Finnish people moved to the Finland main land. Why dont Palestines just leave the area?

Anyway, that wasn't the point of my post.
The point is ,

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCY between Zionist terrorism in the 40's and today's situation? Are you saying that ANYTHING in the 40's justifies some other action like war or terrorism TODAY?

Are you really this stupid, or do you just pretend?

What part of the "Old Testament is part of the Bible" doesnt make any sense?

Pauls opinions are not the foundation of Christian canon. Last time I checked, Jesus was. Show me where Jesus condones slavery.

Only drumsicle would attack Christians to defend Judaism. Same faith, different Messiah. Your ignorance scares me.

So if the Russians give me your house and force you to live in my backyard, you should just accept it and move away eventually?

Suckin on a little too much Lapin Kulta uh?


I was responding to the post that someone made regarding "the Zionist terrorists were never as bad as Arab terrorists". When in fact they were. Thats all. Read a little more carefully.



What?

You seem to be saying that Jews don't have "legal" claim to the Israeli land because they used Zionist terrorism against British in the 40's. Right?

You just avoid the question about whom does the land belong to, in your opinion, by giving answers like Keebler Elves.

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)


You were saying?

Where did I say the Old Testament wasn't part of the bible? Your delusions scare me.

Ok, for the third time. Pay attention here.

Pointing out Zionist terrorism was merely to show someone that claimed the Zionists terrorists were not killers of innocent people proof that they did indeed kill innocents.

What part of that is making no sense?



Because its a stupid question. Like who do the Americas really belong to? Who does Ireland really belong to? Who does South Africa really belong to? You can take that argument to the level of absurdity very quickly, which has been done several several times on this board.

Is that Jesus condoning it or acknowledging that the Jews owned slaves?

Where was Jesus slaves?



Again, Pauline Epistles. Quit copying and pasting without knowing what you are talking about. It just makes you look like an idiot. And you dont need any more help.


I still have no idea why you are pounding around this Christian slavery issue.

Pointing out? Really? How about...

It seems to me pretty much, that in another thread you said that
a) there would be no Israel without terrorism
b) they dont have a valid claim to the land

Now, they got that land, with or without terrorism - in the 40's. So they have owned it for decades now. That is a claim to that land. The fact that they have owned the land for decades is a valid claim to that land.

Exactly. I know that. That is THE REASON why I'm trying to say that Jews have a valid claim to the land simply because they have it under their control as of TODAY - and have had for decades.

Actually it's you who is supposed to prove otherwise, if you think that the land does NOT belong to Israel.

Here is some more to cut and paste from if it will make you feel better.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

Gotta love the might makes right argument.

So if I shoot you in the face and take your house... its mine fair and square?

How long does one have to occupy someone elses land before it becomes a valid claim to that land?

Comparing a man-to-man conflict and nation vs nation conflict is even worse than comparing Karelia and Palestine, isn't it?

Anyway, just to answer your "question":
Yes it is yours fair and square if you're a nation and I'm a nation and that shooting happened 50 years ago and all 200 other nations in the world agree that you have the right to my "house" TODAY. Then yes, you own it.

I don't have an answer to that. You seem to have, because you say that Jews do NOT have a valid claim because they have owned it for decades "only".

They dont call it the Jewnited Nations for nothing...

You are hung up on this occupation argument. Occupation is no argument to me. Its a might makes right argument that borders on social darwinism and none of that holds water.

The Zionists have one argument and one claim to Israel... and its in the Torah.

Right. Fortunately we have one adult webmaster who is wiser than the 200 nations combined ;)

Ok, so you want to limit it to the Gospels, then I repeat...



A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)


Never said he had them.



Ah yes, resort to personal attacks when you have lost the argument.

So be it, if it's the only argument we have. What is the argument of Palestinian people? is it any better than occupation argument that I'm hung up on?

Yes, I am the only one who feels this way. Everyone knows the United Nations are the impartial guardians of truth and justice.

You really think because the United Nations condones the occupation it makes everything ok?

And you have the nerve to call others ignorant? Take a look at the UN's record involving Israel sometime.

Again. Is that aknowledgement of the practice of Jews owning slaves?



Yes, defeated by the mighty search engine cut and paste of fudgesicle.

Yes, I call it dramatic foreshadowing but now you have ruined it.

I have a Finn using an institution that has condemned Israel on occassion to justify its existence.

it was coming in more detail but you had to go and ruin it.

No. I am saying that in the REAL world we live in, the case UN vs Labret -> UN wins.

In REALITY the land belongs to Israel, in a dream world of yours and Palestinians it doesn't. Just like in my dream world Karelia belongs to Finland. In reality it doesn't, and I don't have a right to go suicide bombing.

The slavery argument regarding slavery in the New Testament just doesn't hold water - the reasons for slavery were always given with quotes from the Old Testament particularly regarding the story of Ham and his people.

If not the Jews then who else is a different story.

Labret has always argued his points very well but has never answered this or given his opinion.

If the Jews do not have a claim to the area then who does?

The evidence regardless of religious evidence seems to be overwhelminlgly in the Jews favor.

The only other group of interest would be the Palestinians and when offered the chance to fight for their land in World War 1 they turned it down - they did not beleive the land to belong to them in the same way that you and I understand borders and nationalism.

To accept the Palestinians right to have the land you have to take the same type of religious proof that the Zionist will offer, they have no better or worse, they simply have their tales and stories.

Eventually it must come down to a relevancy of ownership - who are the people who have a historical presence of ownership in the area - and again I beleive the overwhelming proof leads to the Jews.

I dont care if it goes to the Italians.

So long as Zionists die in the process, I dont care who gets it.

Any one of a hundred different cultures who have occupied that land in the last 5k years can lay claim for all I care.

This only proves that your arguments should not be taken seriously, since you don't actually have any argument. You simply want to attack against other people's arguments. You know what, that's pretty fucking easy if you don't need to have one of your own.

Then why are you arguing with me?

Its quite simple really. I dont like Zionists. I have arguments why I dont like Zionists. You dont like that so you cry about it.

Sorry I dont have some concrete ideology for you to latch onto and attack... but thats not my problem.

How convenient!

Funny though, your use of the term Jewnited Nations demonstrates ONCE AGAIN what I suspected along. Sometimes you make it too easy.

http://www.rustedpuffin.com/clap.gif


Congrats, you have defeated me again. You have outed me. I am a Nazi. A National Socialist. A Brown Shirt. My Hero is Horst Wessel. I wish it was 1934.

Oh you wily foe. How easily I crumble at the feet of superior intellect.

I wouldn't care less.
What worries me is that you get so much support.

As I tried to explain in your Israeli thread, you do NOT have an argument. You simply dislike Zionists / ISrealis / whatever..

But I find it scary that there are some people here who agree with your "arguments". I guess they just agree with your dislike of Zionists, since you do not have an actual argument.

Exactly. Well almost anyway. For you, it's all about Zionists dying. You are finally starting to get honest about this.

Has it ever been about anything else. First Rose comes to the realization that I am not an Arab, and now you state the obvious. Bravo you two.

Ok Captain Obvious, thats all I have ever argued. It is you and your ilk who turn it into antisemitism and jew bashing. Because you cant differentiate between dislike of Israel and antisemitism.

If I had no argument, you wouldnt be arguing with me. You have finally come to the conclusion that you cannot argue with me because it is YOU who has no argument. Some midguided notion of might makes right that could hardly be construed as an argument.

I really don't care to get very involved in this, but what is it that you "suspected all along"?

[Labret] has repeatedly, been abundantly clear about his position (if he in fact has a sincere position).

He basically enjoys entertaining himself at the expense of those of you that think you have a viable argument against whatever position he chooses.

[Labret] is an expert at playing all of you and few of you, if any of you, are competition for him.

Please do carry on, as I enjoy a seeing a professional, [Labret], at work, or should I say instead, at play.

I haven't even started arguing with you. How could I have when you have no argument?

I was mainly asking questions , such as, if Israelis do not have a valid claim to land, then who does, in your opinion?

How many times must he repeat his answer for you? It is a straight forward, definitive answer.

Yeah.
When you do not know who would have a better claim for that land than Israelis, Keebler Elves is your answer.

I understand if you never graduated.

Good for you that you already understand this all, or do you?

I would be a bit on the slow side if I didn't understand it all, as I have seen the same scenario played out multiple times.

His answer is a meaningful answer, so it may be you that lacks understanding.