Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#1,261,169
I know, it's weird.
It's also mostly lefty liberals that seem to hate Israel... maybe it's because they feel that being seen as islamophobic is worse than being seen as antisemitic.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,261,186
@1,261,178 (D) > No land belongs to any one group of people. To suggest otherwise is racist. Land is a finite resource we all must share.
Ah, OK. In that case, let me rephrase: How can you steal land which you have always had shares in? And why should you give up that land just because somebody else is demanding a bigger share?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 24 seconds later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,261,189
@1,261,183 (C)
The Chaldeans were a nomadic people who migrated further east and were absorbed by the Babylonians and ruled over them for a time.
The very first properly established kingdom, with its own laws, in the country of Israel (and what is now Jordan) was Jewish - they ruled there for centuries before Muslim Arabs appeared on the scene.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,261,196
@1,261,186 (B)
Hey, thanks. Although I don't think your rephrasing is any more clear.
Let's take smaller steps. Firstly, do you agree or disagree with what I said? If you agree, we can discuss how what you're saying does or not fit into that world view. If you disagree, we can stop there and figure out why that is.
> Nobody said anything about anybody being subhuman.
You're right. Neither did Anon C either. Why did you bring in "subhuman"? Anon C simply said they are human.
It's telling you jumped to assuming Anon C was suggesting otherwise they'd be "subhuman", and not, say, something more neutral like extra-terrestrial, or, possibly, superhuman.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,261,202
@previous (D) > Why did you bring in "subhuman"? Anon C simply said they are human.
No, Anon C said they are human too, i.e. also human. Phrasing it like this implies Anon C might have come to some conclusion that maybe I was implying that nomads are not human or somehow inferior or sub... which I wasn't.
> It's telling you jumped to assuming Anon C was suggesting...
No it isn't. No I didn't "jump" to assuming anything.
> something more neutral like extra-terrestrial, or, possibly, superhuman.
But that would be silly. We are not talking about aliens or supermensch. We are have an intelligent discussion. Besides, Anon C would surely have said something like "Nomads are only human".
> You think they are subhuman, don't you?
No, I don't.
It's telling that you are leaping to these conclusions...
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,261,204
@1,261,196 (D) > Hey, thanks. Although I don't think your rephrasing is any more clear.
Sorry, I tried.
> Let's take smaller steps.
OK
> Firstly, do you agree or disagree with what I said?
On one level I do and on another I do not. In the modern multicultural era it is almost obviously true that land doesn't belong to one group of people. Note, by the way, that the Jewish people have offered to share the land many times with the Palestinian Muslims, but this offer has always been rejected.
In ancient times, however, the concept of sharing land (hence power) between two distinctly different cultures was unthinkable - it is incredibly naive to assume that people thousands of years ago thought the same way as you do today about stuff like this.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,261,209
@previous (B) > > Firstly, do you agree or disagree with what I said? > On one level I do and on another I do not. In the modern multicultural era it is almost obviously true that land doesn't belong to one group of people. Note, by the way, that the Jewish people have offered to share the land many times with the Palestinian Muslims, but this offer has always been rejected.
Have they seriously? Because I've seen a long history of lip service and nothing more. Or, maybe, that's not quite fair to say. They say one thing and then do the complete opposite as far as their treatment of Arab people goes.
If they were actually serious, they'd propose something not unlike the Ottoman empire's legal system whereby each person chooses which religious courts and laws to be held to, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and now we can also add in secular courts. Or, Yahweh forbid, they actually just run a modern day secular democracy and not give overwhelming, if not official preference, to their own religion above all else.
If either of those were the situation, then, yeah, I'd say fuck the Palestinians for not accepting that. But that couldn't be further from the "deals" they've been offered.
> In ancient times, however, the concept of sharing land (hence power) between two distinctly different cultures was unthinkable - it is incredibly naive to assume that people thousands of years ago thought the same way as you do today about stuff like this.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,261,210
> it is incredibly naive to assume that people thousands of years ago thought the same way as you do today about stuff like this.
Also, I'm not sure I even agree with this. People thousands of years ago had the same complexity of thought that we have. We know it because many of them wrote it down. Certainly far from the majority, but I know there were people that held my views (and, I guess yours?) 2000 or more years ago.