Thread: Atomic Bombing on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Originally Posted by Maslan

there were a profet arab called him "Ibrahim" which was married to two women one was called "Sarah" and the other is called "Hagar", they both gave birth to two sons one called "Isaac" and the other is called "Ismael",

Actually you have it wrong there buddy boy. Abraham only had one wife, Sarah. Hagar was Sarah's servant, therefore Ismael was born out of wedlock and what's more,he was no prophet.

But really, what does any of this have to do with anything?

Oh, PS. and just how did he invent Arabic? All by himself I suppose. I'm sure that he had a great need to invent and then learn a new language .........hmmmmmm!!

Originally Posted by Vesh

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Cyphyr

The wall is presented as a purely protective measure when in actual fact it is also being used to pre-empt a future negotiated settlement and cement Israel's landgrab of Palestinian territory.

There is no land grab by Israel. That land (The entire West Bank and Gaza) was already forfieted and lost to Israel by Palestinian Arab acts of war. As the victors, Israel gets to decide what land, if any, she will give to her Arab enemies. That was the risk that Arabs took when they challenged Israel to war. They can build that wall any where they feel like.

It's funny, but if these territories that were "controlled" by Arab countries were in fact parts of these countries, Israel could have lawfully annex them as territories of states-aggressors that were used to commit an aggression. But since those territories were not parts of the states-aggressors but just were "controlled" by them, it's unlawful to annex them.

So, Israel does not get to decide what land, if any, she will give to her Arab enemies.

You are "splitting hairs" here.
Do you think that the Palestineans in the West Bank and Gaza were not fighting alongside the other Arab nations who attacked Israel? They were given the West Bank in 1948 but refused to organize themselves because they wanted the whole land and so were part of the attack. They lost. I think you have succumed to liberal media interpretation of history on this point. This conflict is heavily affected by media as it molds the opinions of generations. Peoples memories are short.

The moment that Israel's spokespeople and friends abroad began talking about balancing Palestinian rights to statehood and Israel's need for security, it started to lose the media war.

Rights can only be balanced in the public eye with other rights, not pleas for safety. If the Palestinians portray themselves as the only ones with legitimate rights to disputed territories, and Israel repeatedly fails to offer an effective rejoinder, then why won't more people consider the Palestinians in the right?

And once they've gotten editors and church leaders to think of Israel as an "occupier" and inherently in the wrong, then all Palestinian tactics — even murder — become legitimate, and all Israeli countermeasures become illegitimate.

'We await the launch of a third Palestinian intifada," the head of Israeli army intelligence predicted.

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Maslan

there were a profet arab called him "Ibrahim" which was married to two women one was called "Sarah" and the other is called "Hagar", they both gave birth to two sons one called "Isaac" and the other is called "Ismael",

Actually you have it wrong there buddy boy. Abraham only had one wife, Sarah. Hagar was Sarah's servant, therefore Ismael was born out of wedlock and what's more,he was no prophet.

But really, what does any of this have to do with anything?

Oh, PS. and just how did he invent Arabic? All by himself I suppose. I'm sure that he had a great need to invent and then learn a new language .........hmmmmmm!!

Simply u r the wrong not me, Ibrahim has a wife and a slave given to him a as a gift from the egyptian king this time and not a servant as u claim. being a slave doesn't make u less than free people we all are people. so this doesn't mean that Ibrahim's son from the slave is less than Ibrahim's son from his wife.

And don't forget that Jews killed their own profet and the jesus.
beofre u post please search more about the jewish "Talmud".
http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm

Originally Posted by Maslan

[

Simply u r the wrong not me, Ibrahim has a wife and a slave given to him a as a gift from the egyptian king this time and not a servant as u claim. being a slave doesn't make u less than free people we all are people. so this doesn't mean that Ibrahim's son from the slave is less than Ibrahim's son from his wife.

And don't forget that Jews killed their own profet and the jesus.
beofre u post please search more about the jewish "Talmud".
http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm

I'm afraid it does make a difference. As the bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael received NO BIRTHRIGHT. Which meant NO ISRAEL for Ishmael.
Hagar and Ishmael were sent away and Ishmael's descendants were promised their own Princedoms. It was written that Ishmael's descenants would be "Wild asses of the desert" and always fighting amongst themselves. Time has has proved this prophecey true.
If Arabs would just agree to stay on their side of the Jordan there would be peace.

So what if Jews killed Jesus? Is that your way of trying to get me to hate Jews, like you apparantly do?

Originally Posted by Maslan

[

Simply u r the wrong not me, Ibrahim has a wife and a slave given to him a as a gift from the egyptian king this time and not a servant as u claim. being a slave doesn't make u less than free people we all are people. so this doesn't mean that Ibrahim's son from the slave is less than Ibrahim's son from his wife.

And don't forget that Jews killed their own profet and the jesus.
beofre u post please search more about the jewish "Talmud".
http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm

I'm afraid it does make a difference. As the bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael received NO BIRTHRIGHT. Which meant NO ISRAEL for Ishmael.
Hagar and Ishmael were sent away and Ishmael's descendants were promised their own Princedoms. It was written that Ishmael's descenants would be "Wild asses of the desert" and always fighting amongst themselves. Time has has proved this prophecey true.
If Arabs would just agree to stay on their side of the Jordan there would be peace.

So what if Jews killed Jesus? Is that your way of trying to get me to hate Jews, like you apparantly do?

Originally Posted by Maslan

Originally Posted by Vesh

Originally Posted by Maslan

Antisemitic Arab are also semitic like jewish, if u revised the history u will them cousines.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Antisemitic%20

That's right but arabs also belongs to semitic people they are jewish cousines all came from a man called sam the son of what muslims call him profet "Nooh".

"Antisemitic" is a word whose meanig is: "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews." Are we, two non-natives, going to invent English?

Originally Posted by Maslan

Originally Posted by Vesh

I'm glad you don't. Because the question whose land it is is just unappropriate if we do want to solve this problem.

If you really think so, you'll have to agree that arabs who moved to this land after 1948, and there were quite many of them, are conquerors as well.

That's right i agree for that , any people came without rights after 1948 are conquerors. and if many arabs do that, they r conquerors. while many many jewish do that which means that there more jewish conquerors that arab ones.

Do you know what the word "migrant" mean?

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Maslan

[

Simply u r the wrong not me, Ibrahim has a wife and a slave given to him a as a gift from the egyptian king this time and not a servant as u claim. being a slave doesn't make u less than free people we all are people. so this doesn't mean that Ibrahim's son from the slave is less than Ibrahim's son from his wife.

And don't forget that Jews killed their own profet and the jesus.
beofre u post please search more about the jewish "Talmud".
http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm

I'm afraid it does make a difference. As the bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael received NO BIRTHRIGHT. Which meant NO ISRAEL for Ishmael.
Hagar and Ishmael were sent away and Ishmael's descendants were promised their own Princedoms. It was written that Ishmael's descenants would be "Wild asses of the desert" and always fighting amongst themselves. Time has has proved this prophecey true.
If Arabs would just agree to stay on their side of the Jordan there would be peace.

So what if Jews killed Jesus? Is that your way of trying to get me to hate Jews, like you apparantly do?

Do you really think that Torah has a legal value nowdays?

Originally Posted by Vesh

Maslan, I'm tired... The word "Antisemitic" means: "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews" in English language.

It doesn't mean that both Jews and Arabs are not semits. In fact they are and I never denied it.

Yes, That's what i wanted to hear, Arab are semits

Originally Posted by Maslan

Originally Posted by Vesh

Maslan, I'm tired... The word "Antisemitic" means: "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews" in English language.

It doesn't mean that both Jews and Arabs are not semits. In fact they are and I never denied it.

Yes, That's what i wanted to hear, Arab are semits

What for? It's a well-known fact that they are. So?

Originally Posted by Vesh

Do you really think that Torah has a legal value nowdays?

I am under the impression that "Tora" refers to the first 5 books of the Bible and what I was quoting is not law but preophecy.

The prophecy for Ishmael referring to "asses" should not be taken as an insult. Asses were considered to be noble and wild creatures of the desert.

I do not expect the Bible as a whole to have legal value to everyone today. However as a historical document it has proved itself to be a very useful tool to historians. On many occasions the bible has proved to be correct when there was a dispute with historians. We can thank archaelogical findings for this. One example is as follows:- For many years the historians believed that the Biblical accounts of the race called "Hittite" was fictional, until archaelogical findings finally proved that Hittites actually existed. There are more but that would be anoher thread.

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Maslan

[

Simply u r the wrong not me, Ibrahim has a wife and a slave given to him a as a gift from the egyptian king this time and not a servant as u claim. being a slave doesn't make u less than free people we all are people. so this doesn't mean that Ibrahim's son from the slave is less than Ibrahim's son from his wife.

And don't forget that Jews killed their own profet and the jesus.
beofre u post please search more about the jewish "Talmud".
http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm

I'm afraid it does make a difference. As the bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael received NO BIRTHRIGHT. Which meant NO ISRAEL for Ishmael.
Hagar and Ishmael were sent away and Ishmael's descendants were promised their own Princedoms. It was written that Ishmael's descenants would be "Wild asses of the desert" and always fighting amongst themselves. Time has has proved this prophecey true.
If Arabs would just agree to stay on their side of the Jordan there would be peace.

DDT, that was a very inflammatory post and looked to me like a racist slur on all Arabs. You say it's not to be taken as an insult but it's hard not to see it that way. In any case, this thread has gone completely down the drain in the last few hours, descending into a torrent of vile abuse and it appears there are no moderators around to step in and sort things out. If this kind of thing is going to be allowed here, then there really is no point discussing serious political issues at all as the bigots and racists are just going to drag everything into the gutter. I think I'll steer clear of such topics in future as a result. Perhaps it's for the best, I guess I can better use the time studying Russian anyway.

EDIT: I see the offending posts have been removed. My thanks to the moderators.

Originally Posted by Cyphyr

DDT, that was a very inflammatory post and looked to me like a racist slur on all Arabs. You say it's not to be taken as an insult but it's hard not to see it that way.

I can see that you also have no idea about the written word which i speak of. I have posted something that any educated person on the subject would understand and in your ignorance you think it is a slur. You really must read more if you are going to enter into this debate. So now here I will post the Biblical source and its' explanation.

Genesis 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

The first prophecy concerning Ishmael is that "he would be a wild ass among men." In Abraham’s day, there were packs of wild asses that roamed the desert. Ishmael and his descendants are characterized as being similar to these wild asses. Secondly, "his hand shall be against every man." The second characteristic of Ishmael was that of aggression. He would be against every man, attacking those with whom he has contact. Thirdly, "every man’s hand shall be against him." As he displayed aggression, he would bring upon himself retaliation.
"A Wild Man"
Certain aspects of Ishmael's character were described to his mother before he was born. It will be remembered that when Hagar found that she was pregnant she scorned her mistress, Sarai, for her barrenness. Sarai, in her turn, afflicted her maid until Hagar fled from her presence towards her own country of Egypt. Then, while resting in the wilderness of Shur, by a well of water, the angel of the Lord found her. She was alone and desperately unhappy but the Lord heard her affliction and sent His messenger to strengthen and inform her of what he intended to do for her child:
"I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. ... Behold, thou (art) with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael (God shall hear); because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand (will be) against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren' (Gen. 16:10-12).
In the strength of the Lord's promise, Hagar returned to her mistress and gave birth to her son.

"And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael" (Gen. 16:15). "A wild man" does not mean in the sense of a wild beast but rather in the way a free animal runs wild.

In Ferrar Fenton's translation it is "a free man" and James Moffatt makes it "a wild-ass of a man," which is the literal translation.

His very freedom and independence have put the Arab in the position of opposing those with a more settled way of life. Abraham, too, is given information about his first-born: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

But my covenant will I establish with Isaac" (Gen. 17:20-21).

I haven't read most of this extremely crappy thread and I don't intend to. In a few moments I'm going to reply to DDT's question. If anybody else posted a question for me, please post it again.

Has anyone mentioned that the Arabs conquered Palaestinae from the Roman Empire, not from the Jews ?

Originally Posted by Jeff

Originally Posted by DDT

And that is mythology.

Then give the name of a country that had Jerusalem as its capital, other than Israel that is, within say the last 3,500 years, Mr Smartypants.

DDT, you've posted intelligent messages consistently so I'm sure you were just very sleepy when you wrote the above message. Have you been taking cough and cold medicine lately ?

Let me mention (very briefly, so not to fan the flame war any more than necessary to answer your question) some of the archeological, literary and linguistic evidence:

Jerusalem was a Jewish capital for most of the the third millennium before present. Before that and after that till 1948, it wasn't. King David of Judah/Israel captured Jerusalem about 3000 years BP, but large-scale structures exist from no later than about 4300 BP and probably rather earlier.

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament as the capital of King Melchizedek's realm during the time of Abraham, no later than 3700 BP. (Melchizedek is not a name but a descriptive title, later translated into Semitic. It means 'righteous king.')

Several of the tablets found at Amarna in Egypt (ca. 3350 BP) were sent from a chieftain or king of Jerusalem, one Abdi-Heba (seemingly a Semitic name but not necessarily so—all the letters were written in Akkadian which was not spoken in Canaan).

According to the Old Testament, Joshua besieged the fortified city of Jerusalem about 3300-3400 BP, capturing and killing the city's king. (Joshua and his allies may have been the attacking force that prompted the aforementioned Abdi-Heba to write to Egypt for help that apparently never came.)

As the etymology of 'Jerusalem' is Indo-European, not Semitic, and as Semites reached Canaan no earlier than 3800 BP and then only along the periphery (as Phoenicians and perhaps also as Amalekites and Judahites), it is very likely that Jerusalem was founded by and became a city-state under the leadership of Proto-Indo-Europeans, probably the ancestors of the Hittites (who are known to have lived in Canaan after 3000 BP) or a kindred group. The names of some nearby cities, including Jericho and Hebron, are Indo-European as well.

The likely earliest attestation of the city's name is (Uri-)Shallam (in Akkadian). Shallam (also Shallum) is simply the descendant of the Proto-Indo-European word for 'seat,' 'settlement,' (i.e. 'village,' and later 'capital'):
*sel-/*sed- (root) + *-yo- (noun-forming suffix) + *-m (inflectional suffix, neuter nominative singular).
(Akkadian has 'sh' in many cases where other Semitic languages have 's' and vice versa—this sound shift may have occurred after the word was borrowed. Proto-Indo-European had no 'sh.')
An exact cognate (with the o-grade form of the root) is Latin solium 'throne.'
Near cognates include Vedic/Sanskrit -sad 'settler,' Latin sedere 'to settle' and perhaps Greek hellas 'originally a town, probably in Thessaly; later, Greece.' (Also, Russian село.)
Uri- is the Sumerians' approximation, borrowed into the Akkadian language, of the Proto-Indo-European autonym, which was something like *Hwer or *ʕwer. -i- is an Akkadian inflectional ending.

Originally Posted by DDT

I'm afraid it does make a difference. As the bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael received NO BIRTHRIGHT. Which meant NO ISRAEL for Ishmael.
Hagar and Ishmael were sent away and Ishmael's descendants were promised their own Princedoms. It was written that Ishmael's descenants would be "Wild asses of the desert" and always fighting amongst themselves. Time has has proved this prophecey true.
If Arabs would just agree to stay on their side of the Jordan there would be peace.

So what if Jews killed Jesus? Is that your way of trying to get me to hate Jews, like you apparantly do?

Abraham was a monogamist as all the Patriarchs were. The mentions of second wives, concubines et al. are later corruptions, which arose while the histories of Israel were being translated into (Semitic) Hebrew by the kings and priests of Judah, or sometime thereafter.

Originally Posted by Jeff

[
Abraham was a monogamist as all the Patriarchs were. The mentions of second wives, concubines et al. are later corruptions, which arose while the histories of Israel were being translated into (Semitic) Hebrew by the kings and priests of Judah, or sometime thereafter.

Firstly, let me start out by saying that my undue beligerance towads you by calling you "smartypants" was not due to any consumption of cough medecine but rathe,r the lack thereof. (I.... ran out of Nyquil).

Secondly, I agree entirely with your last post.

Thirdly, when I said that Jerusalem was the capital only one country. I meant in the LAST 3500 years not the previous 3500 before that!

Originally Posted by a true arab

JEWS ARE CONTROLLING USA THROUGH WALL STREET , DIAMONDS, MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD. THIS IS VERY CLEAR FOR ANY ONE. PLEASE, READ THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION LEADERS. IT IS A FAMOUS ZIONIST BOOK.

Damn right...

[quote=Греческо]

Originally Posted by "a true arab":1a2rb9bt

JEWS ARE CONTROLLING USA THROUGH WALL STREET , DIAMONDS, MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD. THIS IS VERY CLEAR FOR ANY ONE. PLEASE, READ THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION LEADERS. IT IS A FAMOUS ZIONIST BOOK.

Damn right...[/quote:1a2rb9bt]

Replace 'Jews' with Democrats and then you're damn right.