German government trying to force children to go to mosque

[Proteus_MST]

Ok. So how many would you say have been killed by Jews in Israel trying to settle their own land?

Where exactly are the Palestinian territories? Pretty sure if I asked Arafat, he'd say it was coterminous with Israel.

When I look at a map, I see Islamic governments stretching from Constantinople all the way out to the Indus River. I see Israel, itself at it's widest point, less than a hundred miles. And your issue is with Jewish settlement? Really? Israel is tiny. It's smaller than Slovenia.

"Their own land"

This is a perfect example for where your religion clouds your judgement.
Outside of any religious scriptures the jewish people have as much right on the lands of Eretz Israel, as the greek have rights on the lands of turkey, or the romans have on the whole mediterranean region.
The last jewish state ceased to exist almost 2 millenia ago and after the Diaspora other people settled the land (which. later, took the islamic religion).
Afterwards only a jewish minority remained in the land (and actually had a rather good relationship with their muslim neighbors, under muslim rule)

The settlers who in nowadays westbank forcibly drive (palestinian) people out of their homes in order to settle the region for themselves, often have families that come from europe to Israel since less than a century ... whereas the families of the palestinians who are driven out of their home olften have lived on this spot of land for several centuries.

The conflict around Israel is the perfect example of a conflict where its roots can be totally deducted to religion.

The reasons for the zionists to seek an own state was Antisemitism in christian lands ... the reason ´for the ansisemitism was of religious nature: They (i.e. the jews) killed our lord, Jesus
The significance of Israel (as the land of choice) surely was immensely increased due to the significance of the land in the old testament/tanach.

The reasons for a large part of the islamic world to not accept Israel as a state (and also not to accept the separatiopn as proposed by the british) is also religious nature (land that was under muslim rule at one time is supposed to be under muslim rule forever)
And the reasons for the jewish settler movement to continue to illegally found settlements in the westbank (and drive palestinians out of their century long homes) instead of being content with Israel in its internationally accepted borders (that is, without the westbank settlements) also is religiously motivated.

With other words, it is a religious conflict to which actaully all 3 religions of the book contributed

Well you'll have to forgive me but when you cite exactly two arguments, both of them Christians, and then you attack Christians for the Book of Judges, what are we to think?

Actually the book of judges is a jewish book
which, of course, also is part of the christian bilble ... it may also be part of the Quran, but I am not sure about it.
Fact is however that all 3 religions build upon the same root, as can perfectly well seen in the punishments in the islamic world (i.e. in states with the Shariah) ... the punishments therein actually are old testamentary punishments for a large part (example: stoning for women who had extramarital sex, several rules concerning slaves of other faiths and many more)

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a perfect example for where your religion clouds your judgement.

How so? I'm not a Jew.

Outside of any religious scriptures the jewish people have as much right on the lands of Eretz Israel, as the greek have rights on the lands of turkey, or the romans have on the whole mediterranean region.

Not so. The history is that they controlled the land before. It's still their land.

The last jewish state ceased to exist almost 2 millenia ago and after the Diaspora other people settled the land (which. later, took the islamic religion).

The history is a good deal more complicated than that. Suffice to say that by the 16th century there were only about 140 thousand people in what is now Israel. Today there are 8 million. Christians were a majority in Israel from about the 5th century onto about the 15th.

The settlers who in nowadays westbank forcibly drive (palestinian) people out of their homes in order to settle the region for themselves, often have families that come from europe to Israel since less than a century ... whereas the families of the palestinians who are driven out of their home olften have lived on this spot of land for several centuries.

Again, the population of Israel has increased dramatically after the settlement. There are more muslims today in Israel than there were before settlement began. The reason being is that the growth and development of Israel isn't a zero sum game. With more settlement, Israel has become far more prosperous than it's neighbors.

The conflict around Israel is the perfect example of a conflict where its roots can be totally deducted to religion.

Sure, but not in the way you think.

The reasons for the zionists to seek an own state was Antisemitism in christian lands ... the reason ´for the ansisemitism was of religious nature: They (i.e. the jews) killed our lord, Jesus

They had numerous other offers. The reason they wanted to have their homeland back again - is the same desire of any people to have their own land restored to them.

The significance of Israel (as the land of choice) surely was immensely increased due to the significance of the land in the old testament/tanach.

Absolutely. That and the history of the Jews after the diaspora.

The reasons for a large part of the islamic world to not accept Israel as a state (and also not to accept the separatiopn as proposed by the british) is also religious nature (land that was under muslim rule at one time is supposed to be under muslim rule forever)

Indeed. This is why the whole notion that peace will be obtained through concessions is false. Peace will never be obtained through concessions.

And the reasons for the jewish settler movement to continue to illegally found settlements in the westbank (and drive palestinians out of their century long homes) instead of being content with Israel in its internationally accepted borders (that is, without the westbank settlements) also is religiously motivated.

This is why I started with the question. "Where is Palestine?". Until that question is answered it makes no sense to argue that Jewish settlement of Jewish lands is illegal.

[Elok]

Screw it, I'm just going to quote the damn thing. I didn't write up a point-by-point response to be drowned out by BK's addled notions of fair and balanced reporting in atrocities.

Okay, to take those points in turn:

A little reflection should tell you that it would have been impossible for the crusaders to wade ankle-deep in blood, unless they happened to herd the entire Muslim and Jewish population into an empty swimming pool before killing them. That's a bizarre case where one guy's obvious hyperbole got taken literally for the sake of propaganda. Jerusalem and the equally bloody capture of Acre were the two most notorious sacks of the Crusades in the Holy Land--but that's a period of two centuries, or slightly less. Most of the time cities changed hands in a more or less orderly fashion by contemporary standards. Of course, contemporary standards included a fair amount of rape and looting. I've read that a number of prominent nobles went on Crusade because they saw it as the only way to save their souls after sacking monasteries, violating nuns, etc.

The Albigensian Crusade was a gruesome piece of work, but about the same as you'd expect if a largish region had declared their temporal lords illegitimate, stopped paying feudal dues, and set up their own parallel hierarchy. I suppose peasant revolts would be such an equivalent, though I'm unaware of any happening on such a scale. As for the eyeball atrocity, the same thing happened on a far larger scale in the Byzantine Empire as part of a purely secular battle against the Bulgars (who may have been Christian at the time, can't recall). Basil II ("the Bulgar Slayer") was famous for a battle where he supposedly took 15K survivors, divided them up into hundreds, and gouged 199 eyeballs per set. Dude just really hated Bulgarians.

Finally, you return to the Crusades; you seem to have some very inaccurate ideas about them. In reality, the Crusades were marked by frequent cross-confessional cooperation. They had to be; since most crusaders simply returned home after doing a bit of fighting, the kingdoms of Outremer could only be maintained by careful diplomacy, especially with the local labor. If you want Muslim farmers to tend crops for you, an infidel, you really have to offer them very generous terms. The Second Crusade failed in part because the crusaders failed to understand such realpolitik and attacked Damascus--which was one of Jerusalem's key Arab allies against Saladin. Jerusalem was recaptured shortly after. A decade or so passed, and Frederick III won Jerusalem back--by effectively leasing it from the Muslim lord who inherited it from Saladin. He didn't really give a damn if the Franks owned a third-rate city of no economic importance, provided they didn't rebuild the walls.

[kentonio]

It is perfectly possible to wade ankle deep in blood by the way. You'd assume an uneven floor surface and blood basically forming puddles in the middle of heavy fighting.

[Aeson]

Or to have had your feet cut off.

[Elok]

It is perfectly possible to wade ankle deep in blood by the way. You'd assume an uneven floor surface and blood basically forming puddles in the middle of heavy fighting.

I could envision such a scenario--but such a thing could happen with, say, four people being killed, rather than the mass slaughter the phrase "wading in blood" implies.

[kentonio]

I could envision such a scenario--but such a thing could happen with, say, four people being killed, rather than the mass slaughter the phrase "wading in blood" implies.

Yeah but extrapolate that out to say a few thousand people getting slaughtered in a limited (and unevenly floored) space! You'd be practically wading up to your ankles in blood!

[Ming]

It's strange to she where this thread has headed

[Elok]

It's strange to she where this thread has headed

Yesh, it ish very shtrange to she.

Anyway, we've learned something: Jerusalem had very crooked floors nine centuries ago.

[Ming]

Yesh, it ish very shtrange to she.

Got me... (silly typo)

[Bereta_Eder]

he's sean connery's nephew

[Elok]

Maybe that's what the crusaders were so angry about. It wasn't about religion at all. They were just pissed that they'd spent so much time taking a city only to have it be poorly built. "This merde would not pass in la Paree! What son of a whore laid these bricks? YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY?"

[BeBMan]

We also need to find out who's to blame for this mess. I'd say it's the Romans. They were in control of the place long enough and a had nice bit of skill and experience in construction, yet they had appearantly done nothing to solve this issue. Plus Rome doesn't exist as empire anymore, so can be blamed safely.

[N35t0r]

Not so. The history is that they controlled the land before. It's still their land.

I'll listen to your arguments when you go back to Europe then.

[Bereta_Eder]

Basil II ("the Bulgar Slayer") was famous for a battle where he supposedly took 15K survivors, divided them up into hundreds, and gouged 199 eyeballs per set. Dude just really hated Bulgarians.

Blinding someone was not a so rare punhsiment in byzantium (mainly reserved for usurpers of the throne and others)
the basil didn't really have anything with bulgarians IMHO. It was practicallity. to kill them all would be inhuman, but to blind them would mean to render them harmless as soldiers while sparing their lives.

he was a bastard no question but that was the reasoning at that time maybe

also it's here the one-eyed leads the blind expression comes from

he left one with one eye to lead them back