, since they were not originally in the area. And while they are at it, they can get out of North Africa also.

Exactly. Well, I'm not sure the solution is to extricate the Arabs but at least *I* can consistently condemn their violent expansionist activities (in North Africa) on the principle.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by CalsFarmer
Originally posted by Cottonball
Originally posted by fredtgreco
This might have the tiniest credibility (it doesn't)

Perhaps if it was called, "So that's why the Muslims are angry" it would sound more appropriate?

(Note: I sound sarcastic, but I'm not!)

I would STRONGLY reccomend that you read a book by Robert Spenser called The politically Incorrect Guide To Islam. If you are worried about them and feel sorry for them now...perhaps you will have a different view when you finish the book.

I would also recommend Paul Johnson's Modern Times, which gives an excellent account of the late 1940s through 1960s.

Thanks.. However, I wasn't saying I feel sorry for them. To be honest, it's incredibly pathetic how little I know about what's going on over there. I don't know enough to feel sorry for them because I really don't understand the issues. Canadian news tends to ignore those things and we didn't learn any of it in school, either. So I was just looking at the maps and thinking, If I was a Muslim, I'd be mad too!
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with Fred. The neo-Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They were offered a state in 1948. They were offered virtual statehood in, what was it, 1998 brokered by Clinton?

Until a Muslim Martin Luther steps forward no Arab leader is going to risk his skin for peace. Remember Anwar Sadat.
 

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
I hear there is prime real estate on Mars for Muslims seeking a land of there own.

I persoanlly dont care who live's in Israel as long as they do so peaceably and let us evangelize them :)

I just dont like the modern christian theme of support Israel even though they reject the gospel but dont help muslims out the same. I dont like the idea of WE are told we have to support modern Israel just for name's sake.

Christians should be united in helping all men out who are in need. Though not supporting their political or violent agendas.

Blade
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
What I found even more disturbing is the U.S support of Israel in direct opposition to the Monroe Doctrine.

It is good to support democracies throughout the world. No democracy ever waged war on another democracy. It saves lives.

PS Good thread topic.
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by non dignus
I agree with Fred. The neo-Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They were offered a state in 1948. They were offered virtual statehood in, what was it, 1998 brokered by Clinton?
So why should the Palestinians have to accept a land offerings for land that they lived on for over 1500 years by the dictates of the Western World, so that Zionists who want to implement their own corrupted view of religion into a state?

The fact is when one sees the struggle from the Palestinian point of view using standards of, "Human Rights", their cause is justifiable.

One thing that is even more disheartening is the fact that there are Palestinian Christians who are disenfranchised from their land, who are then subsequently railroaded by the Christian community for the sake of the eschatological doctrines of dispensationalism.

So consider the points.
1. If you live on a piece of land for over 1500 years, what right does another have to partition your land into two pieces so as to accommodate immigrants who want to form a state solely based on ethnoreligious factors?

2. On what basis should the Palestinians accept the Balfour Declaration? If they choose to reject it, does the Balfour declaration still have merit? If it does, its nothing more than bullyism.
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by non dignus


It is good to support democracies throughout the world. No democracy ever waged war on another democracy. It saves lives.

PS Good thread topic.
Democracies have no inherent righteousness in them. I can list a plethora of democracies that are as degenerate as they come. Its not the type of government that matters, its how the government governs that matters.

Secondly, the PLO is a Democracy.

Thirdly Israel gained statehood at the expense of people that were already living there, this statehood came from Britain acquiescing to many terrorist threats.
 

gwine

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Slippery


Secondly, the PLO is a Democracy.

Perhaps it is. I for one would not want to live under their "democracy."


FreeElections-X.gif
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by gwine
Originally posted by Slippery


Secondly, the PLO is a Democracy.

Perhaps it is. I for one would not want to live under their "democracy."


FreeElections-X.gif
:bigsmile::bigsmile: neither me, in actuality, the only democracy I want to live under is an American Democracy.

but the fact is the PLO does have a democracy. Maybe we now need to qualify a democracy more.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by gwine
Originally posted by Slippery


Secondly, the PLO is a Democracy.

Perhaps it is. I for one would not want to live under their "democracy."


FreeElections-X.gif
:bigsmile::bigsmile: neither me, in actuality, the only democracy I want to live under is an American Democracy.

but the fact is the PLO does have a democracy. Maybe we now need to qualify a democracy more.

The PLO is not a democracy. It is a hateful, devil-woshipping, terrorist organization. It should be obliterated.

I do not say this about the Arab people living in the area, merely the terrorist organization that has pretended to be a legitimate political body for so long that nations have begun to pretend as well.

But we should not be surprised by that - it is not limited to the Middle East. Just look at the IRA.
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by gwine
Who lived there the previous 4500 years?
Canaanites because that would be 2500 B.C. children of Ham

But that is besides the issue, the point of dispute is what right does the U.N have to carve up a piece of land that already has inhabitants, and arbitrarily decide to give it to religious colonizers who are bent in solely fulfilling a religious fascist mandate.

So far I have seen none. And what is even more disturbing is to see the increase Arab population correlating to a decrease in available land, whereas the increase in the Jewish/Israeli population comes about primarily from immigration.

As they say, "Something is rotten in Denmark"

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Slippery]
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by fredtgreco


The PLO is not a democracy. It is a hateful, devil-woshipping, terrorist organization. It should be obliterated.
Fred being purely definitional, the PLO is a democracy. In a democracy the people have a right to elect the devil if he's nominated. We might not like their policies or their candidates but they are a democracy.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by fredtgreco


The PLO is not a democracy. It is a hateful, devil-woshipping, terrorist organization. It should be obliterated.
Fred being purely definitional, the PLO is a democracy. In a democracy the people have a right to elect the devil if he's nominated. We might not like their policies or their candidates but they are a democracy.

Actually a democracy is defined by the free election of representatives, not by mere voting. If it were, then Communist China and practically ever nation on earth is a democracy.

There were never any free elections in the PLO. Terrorists can't afford elections. They are too busy murdering women and children.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by gwine
Who lived there the previous 4500 years?
Canaanites because that would be 2500 B.C. children of Ham

But that is besides the issue, the point of dispute is what right does the U.N have to carve up a piece of land that already has inhabitants, and arbitrarily decide to give it to religious colonizers who are bent in solely fulfilling a religious fascist mandate.

So far I have seen none. And what is even more disturbing is to see the increase Arab population correlating to a decrease in available land, whereas the increase in the Jewish/Israeli population comes about primarily from immigration.

As they say, "Something is rotten in Denmark"

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Slippery]

Keon,

This is exceedingly complex. You do realize that the "refugee camps" are the result of calculated decisions by the Arab dictatorships (yep, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) as a way to avoid peace, don't you?

I am not an "Israel is always right" guy. Israel has done plenty wrong. But I cannot see a single Arab/Muslim government that is worth the carcass of a rat. No one can play the "I was there first" game in the M.E. The Arabs were some of the most bloodthirsty ruthless warmongers in the history of the world. Their whining about the Crusades is a hypocritical joke (even in light of the fact that the Crusades themselves were not Biblical, in my opinion).
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by fredtgreco


There were never any free elections in the PLO. Terrorists can't afford elections. They are too busy murdering women and children.
Well the PLO will have a bone to pick with you there when we consider the 2000 recount, and the 2004 Ohio debacle.

But I would say this, not in defense of the PLO, but simply to state facts. The PLO is driven by a political aspiration that finds impetus via the Muslim religion.

When I see the landscape of history, every political objective had to be validated by the accepted religion of the people undertaking the particular political task. It is this religion that rationalizes the violence. But when the political objective is achieved the violence is then spun into righteous resistance and flowery patriotic embroidery, and the new state finds consolation and brotherhood from other nations.

So on a purely political level, is violence good? Yes, once your objective is achieved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top