[S-99]

And except that it's not a car that someone paid for but rather a geographical and archeological feature that predates everyone involved by a thousand years.

A car, a geographical area, a belonging either way to whoever has it (you can gift cars to people, money need not always matter). Ownership changed many times. But, now it's back in the hands of the jews. For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location is still absurd. It only became a temple mount once israel turned the top of a hill into one.

Would the next move in this topic be that the holocaust never happened or reduce it to a matter of insignificance?

**** no. The near-annihilation of the jewish population in several countries is a testimony to the absolute worst humanity is capable of. Anything one can think of pales in it's comparison. This includes squabbles over the names of really old things.

At least we can agree upon the holocaust, we can also agree that many in the middle east at the government and education system levels deny it ever happened. It is worth rethinking the squabbles over the names and ownership of said land so as not leave them at this minimized face value, but to uncover the motivations for all to see of which I will call the victors being thought as thieves (israel currently owns the land). And who do these squabbles reinforce? I'd be more concerned with the people that want the land back rather than those who control it currently.

If i owned a car, and one person started calling it theirs with their own name for it, then got back up from other people who believed the lie; they will all be pissed when i produce the car title with my name on it. But, they will still try to take what is mine even after that, and then comes the fight. God forbid any of you would simply let someone claim false ownership over any of your items;

And suppose that you own that car cause you stole it from someone else and then said it was yours because you had legally owned it years ago and the fact that it got impounded and legally stopped being your property doesn't count.

Cause that is much closer to what actually happened than your argument.

Your simplification is missing one thing. I was very careful to not forget to include the idea of a fight. After war, you typically keep what you conquer, in the least establishing ownership and governance (conflicts where this does not happen are strange). We must not forget that in 1948, Israel had an opportunity to declare independence, they took it, and they won.

Definitely related, several thousand people have signed a petition that involves giving alaska back to russia. There's two convenient little facts here though, russia was trying to sell alaska to america in  the past, and that america finally purchased alaska for 7.2 million dollars (2 cents an acre); these two facts are conveniently omitted. Now you have here in 1867 with the american purchase of alaska, ownership and governance established through a financial transaction as opposed to war (war is not the only way to establish ownership and governance).

I wonder what would happen If england asked for any of 13 colonies back for free with nothing to back up their claim except a hissy fit, then you can bet ownership and governance isn't going to change. Another fun fact, the colonists did win independence from england in 1783.

In these affairs, if your the disgruntled party wanting something back, you're going to have to fight. England doesn't care about there previous 13 colonies (as far as we're aware), america is never giving alaska away (high military value and full of natural resources), and jews find that truth is not subjective.

AND OF COURSE...
We laughingly can't forget that unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount; who cares who owns what currently, this is an attempt to lazily re-write history. In the mean time, there is still that islamic win; the temple mount is used to worship the god of islam; this is a perversion since that is not who this location was originally intended to worship.

[karajorma]

Actually it's exactly who it was supposed to worship. Just by a different name. I guess the irony of your statement was lost on you.



Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.

[S-99]

Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.

You are deceived.

[Scotty]

Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.

You are deceived.

"You're wrong.  You're wrong.  You're wrong." does not a compelling argument make.  For anything, let alone something controversial.

[zookeeper]

For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location

unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount

Citation still needed.

[Dragon]

Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.

So... Putin is going to give Crimea back to Ukraine anytime now, right?

Seriously, it's always been that way. Anything you can conquer and hold, you can keep, UN or not. Borders everywhere are only an agreement between everyone involved and if you've got enough firepower to keep this agreement from being enforced, or if you know the people supposed to enforce it can't be bothered to do so, you can take everything you want.

In theory, of course, UN is supposed to prevent that sort of thing. In practice, Israel, Russia and China, for example, are sitting on territories which they are not supposed to be sitting on. There are some sanctions and other finger wagging going on, but as long as they can handle whatever UN, their neighbors and the oppressed population can throw at them, nobody's going to stop them. It's been that way since cavemen started thwacking each other with clubs and throwing rocks over their tribes' pieces of land. If a big guy with a club came over to your field and told you it's his field now, the only ways of objecting were either whacking him with a bigger club (if you were stronger) or impaling him with a spear (if you were smarter and knew how to make a spear). We've got bigger tribes and better spears now, but the game hasn't changed, only escalated.

Of course, conquering something doesn't give you the moral right to it. Israel is annoying me because it keeps preaching that (among its other hypocrisies). If it said "OK, you've had it, but vae victis, we're your masters now." it would be (slightly) more agreeable. Modern Jews are not Israelites and the modern Temple Mount has been Muslim for longer than it was Jewish. IMO, Jews should give up Zionism and make Israel a truly modern, secular and fair country. There's no returning to the past, ancient ruins and memorabilia do not help you move forward and economically speaking, Israel could do just fine without any part of Jerusalem. What they're currently doing there only serves to foster religious conflict. Naming a mountain this or that does precisely nothing to the quality of life in neither Israel nor Palestine .

[Phantom Hoover]

what would solve this is hereditary absolute monarchy

[Aesaar]

Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.

Of course it's true.  It's what almost every country in existence is built on, and just because it's seen as immoral now doesn't change the fact.  Sure, the UN was made to stop it, but it's never been terribly effective at it because the major players aren't required to give a ****.

[karajorma]

You do realise that S-99 is complaining about the UN, right?

I find it quite humorous that both you and Dragon have admitted that the UN was created to stop this kind of thing and yet don't see the irony.

[S-99]

Religious similarism is a deception.
Before the UN, you still kept the spoils of war. And it is in fact still like that.

You are deceived.

"You're wrong.  You're wrong.  You're wrong." does not a compelling argument make.  For anything, let alone something controversial.

I base my fact on the bible that religious similarism (all religions go to the same heaven) is a deception.
I base my fact on what you conquer you now own on reality. Wars have been fought that demonstrate this time and again. If i fought a war for control of your spice trade route, and i won it, that means it's mine.
I determined he is deceived.
But i in no way replied in the nature you are describing.

Actually it's exactly who it was supposed to worship. Just by a different name. I guess the irony of your statement was lost on you.



Seriously though, your entire argument is predicated on your rather blinkered view that anything you can conquer you can keep. Which of course is not true and is one of the major reasons for having a UN in the first place.

Yay, watch the UN potentially be effective. Kara gave me a blatantly informationless statement that was hardly a reply. I'm young enough to know that life isn't fair and that the UN isn't exactly stopping conquest (hi isis and boko haram!!!! and russia annexing places). He's not fit for the conversation if he can't add anything more than spoon fed popular ideals making one unable to consider any of the things i have mentioned hardly. Quite frankly, what you conquer you own. And if you are still wondering while people from different religions are still killing each other over religion, it's because all religions know they don't all worship the same god. And quite frankly, if you are an atheist, there being no god is a contradiction to all religions believing in the same god. The world is a mess of deception, but there is still truth that is not subjective.

But, lets make it real basic what i meant by the ideal that it's a perversion of the temple mount to worship any other god other than the god of abraham (the founder of the israelites through covenant with god). Through time, that temple mount has been used to worship other gods when israel was conquered in the past by their victors. When you worship a god on the grounds of someone else's god, this is a perversion of the institute. One such example being catholics letting muslims worship in their churches being a new thing (talk about not considering one of their supposedly corner stone books being the bible). I know it's that catholics letting muslims worship in their churches is not on the jewish temple mount, but even idiots point out the same thing questioning what the place of worship is actually for if anything but worship for who the structure was built as a place of worship for.

For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location

unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount

Citation still needed.

Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle. Jewish ties to the temple mount are established in the least by the fact that the jews built the temple mount. Whoever had it longest doesn't cancel out the ties of the creators. That would be stupid. Idk what you want a citation on? The jews having built the temple mount, or unesco being de-legitimized. Which trap do you want me to set off so you or others can call me a bible believing faggot along with the passive aggressive anti-jewish sentiment? No one's trying to gain brownie points with the jews. This is about fact and reality; jews built the temple mount for worship of their god, also to the victor go the spoils regardless of the UN.

All in all, it is obvious that this thread is full of anti-jew sentiment, my question is why? Guess what, israel has their temple mount that they built back, and they wont let go of it.
I wouldn't give the temple mount back for three reasons.
One is that jews do have ties to it.
Two is that through conquest they have an old site back.
Three is because those butt hurt found wanting are going to ask for more and more and more with nothing to provide but reasoning through nothing more than idiotic deliberation and deception. It seems that the people group that built the temple mount, know that they built the temple mount.

Modern Jews are not Israelites and the modern Temple Mount has been Muslim for longer than it was Jewish. IMO, Jews should give up Zionism and make Israel a truly modern, secular and fair country. There's no returning to the past, ancient ruins and memorabilia do not help you move forward and economically speaking, Israel could do just fine without any part of Jerusalem. What they're currently doing there only serves to foster religious conflict. Naming a mountain this or that does precisely nothing to the quality of life in neither Israel nor Palestine .

I only wonder why jews that are citizens of israel even call the nation israel still and them in it's borders that live there israeli. Wow you flip flopped there, russia is ok with keeping what they conquered, but israel would be better if they were more modern and progressive so as to give up a portion of jerusalem to the people who claim that the site has no jewish ties 

I can only conclude that is it a mistake to give to those that are wanting and not deserving.

You do realise that S-99 is complaining about the UN, right?

I find it quite humorous that both you and Dragon have admitted that the UN was created to stop this kind of thing and yet don't see the irony.

Didn't realize I was complaining about the UN. I guess one of my main points was that to the victor goes the spoils and you keep mentioning the UN.

[Grizzly]

Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle.

You're missing the point: Have you read Unesco's actual statement? It's linked upthread.

But, lets make it real basic what i meant by the ideal that it's a perversion of the temple mount to worship any other god other than the god of abraham (the founder of the israelites through covenant with god).

Muslims also worship the God of Abraham. It should also be noted that the isreali government does not permit non-muslims praying on the site.

[karajorma]

Didn't realize I was complaining about the UN. I guess one of my main points was that to the victor goes the spoils and you keep mentioning the UN.

I keep mentioning the UN because this entire thread is about the UN. Had you really not figured out what the UN in UNESCO stood for?

[zookeeper]

For unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location

unesco de-legitimized themselves when they tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount

Citation still needed.

Well sure it would de-legitimize unesco out of principle. Jewish ties to the temple mount are established in the least by the fact that the jews built the temple mount. Whoever had it longest doesn't cancel out the ties of the creators. That would be stupid. Idk what you want a citation on? The jews having built the temple mount, or unesco being de-legitimized.

As Joshua pointed out, you don't seem to have been reading the thread at all. I've now bolded the parts I want a citation on, above. It's the claim which this whole thread was built on but for which both Sandwich and you have refused to provide any evidence for.

[S-99]

I keep mentioning the UN because this entire thread is about the UN. Had you really not figured out what the UN in UNESCO stood for?

No this is not some dawn of revelation for me that unesco is an agency of the UN. My focus was just on "the spoils go to the victor" perhaps a little too strictly (the UN does get ignored a lot).

Muslims also worship the God of Abraham. It should also be noted that the isreali government does not permit non-muslims praying on the site.

When different religions have different practices and some slightly similar beliefs, I don't care if it's in writing or word when they say they worship the same god when they clearly don't. Christians follow god's son jesus (who was one in the same as god) with a very different system called the new testament (no more keeping the sabbath, no more bound by 10 commandments and old testament laws found in exodus, etc). Jews follow the old testament (torah) the ten commandments and the rest of the laws found in the exodus and genesis and all over the rest of the books, etc. set up by the god of abraham. Islam is an alien one, it has more in common with christianity than judaism, and basically relegates the prophet muhammed above jesus and considers jesus just a prophet (not the son of god). There are similarities and many differences, i only find that they worship the same god in name, not practice (sorry if this was rough, but i tried to keep it short).

Also, I know about the non-muslim prayer ban, after all the temple mount is still an islamic holy site even after israeli independence (i guess it made sense to the jews to keep it as such).

As Joshua pointed out, you don't seem to have been reading the thread at all. I've now bolded the parts I want a citation on, above. It's the claim which this whole thread was built on but for which both Sandwich and you have refused to provide any evidence for.

And now i will provide the link to the text of the resolution itself found here. A citation out of unesco's mouth that it de-legitimize them; you wont find it. You will however find a resolution that is very anti-israel. By calling certain sites by only foreign names and titles, referring to israel as an occupying force, performing archeology on historic sites being frowned upon, use of certain names for israel's sites (names were used intending ownership) and more. It does mention christianity, judaism, and islam; it heavily refers to islam a lot while minimizing christianity and judaism.

This is a resolution that is very preferential to muslims, all too much preferential. We don't wonder much why jews don't like it; it has more than just dictation of what they can and cannot do in their country. How jewish ties are nullified, has yet to be seen. But, unesco is much too biased, or israel is just that lucky to have such contested historical sites. I think a tad both.

It seems to me the area where people believed that it nullifies jewish connection to the historical site was by how much the resolution preferred islam in what the resolution said and demanded. And it's not necessarily knee jerk, it's a blurry area. Through out all of this, i am certain the israeli government is irritated if you read the whole resolution (it's not a very long read) and think from their shoes about maintaining control over what you currently control.

[karajorma]

Point out where in that text it claims that Jews have no connection to Temple Mount. I'm not about to read that entire wall of text for something that probably isn't there.

[S-99]

This is a resolution that is very preferential to muslims, all too much preferential. We don't wonder much why jews don't like it; it has more than just dictation of what they can and cannot do in their country. How jewish ties are nullified, has yet to be seen. But, unesco is much too biased, or israel is just that lucky to have such contested historical sites. I think a tad both.

It seems to me the area where people believed that it nullifies jewish connection to the historical site was by how much the resolution preferred islam in what the resolution said and demanded. And it's not necessarily knee jerk, it's a blurry area. Through out all of this, i am certain the israeli government is irritated if you read the whole resolution (it's not a very long read) and think from their shoes about maintaining control over what you currently control.

I covered that.

EDIT: click here for the resolution. It wasn't necessarily easy finding it. Most of google pops up with reactions stories published.

[karajorma]

So in other words, when push comes to shove, you can't actually prove that the resolution does anything more than call Israel the occupying power and uses non-Hebrew names for a place.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to care about that.

[zookeeper]

unesco to claim that there's no jewish ties to this location

[unesco] tried to claim jews had no ties to the temple mount

Really?

No, not really.

Got it.

[Sandwich]

Those of you whining about not being able to find where in the UNESCO resolution is says what, I posted a pretty thorough analysis earlier in the thread. Read the entire post, please: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92664.msg1832474#msg1832474

Then come back and complain you can't see it. I'll send you to an eye doctor. Or back to 1st grade for reading comprehension.

[zookeeper]

Those of you whining about not being able to find where in the UNESCO resolution is says what, I posted a pretty thorough analysis earlier in the thread. Read the entire post, please: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92664.msg1832474#msg1832474

Then come back and complain you can't see it. I'll send you to an eye doctor. Or back to 1st grade for reading comprehension.

I read the entire post. I still can't see it.

But really, since you bring up reading comprehension: if someone makes a claim like "UNESCO denies Jewish connection to Temple Mount" which is obviously intended to make the reader think that that's actually factually correct instead of just empty rhetoric, then they don't get to skirt demands for a citation with an analysis which concludes that if you interpret this thing this way and that thing that way and then make some supporting assumptions, then it's possible that the claim might be factually correct even though we can't know it. That's nonsense.

Should someone instead claim that "UNESCO is a bunch of poo poo heads and meanies because they're not using all the proper names" then sure, that's fine, as it's clearly an opinion and not a gross misrepresentation of facts.