[Bob]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:31:26 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What's all this blame stuff? The way I read the story the whole thing
was a plan by God - everybody simply did what they were supposed to
do. Suppose nobody had turned him in, suppose the Romans (or whoever)
hadn't crucified him? There would be God, sitting up on his shiny
throne, saying "oh bugger!, back to the drawing board".

You don't seriously believe that bullcrap.


--

"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"

[Bob]

On 12 Aug 2006 12:26:32 -0700, "EEng" wrote:

Dude, you've got to stop getting your history from movies like Passion
of the Christ and other Hollywood fictions.

Did these fictions leave out the part where Pilot tried to save
Christ?


--

"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:47:47 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:31:26 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What's all this blame stuff? The way I read the story the whole thing
was a plan by God - everybody simply did what they were supposed to
do. Suppose nobody had turned him in, suppose the Romans (or whoever)
hadn't crucified him? There would be God, sitting up on his shiny
throne, saying "oh bugger!, back to the drawing board".

You don't seriously believe that bullcrap.

I don't believe a single word of that bullcrap; I'm just interpreting
the fairy story and showing how the plot works.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[H.R.H. Qwerty]

In article , (GMAN) wrote:

In article , "H.R.H. Qwerty"
wrote:
In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:15:29 -0400, "H.R.H. Qwerty"
wrote:

If you loved your neighbor as yourself, he wouldn't want to kill you.
You would treat him as an equal.

See what I mean about stupid Christians.

An eye for an eye, right, Bob?

If you had an ounce of sense you would take the time to learn what
that expression means, instead of relying on your leftist queer
brainwashing to misinform you.

The Hebrew notion of an "eye for an eye" is that it is wrong to use
more force than is used against you.

Note to Israel: two Hezbollah soldiers for two Israeli soldiers.

Note to Hezbollah soldiers, quit hiding under your 6 year old daughters
dress
and come out in uniform and fight like men, not some bronze age sheepherder.

Yes, the military might is lopsided, isn't it?

Qwerty




Of course, that means nothing when your life has been threatened.
That's when you must use all the deadly force at your disposal to
eliminate the threat.

So in the case of nations, Lebanon should jump in with both feet?

Qwerty

[H.R.H. Qwerty]

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:02:30 -0400, "H.R.H. Qwerty"
wrote:

The Hebrew notion of an "eye for an eye" is that it is wrong to use
more force than is used against you.

Note to Israel: two Hezbollah soldiers for two Israeli soldiers.

In the case of deadly force, there is no possibility for controlling
the number of fatalities. That's because it's DEADLY.

It's true that if Hezbollah utilized a different defensive strategy,
"collateral" deaths could be minimized.


Of course, that means nothing when your life has been threatened.
That's when you must use all the deadly force at your disposal to
eliminate the threat.

So in the case of nations, Lebanon should jump in with both feet?

Absolutely. They let Hizbollah gain an armed stronghold.

In another sovereign country though, not in Israel.


You can rest assured that the higher ups in the Lebanese govt and
their special interest supporters were rewarded handsomely for their
cooperation.

Hmmm... rewarded by whom?

Qwerty



--

"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"

[BTR1701]

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 12:26:32 -0700, "EEng" wrote:

Dude, you've got to stop getting your history from movies like Passion
of the Christ and other Hollywood fictions.

Did these fictions leave out the part where Pilot tried to save
Christ?

It's all a myth. The whole thing. That's what makes it a fiction.

[BTR1701]

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:31:26 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What's all this blame stuff? The way I read the story the whole thing
was a plan by God - everybody simply did what they were supposed to
do. Suppose nobody had turned him in, suppose the Romans (or whoever)
hadn't crucified him? There would be God, sitting up on his shiny
throne, saying "oh bugger!, back to the drawing board".

You don't seriously believe that bullcrap.

No more silly than believing the bullcrap the way it supposedly turned
out.

[Steve House]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:40:50 GMT, "EDM" wrote:

Long-term peace in the Middle East is not possible until the
Palestinian people are given a permanent homeland, as they
were promised by the British almost a century ago. Until then,
the issue will remain an open wound among "the whole Arab
world", and deservedly so.

They already have a permanent Palestinian homeland - more than one, in
fact - and have had since 1948. They're called Jordan, Syria, and
(portions of) Lebanon. All these states, along with Israel, were
territories of the original area of Palestine and minus Israel they
remain territorial divisions within the area of Palestine to this day.
It's not Israel's fault that the local Palestinian and Arab leaders in
those areas, motivated by a combination of sectarian and political
rivalry and the irrational belief that once a piece of land has been
governed by Islam it must never be governed by members of any other
religion, chose to set up refugee camps to supply future cannon fodder
for the re-conquest of Israel rather than integrating their
Palestinian brethren into the mainstreams of their local societies.

[Dr. Dolittle]

Bob wrote:


The fake jews were responsible. That's why Pontius Pilate washed his


Oh please, stop with the fairy tales. b.t.w., there is really no Santa
Claus either.

[Dr. Dolittle]

Steve House wrote:

They already have a permanent Palestinian homeland - more than one, in
fact - and have had since 1948. They're called Jordan, Syria, and
(portions of) Lebanon. All these states, along with Israel, were
territories of the original area of Palestine and minus Israel they
remain territorial divisions within the area of Palestine to this day.
It's not Israel's fault that the local Palestinian and Arab leaders in
those areas, motivated by a combination of sectarian and political
rivalry and the irrational belief that once a piece of land has been
governed by Islam it must never be governed by members of any other
religion, chose to set up refugee camps to supply future cannon fodder
for the re-conquest of Israel rather than integrating their
Palestinian brethren into the mainstreams of their local societies.


Exactly.

[EEng]

Bob wrote: My question to many is this..... If you love the teacher
who was a Jew,
and if you love the teachings, which were of Judaism.....why aren't you
a Jew?

Because our mother isn't a Jew.

Bob, I'm not talking about blood lineage here. You're not a hebrew
because your mother isn't a hebrew, but that doesn't exclude you from
being a jew. While all Hebrews are indeed Jews, not all Jews are
Hebrews. In perspective, must you be of roman blood lineage to be
Christian? No. One is a heritage, the other is a faith. You do not
have to have the genetics to be a Jew, you merely have to believe in
one and only one G-d.

Over the past 50 years that I have asked my Jewish friends what it
would take to become a Jew, they have all said, "Don't waste your
time."


Then you've been asking people who are not Jewish in their hearts.
Again, one is a lineage, the other is a faith. In Judaism, all it
takes to cease being Jewish is to denounce it. All it takes to be
Jewish is to accept one and only one G-d. Everything other than that
is strictly religious politics. If you believe in only one G-d, and
you feel you are a Jew in your heart, then you are a Jew. Do not
confuse Nationality (Israeli) with lineage (Hebrew) or with fiath
(Judaism). They are three different things.

And yet many people, both Jewish and Gentile alike, have said I am a
Jew in spirit. But I lack the genetic credential. I am not one of the
Chosen People.

It is not about genetics. Hitlers mother was Jewish. By birthrightt
so was he but he ceased being Jewish when he denounced that faith. By
blood lineage he was still half hebrew. The biggest problem (my
opinion only) that I see is that for some reason, people who have no
problem distinguishing between Christian, Buddhist, Jehovah Witnesses,
Mormons, Islam and see all those as religions that exist in various
cultures, countries, etc....do have a problem understanding that being
Jewish is also a religion. While it is true that it is highly
localized among people of predominantly hebrew lineage, it is not
restricted to that. There are Ethiopian Jews (often thought of as the
missing family), and jews of every nationality and ethnicity you can
think of, just as the same can be said for other religions.

"The Jews" as a collective, is a misnomer. We exist in all natiions,
ethnic groups, and cultures. What do people think when they say "The
Christians" or "The Mormons". There are people of every nationality
and ethnicity in those too.

If you believe in one and only one G-d and in your heart you believe
yourself to be Jewish..........not Hebrew, not Israeli, but
Jewish......then you are a Jew my friend, and there is no man on earth
who can say otherwsie. Forget the clergy, their motivations are more
political than spritual. The chosen people are anyone who believe in
one and only one G-d, not merely those of Hebrew descent.

I am 2nd gerenation borrn in America. My family fled the Bolshevik
Revolution to come here (Fiddler on the Roof is actually an extremely
accurate representation of what my family went through). We are
Russian/Polish Jews of hebrew lineage but who have never lived in
Israel. I am an American...as American as it gets. I am a Jew, as
Jewish as it gets, and I demand the same for myself as those of other
faiths in America. You are what you believe you are, not what some
cleric decides. It is for G-d to judge, in whatever manner you
perceive him. The 5000 year old call sign of Judaism everywhere is
this........ Sh'ma yisroael adonai elohanu, adonai echad.... Hear Oh
Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE. And we live by the true
Golden Rule, not by the modern one. The modern one would have you do
unto others as you'd have them do unto you. That version means if you
enjoy being beaten with barbed wire, then you should beat others with
barbed wirel The true Golden Rule is ... Do NOT do unto others what
you would NOT have them do unto you....... in other words, if you don't
like something, don't do it to others.....and this makes more sense.
Sorry, rambling on and on this morning, but the bottom line is .....
what you are is between you and G-d and NOBODY has the right to tell
you otherwise, including the institutions of religion.

[[email protected]]

Let's all just remember that the Jews have given part of themselves to the
world in science, art, music, film, etc. and have asked for nothing in
return except for a tiny piece of desert smaller than the state of New
Jersey.....surrounded by murderous lunatics. This is their land.

The Jews have never asked for any kind of monetary handout and, even though
they are one of the smallest minorities in the world in terms of their
numbers, they never benefited from the "minority" label, nor asked to be
labeled as such.

The Israeli military is called the "Israeli Defense Force"...."defense"
being the operative term. Yet, they are the only nation to never be allowed
membership to the UN Security Council.

The Jewish messiah says that all people will be saved when he comes (if you
believe in it)....not just Jews. Real Jews know that G-d sees no difference
between Jews and Righteous Gentiles. As long as you spread the love of G-d,
you are as good in G-d's eyes. You don't need to convert or say or do
anything specifically "Jewish" at all.

Remember always:

"Jews are Good News"

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:42:36 GMT, wrote:

Let's all just remember that the Jews have given part of themselves to the
world in science, art, music, film, etc. and have asked for nothing in
return
Jewish artists, scientists, musicians have always worked for free?
What's the weather like on your planet? :-)


except for a tiny piece of desert smaller than the state of New
Jersey.....surrounded by murderous lunatics. This is their land.
Well yes. It's an unfortunate fact that it WAS their land. Which may
explain why they're acting annoyed.

[TUKA]

On 2007-03-19, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
except for a tiny piece of desert smaller than the state of New
Jersey.....surrounded by murderous lunatics. This is their land.

Well yes. It's an unfortunate fact that it WAS their land.

You believe the lies they tell? It most certainly has been the Jews land
since long before Islam and the "Palestinians". Also, the Jews hold deeds
for large portions of the important land in the area and have since the
1940s.

One thing you should always look at is -- who benefits? Well, on the
Arab side it is their incompetetent and corrupt leaders who distract
their populace by blaming Israel and the West for all their
problems. They continue to rule the area while living in obscene
idleness and luxury.

Using Islam and the perverted mullahs which lead it as their tool to
control free speech and dissent, they stay in the saddle, and the Arab
people get lousy and self-serving leaders who they don't hold accountable.

Which may explain why they're acting annoyed.

The Arabs claim Israel is their land. That claim is far from undisputed.
They seem to think that because they don't dispute it themselves, that
it is undisputed. But it is disputed by some pretty strong facts and
arguments, and it has been disputed on the world stage for years.

There are two ways in civilized international rules to resolve a dispute
-- negotiation and war. Whether war is civilized or not is moot, the
rules of it are commonly referred to as the "civilized rules of war".

The Arabs have tried war, three times in fact. This has apparently not
resolved the issue to their satisfaction. During these wars, they lost
undisputed claim to some more land that is now so evidently disputed by
them and the Israelis.

The Arabs have tried negotiation several times. Egypt and Jordan's deals
aside, it has not been all that successful. It did not resolve the issue
to their satisfaction, their stated aim being -- many times, from many
groups, in many forums -- the destruction of Israel.

They were so incompetent at this, as a matter of fact, that they became
to some extent the butt of jokes worldwide. This was of course seen as
an insult, but didn't cause them to look at their own faults. Oh, no.
They blamed Israel and by proxy the US.

Clinging doggedly to their persistent belief that the disputed land was
undisputedly theirs, and civilized means of dispute resolution having
failed them, they turned to uncivilized means. They invented modern
terrorism, and all of a sudden people were not laughing.

This uncivilized approach takes the form of the basic threat:

Give us what we want, *all* we want, or we will kill your
innocent people.

In the civilized world this is breaking the law of extortion. If the
threats of murder are carried out, it is murder and extortion which
combined we call racketeering or gangsterism.

Terrorism is a word adopted to represent gangsterism on an
international scale.

Israel is the good guys. The Arabs as personified by their leaders are
the bad guys. To me it is that simple.

Why anyone would favor a bunch of corrupt Arab sheiks over a free
people like the Israelis, I will never know.

--
One conclusion should be obvious: If nations such as Indonesia,
Bangladesh and Thailand can not make themselves inoffensive to Militant
Islamism there is no way that the United States could perform such a
feat, no matter which policies we changed or how much our public
diplomacy improved. -- Clifford May

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:44:40 -0000, TUKA
wrote:

There are two ways in civilized international rules to resolve a dispute
-- negotiation and war. Whether war is civilized or not is moot, the
rules of it are commonly referred to as the "civilized rules of war".

And there are several ways of allocating territory. The time-honoured
one is to capture it by force. A rather sneakier one is to organise a
carve-up of occupied territory after a war is over. Or to twist
someone else's arm to do it.

I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give away.

[Ray S]

TUKA wrote:
On 2007-03-19, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
except for a tiny piece of desert smaller than the state of New
Jersey.....surrounded by murderous lunatics. This is their land.
Well yes. It's an unfortunate fact that it WAS their land.

You believe the lies they tell? It most certainly has been the Jews land
since long before Islam and the "Palestinians". Also, the Jews hold deeds
for large portions of the important land in the area and have since the
1940s.

Well, you have to hand it to the Jews in that regard. Not only did God
tell them that it was their land, they got it in writing! Now THATS
thinking ahead!

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:44:40 -0000, TUKA
wrote:

There are two ways in civilized international rules to
resolve a dispute -- negotiation and war. Whether war is
civilized or not is moot, the rules of it are commonly
referred to as the "civilized rules of war".

And there are several ways of allocating territory. The
time-honoured one is to capture it by force.

Agreed.

A rather sneakier one is to organise a carve-up of occupied
territory after a war is over.

The theory seems to be that if you capture your enemy and kill the head,
then you are responsible for the body. On the face of it, not a bad theory.

Or to twist someone else's arm to do it.

If they were your allies in the war, then this makes some sense as well. I
presume you're talking about the UN.

I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give away.

It was dirty work but someone had to do it. ;-)

[TUKA]

On 2007-03-19, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:44:40 -0000, TUKA
wrote:

There are two ways in civilized international rules to resolve a dispute
-- negotiation and war. Whether war is civilized or not is moot, the
rules of it are commonly referred to as the "civilized rules of war".

And there are several ways of allocating territory. The time-honoured
one is to capture it by force. A rather sneakier one is to organise a
carve-up of occupied territory after a war is over. Or to twist
someone else's arm to do it.

This has been happening for millenia. Are you about to say that the
Arab conquering of the territory by force is valid, while the Israeli
purchase of land and independence declaration is not?


I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give away.

It was yours to split up according to the practice of the time, and no
one disputed that in any meaningful way. 78% of the land went to create
an Arab Palestinian homeland -- Jordan -- and 22% went to create a
Jewish homeland.

In any case, Israel is not going anywhere, that is completely clear.
For the Palestinians to throw yet another generation of their children
in the toilet pursuing their hopeless struggle is idiocy of the highest
order. The only ones it serves are the strongman leaders of the Arab
world, who have the Jews to blame everything on when people might ask why
they have a 40% youth unemployment rate.

The bizaare thing is that so many people in Europe buy the Arabs line that
if only the Jews were gone or they got Jerusalem, everything would be
all right. It is complete and utter bull****, of course, but they keep
saying it and people (like you?) apparently believe them and don't hold
them accountable for their many, many failures.

There are several demographic bombs racing in the Middle East and Europe.
Will the Arabs implode from their unsustainable population growth first,
or will Europe become Eurabia, or will Israel become majority Arab? I
am betting that the Arab and Muslim countries implode, because their GDPs
keep shrinking and their youth unemployment rates keep rising, while Europe
and the US are curtailing immigration. The Arab leaders must be getting
nervous....

--

"Laughter is inner jogging." -- Norman Cousins

[[email protected]]

In , on 03/19/07
at 02:21 PM, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom said:


There are two ways in civilized international rules to resolve a dispute
-- negotiation and war. Whether war is civilized or not is moot, the
rules of it are commonly referred to as the "civilized rules of war".

And there are several ways of allocating territory. The time-honoured
one is to capture it by force. A rather sneakier one is to organise a
carve-up of occupied territory after a war is over. Or to twist someone
else's arm to do it.

I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give away.

Several countries in the Middle East had their borders created by
colonizing powers. Israel and (Trans)Jordan are not the only ones.


Alan

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:39:51 -0500, wrote:


I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give away.

Several countries in the Middle East had their borders created by
colonizing powers. Israel and (Trans)Jordan are not the only ones.

Iraq for one. We preferred to buy oil from one administration than to
negotiate with multiple sheikdoms. So we forced a number of tribes
into a single country. Are you suggesting this interference turned
out to be a good idea?

[ushere[_2_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:39:51 -0500, wrote:

I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give
away.
Several countries in the Middle East had their borders created by
colonizing powers. Israel and (Trans)Jordan are not the only ones.


Iraq for one. We preferred to buy oil from one administration than
to negotiate with multiple sheikdoms. So we forced a number of
tribes into a single country. Are you suggesting this interference
turned out to be a good idea?

several countries in the western world have tried / succeeded in killing
off their native populations. when they got bored, they simply went
elsewhere...

[Ray S]

ushere wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:39:51 -0500, wrote:

I'm British. I'm far from convinced Palestine was mine to give
away.
Several countries in the Middle East had their borders created by
colonizing powers. Israel and (Trans)Jordan are not the only ones.


Iraq for one. We preferred to buy oil from one administration than
to negotiate with multiple sheikdoms. So we forced a number of
tribes into a single country. Are you suggesting this interference
turned out to be a good idea?

several countries in the western world have tried / succeeded in killing
off their native populations. when they got bored, they simply went
elsewhere...

Whats your point. No monopoly on this kind of behavior in the west. The
available of cultivatable crops and domesticatable animals gave this
area a leg up over their rivals from other parts of the world.