[Bobboau]

"taken by force from said muslims 40 years ago by a nation which believes that god has given said land to them from a nation that tried to crush them because they believed that God wanted them to"

there is a lot of cooklery in the mideast.

[Gank]

"from a nation that tried to crush them because they believed that God wanted them to"

I think if you check your facts you'll find that most arabs were opposed to the creation of the state of Israel because it was being created on land that was legally theirs and had lived on for generations, not because of some divine instructions. Given that Muslims ruled palestine as well as other parts of the world with significent jewish populations without crushing them for over a thousand years its stretching the envelope a bit to expect people to believe thats what they're trying to do. Fact is, the israeli problem, whatever the motives of its inhabitants, is the direct result of a long and nasty campaign by members of another religion, christianity, to crush the jews. Zionism was originally established to escape from persecution in europe by fleeing to the middle east. Ironic eh?

Islamic extremism, while dangerous, is directed specifically towards europeans and not Indians (bar the Kashmiri thing), Chinese or anybody else for that matter. Why? Well, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Iran, Balfour, Sikes/Picott, the list goes on. The past hundred years or more nearly the whole of the muslim world has had its actions dictated to it from Paris, London Washington or Moskow. Ye've pissed in their pot and they're not happy about it. Islamic extremism is getting more vocal and dangerous not because of the nature of islam itself, which actually explicitly forbids a lot of the things these guys do, but due to the increased meddling in the region by the european powers since the fall of the ottoman empire. Given that they're sitting on the largest supply of a resource that western civilisation is completely dependant on i'd get used to the idea of a few bombs round the place and some nuts waving swords about.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, if you want to stir the water even more, here goes - the Palestinians themselves were invaders just as much as the Israelites. Also, the name "Palestine" is derived from a people mentioned numerous times in many actual historical contexts as well as the old testimony - the Philistines.

The Philistines were apparently not very peaceful lot themselves, not that any particular tribe/nationality was that at the day... Granted that they did inhabit the southern parts of Canaan when the Israelites arrived, but the Philistines did apparently come from somewhere else themselves and took the land from the dwellers of Canaan, gradually mixing their original culture with semitic influences in process. They were a strong people and they were almost continuously in war with the Israel for a long, long time.

...Not that it matters any bit who started things like this. What matters is who has the guts to stop it.

It is possible to break the loop of violence, as the case of Ireland has shown - albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible...

[Gank]

I dont think palestinians are actually claiming or thought to be the descendants of the philistines as such, think they get their name more from the location rather than any geneological(?) reasons. Generally it refers to the inhabitants of pre-1948 british mandate palestine who would be descendands of a large number of nations i suppose, including greeks, romans and jewish converts to christianity and islam. Got 10,000 years of history there you know. Most of it bloody. Including periods where the jews themselves fought the Israelite kingdom.

As for the case of Ireland, yeah a much less complicated situation, though it took 400 years to get from the period where colonisation was occouring to the present day, and the violence is still ongoing at a low level so I wouldnt call it over just yet.

[karajorma]

albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible...

Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.

[Sandwich]

I dont think palestinians are actually claiming or thought to be the descendants of the philistines as such, think they get their name more from the location rather than any geneological(?) reasons. Generally it refers to the inhabitants of pre-1948 british mandate palestine who would be descendands of a large number of nations i suppose, including greeks, romans and jewish converts to christianity and islam. Got 10,000 years of history there you know. Most of it bloody. Including periods where the jews themselves fought the Israelite kingdom.

As for the case of Ireland, yeah a much less complicated situation, though it took 400 years to get from the period where colonisation was occouring to the present day, and the violence is still ongoing at a low level so I wouldnt call it over just yet.

Gank, my friend, I do believe this is a first - I completely agree with everything you say in one of your posts. Let's just not mention the previous two posts...

[Flipside]

albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible...

Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.

Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.

[Sandwich]

BTW, here's another, completely different clip, this one 12 minutes: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm

[Gank]

Sandwich, cheers, but mention whatever you want mate, think we both know you're on shaky ground when it comes to religious extremism   

Anyways all this muslim extremism stuff is way over-hyped, the way things are going at the minute the west will have wiped out the entire muslim population of the world before they've managed to clear out even one of our cities.

[karajorma]

Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.

Not amazing so much as pathetic to my mind.

[aldo_14]

albeit in Ireland the history of conflict didn't range back to 3k years ago or so, and it was much less complex situation, but still. At least I hope it is possible...

Once you go beyond living memory it's all just names and dates anyway. Living memory is all that should matter in this sort of thing. 300 or 3000 years doesn't matter. Besides it wasn't the Muslims who through the Jews out of Israel. The only people they have a legitimate complaint with in that respect are the Italians.

Thing is, if you consider that Hadrians Wall was built nearly 2000 years ago as a defence against the Northerners and that neither the Scoti tribe nor the English actually lived in the UK when the Romans invaded, it's amazing how far a grudge can actually go.

What grudge?

[Flipside]

Well, probably grudge is the wrong word, but the general belief held by a lot of the population of the UK that the 'confrontations' between the English and the Scottish across the border has been going on since Roman times, when, in truth, that was an entirely different two set of races. We sort of adopted the confrontation between the Picts, Celts and Saxons and merged with the the History of the Normans, Romans and various Gaellic/Icelandic peoples and bundle it all together into 'British History'.

This is one of the reasons I laugh when I hear about Boudecia, current theory is she wasn't British, and she got her arse kicked by the Romans anyway

[Sandwich]

Sandwich, cheers, but mention whatever you want mate, think we both know you're on shaky ground when it comes to religious extremism   

I'd not call myself a religious extremist by any means... we've got too many of those weirdos wandering around the streets of Jerusalem as it is (they call it "Jerusalem Syndrome").

[Gank]

Sandwich, iirc you're a messianic jew, ya? Not exactly what you'd call a mainstream religion, pretty controversial really. Canadian B'nai Brith for example accuses them of anti-semitic acts. The state of israel itself doesnt even recognise you as jews. Point is while you may not consider yourself an extremist, a lot of people would. Lets be honest here, your religious beliefs are the reason you're in a country which has been in a constant state of war with practically everyone around it in its short existance, right?

This is one of the reasons I laugh when I hear about Boudecia, current theory is she wasn't British, and she got her arse kicked by the Romans anyway

Boudeacia was the leader (wife of the deceased leader technically) of the Icena tribe, a brythonic celt tribe who were based around Norfolk. Shes about as british as you can get mate. Brythonic=British

[Flipside]

As British for the Period as you can get, the original Norfolk inhabitants were mostly displaced by the Roman occupation by Caesar about 100 years before hand, indeed, she used the last uprising against the Romans as an example of how it could be done again.

When they allied with the Romans in 43AD there was almost certainly some cross-breeding. She was undoubtedly of Brithonic culture, but just how pure anyone's blood was by that stage is still a matter of debate in some quarters. Much like the legitimacy of the current Royal Family (There are documents in France that place the king in France when Henry 4th (I think) was concieved in the UK). I suppose it's one of those things that will never properly be answered.

These days I doubt there are many Celtic lines left from the original Brithonic tribes, maybe still in some areas of Wales, but I couldn't say for certain.

[Gank]

Caesar didnt occupy any land, he merely installed a friendly celtic king and set sail back for the continent. True roman invasion didnt occur until ad43 and given that she had two daughters of sufficent age to be raped prior to her rebellion in 60 its hardly likely that Boudicea had any roman blood in her. Possible maybe that she may had some gallic or belgae blood in her, if they did migrate there from the south as you say though thats conjecture really. All part of the brythonic celtic group anyways.

Henry IV? Dont need to go that far back to determine you're king ethnicity mate, the house of windsor was known up until 1917 as "The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". Thought it was common knowledge that you're being ruled by Germans man.

[Flipside]

Heh, yep, I knew the line was German in origin, I got my names mixed up anyway, it was James 4th that was most likely not of Royal descendency, indeed, it's highly possible that he was the son of the Queen and a Longbowman.

[Sandwich]

Sandwich, iirc you're a messianic jew, ya? Not exactly what you'd call a mainstream religion, pretty controversial really. Canadian B'nai Brith for example accuses them of anti-semitic acts. The state of israel itself doesnt even recognise you as jews. Point is while you may not consider yourself an extremist, a lot of people would. Lets be honest here, your religious beliefs are the reason you're in a country which has been in a constant state of war with practically everyone around it in its short existance, right?

There are Muslims, and there are Muslim extremists. Saying that I'm an extremist just because someone else accuses others who believe like I do of anti-semitic acts (????) doesn't make sense any more than lumping all Muslims together does.

Anyway, it depends what you mean by "extremist". I'm sure it's not the dictionary definition, but I'd say an extremist would be one who (among other things) tries to force his or her religion and beliefs on others, sometimes even through the use of force. In that regard, there's no way in hell that I could be labeled as an extremist. The farthest I'd ever go would be to tell someone that I believe they're wrong, but they're also perfectly welcome to continue being wrong if that's what they want. *shrugs* Non-Christians aren't the only ones who've been pissed-off at the more invasive evangelism methods in use today...

[Gank]

There are Muslims, and there are Muslim extremists. Saying that I'm an extremist just because someone else accuses others who believe like I do of anti-semitic acts (????) doesn't make sense any more than lumping all Muslims together does.

They apparently classify the conversion of jews to christianity as an anti-semitic act, a view which itself would be probably considered as extremist in most peoples eyes.

But yeah, it does largely go by your definition of the word. Mine wouldnt neccesarily match yours, although a guy living in the occupied territories whos taken part in military operations against palestinian refugee camps could be percieved to be forcing his beliefs on others. The whole state of Israel could really be seen as guilty of forcing its beliefs religious or otherwise on others. Naturally nobody sees themselves as extremist.

Heres wikis article on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society

This is probably an accurate description of Messianic Judaism's current position in Israel no? Scroll down to the 16 traits and ask yourself honestly how many of them apply to you.

[Sandwich]

They apparently classify the conversion of jews to christianity as an anti-semitic act, a view which itself would be probably considered as extremist in most peoples eyes.

Honestly, I never got that. Jew A chooses to believe that Jew B is the Messiah, and just because more non-Jews believe that Jew B is the Messiah means that Jew A is a "convert"?

But yeah, it does largely go by your definition of the word. Mine wouldnt neccesarily match yours, although a guy living in the occupied territories whos taken part in military operations against palestinian refugee camps could be percieved to be forcing his beliefs on others.

Clarification: I live in the "occupied territories" (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria... Judea in my case) and have taken part in military operations against terrorists.

Oh, and a little tidbit of seasonal information... I live within like 10 minutes' walking distance from Bethlehem in one direction, and probably around 90 minutes' walking distance from Jerusalem's Old City in the other.

Heres wikis article on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society

This is probably an accurate description of Messianic Judaism's current position in Israel no? Scroll down to the 16 traits and ask yourself honestly how many of them apply to you.

I'm whole-heartedly "guilty" of identifying with number 16.

Number 15, well... you obviously don't know me personally. I'm pretty level-headed... "adorexia", I believe they called it in Lucky Number Slevin? Perhaps not that drastic with me, but definitely in that general direction.

Number 14 depends on your definition of "bad", obviously, since "bad" is an extremely relative term. Assuming the generally-held POV of something "bad" as something immoral, evil, malicious, and with intent to harm others, I'd say I have no relevance to it. If you prefer the looser definition of something that is non-beneficial to someone, then I'd say that we are all one form of bad or another. Who among us has never chosen to do something knowing that it could be non-beneficial to someone else?

13: Yes, definitely. I am fully convinced that my morals are superior to those of rapists, serial killers, and people who talk in the theater... seriously, though, what kind of definition is this? It's like saying that some people think they're smarter than others. Well, uhm, duh?

12: This needs to be defined better.

11: Oh, gawd, no.

10: Yeaah... look back on any and all of my debates here and tell me how scary and intimidating I am. Uh-huh. I may be 6'3" and weigh 230lbs, but I'm just a giant teddy bear.

9: As in, the rallying call being "We will resist so-and-so and such-and-such with our dying breath!"? I'll have to pass on being able to apply that to myself, although I can easily think of a few people-groups where that does apply quite tidily.

8: You're not monkeyed or banned, Gank.


......yet.

7: This one I had to look up. "A key belief in Manichaeism is that there is no omnipotent good power." Yeah, sorry, doesn't apply. God is good.

6: Only those who want to kill me.

5: No, double-standards don't apply to me - I'm exempt.

4: Having inadequate proof is one of the defining things of an assertion. But regardless of the mistake there, yes, there are things I choose to believe without scientific evidence of their truth. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." I have faith that God exists, that He loves you just as much as He loves the Muslim, or the terrorist, or the rapist, or the Good Samaritan, etc. Proof? No, no scientific proof. Just proof of the heart.

3: Sweeping generalizations, yes. Irresponsible ones, no. When I generalize, not only am I aware that I am generalizing, but I often point out alongside said generalization that it is, in fact, a generalization, and that I am aware that there are numerous exceptions to the generalization.

2: Who's name-calling or labeling, you bigoted fascist pig?!?

See how unusual that sounds coming from me? Yeah. I trust I don't need to say any more.

1: As for character assassination, well, I usually leave that to my enemies to do to themselves. Cross-reference "mohammed cartoons", "religion of peace", and "muslim riots".

Oh, and I have no idea why I went through that list backwards.