|
RE: [errancy] McDonald-Till Debate
|
Chip Kempston
|
Aug 08, 2007 06:29 PDT
|
--- Dennis Burdette <time2-@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
| | Quoting elya-@prodigy.net.mx:
| |
time2-@frontiernet.net wrote:
| |
| | | | CHIP:
I can blame them. Muslims brought the
|
|
|
|
crusades on
| | | | | | | | themselves by attempted to overthrow every
|
|
|
|
country
| | | | | | | | between Asia Minor and Spain. They started
|
|
|
|
it.
| | | | | |
IAN
Then you shoild not blame the Arabs
|
|
|
(Canaanites), now Palestinians for
| | | | | | wanting to kill off the Jews who (according to
|
|
|
the Old Testament) went
| | | | | | in and killed off the Arabs. They started it!
Ian Dorion
|
DB
I was curious where it was stated that theJews
|
|
"killed off the Arabs"
| |
IAN
You're joking or you're trying to waste my time.
|
I can't believe you
| | are that stupid.
Ian Dorion
|
DB
Interesting bedside matter. I think that you should
be careful with
your derogatory comments when what you write is
clearly wrong. First,
although you can find support for your claim, it is
argumentative that
the Arabs of today are the Canaanites of old
(assuming that this is
what you claim); I suspect that many of your sources
would also argue
that Israelites are of Canaanite descent too.
Second, however, you
used the OT as reference which clearly demarcates
Arabs and Canaates;
therefore, per your reference your comments are
simply wrong. You
would have a better argument, although still
argumentative, if you
claimed that some Lebanese are of Canaanite descend.
In either case,
you would have a hard time defending your arguments.
I suspect that you are attempting to twist the data
so that your pet
theories can be justified.
There is certainly tension reflecting in you
referenced, the OT,
between Israelites and what it calls Arabs. History
might even argue
that Arabs were the initial aggressor into what was
historically
Jewish land.
Tensions in the Middle East are undoubtedly more
related to Arab
Palestinian aggression than Israel's. Clearly,
Israel is only trying
to survive amidst a majority that wishes to destroy
it. If the
majority of Palestinians could have their way and
could murder every
Jew in the Middle East, there would still be
problems in what would
then called Palestine. The Palestinians would start
to fight among
themselves (as we have recently seen). Incursions
from Syria or other
Arab countries would make the situation worse.
The Arab world has plenty of land to resettle the
Palestinians. The
problem is that they do not want to resettle them.
The kings of Jordan
was presented with great problems when they tried to
help the
Palestinians following the formation of Israel. As
such, the other
Arab countries do not really wish to help the
Palestinians (for fear
of them), although they are happy to use them to get
at Israel.
I am not a Jew but would agree with Golda Meir's
statement: "Peace
will come when the Arabs will love their children
more than they hate
us." The problem in the Middle East is Arab hate.
Thanks,
|
CHIP:
I put it like this one time: if the Jews laid down
their arms today, the Arabs around them would destroy
them. If the Arabs laid down their arms today, there
would be peace. That tells you a lot about the
situation. Evidence of this fact is that every time
Israel makes a peaceful overture, they get bombed some more.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
|
|
 |
|
