world heritage status to Jesus' birthplace - despite US and Israel

I think there is more proof that Jesus (pbuh) existed then didn't exist....

 

No you are not, you answered yes to the question of whether what he said should be taken at face value substituting "considered" for "taken at face value", which is not simply making a statement. Now you proclaim that the question is irrelevant! Well whether you like it or not quoting him in the context in which you did means you take what he says at face value despite the obvious that it shouldn't be! Clearly you are not seeking the truth but pushing an agenda.

Yes its quite a ride for those with a fitting agenda who are wilfully blind to gross violations of human dignity.

You and the Taliban were portraying these concerns as conflicting with each other.

Not so excellent for your argument.

I suggest you read up a little about the Taliban, here try this for starters: Taliban's human rights abuses

Now are you really going to continue suggesting the Taliban was genuinely seeking aid for the population?

Sure nobody denies there are plenty of examples of those in power engaging in brutal policies against their own countrymen, and in these cases as with the Taliban this indicates they had no qualms about the suffering they caused to their populations. How does this help your argument? Would you have given aid money to the Taliban to administer having now read what they were responsible for? Sorry but introducing the notion that it may have been rogue elements of the Taliban and not the leadership is not supported by the evidence is it? Ye I suggest the Japanese were so worried about the statues, and as the case is with good right, that they were prepared to take the risk. No it does not mean those taken for a ride by the Taliban are right. As we've already established there is no conflict between humanitarian aid for people and for important objects of national heritage remember. You are insulting the international aid organisations who have demonstrated through decades of dedication that they are motivated by human need not politics. Read about the sacrifices made by aid workers who have dedicated their lives to helping others in far flung countries with their lives at stake. How many of these workers have the Taliban cynically slaughtered without thought for them or their sacrifice for those in need? Here is but one example:

Taliban kills 10 medical aid workers in northern Afghanistan

It may seem like that to you as you are taken for a ride by the Taliban but I think any reasonable person given the evidence I have presented to you would be more than convinced that the Taliban do not have the least qualms about the suffering of Afghan civilians. To suggest that the gross HR violations the Taliban are responsible for are just happenings that occur in war is frankly inexcusable. Do yourself a favour and research it.

Oh no longer earthquakes drought now! Lets get this straight, the international community's sanctions on Afghanistan did not hinder a major aid program being launched as a result of the drought in 2000 - 2001 just as with any other natural disaster. You are painting a false picture, one you have from the Taliban. To answer your question directly though the link I provided for you to read includes how the Taliban deliberately destroyed irrigation systems so even if they couldn't control the weather they certainly had the power to deny crops water just as a natural drought does.

Interesting because it shows your argument holds no water just like the irrigation systems destroyed by those taking you for a ride!

 

I was referring to the real world, not the collective, islamic delusion.

 

I have not stated that I didn't read however I am well aware of the source. You evaded explaning why in your view a religious site with open doors cannot have its sanctity violated, I gather because you were talking off the top of your head.

Nonsense, they were free to leave the church at any time without getting killed. If you didn't rely on your propaganda site you may have been aware of Jihad Abu-Qamil who did just that. The church complex has toilets connected to a sewer. I think I read the reason was that the water supply had been disrupted however there was a well. However whatever the reason it was a forseeable problem of taking over the church and once again illustrates that your "rednecks" do not rever Jesus sufficiently to deter them from violating what is believed by many to be his birthplace with the smell of their urine making your claim pretty ridiculous.

I'm not so sure if you would think the same had this been the Kaaba in Mecca left by beseiged Westerners who had taken it over.

What is the relevance of presumed gunmen inside the church they had taken control with being shot by snipers? Again it was forseeable and another reminder that they are not detered "touching" the church out of reverance to Jesus.

A smoke grenade, not exactly shelling!

Yes its still a church however the fact that it was taken over precisely because of its heritage status obviously demonstrates a very real threat.

Dixon?

Presumably the traps were designed to hinder an Israeli storming of the church not the clearing up operation. In any case whether they were good or not is irrelevant, again a violation of sanctity clearly demonstrating any reverance for Jesus is no hindrance to "touching" the church.

You neglect to comment on the expropriation, again very much "touching" the church. One wonders what would have happened if there hadn't been a negotiated settlement. Clearly an overt threat, archeological terrorism in action.

Well for starters no mention of shelling. It gives a far more balanced picture.

 

And you are correct; however, there was no intentional attempt of distortion on my part.

Yes, it is. I’d rather focus on the message itself than question its ‘face value' (there are exceptions, though).

That is your opinion, of course.

There is no agenda that is being pushed (that may be your own projection); we are simply having a debate.

You seem to be rather interested in this ‘ride,’ given the number of references you have made to it. There’s always room for one more.

How is the above true in the case we are discussing?

Why not?

I'm aware of their crimes.

It is a possibility.

Like I said, these brutal policies are expected in times of such conflict (especially ethnic). It does not necessitate that those in power generally have "qualms about the suffering they caused to their populations." Take Iran as an example; there are many on this board (and outside) who would assert the same about the relationship between the Iranian government and its people, based on the brutal policies the regime engaged/engages in against its own population. But are they correct in thinking so? Indeed, one can look to examples that clearly show otherwise. It's important not to make the mistake of coming to conclusions through means of simple induction.

Possibly (it may not even have to be in the form of money, and they may not have to administer it). I certainly would not have imposed further sanctions which would have aggravated the humanitarian crisis, which is what the international community in fact did; they should be praised, though, for the outcry they displayed over the loss of the inanimate objects (the destruction of which is accepted by some to be a response to the international sanctions). It also should be mentioned that sanctions don't have the effect they are intended to have in such situations (there are examples where one can see this), and it's really the population that is harmed the most by them. Do you think the humanitarian situation would have alleviated in Afghanistan if some sanctions were removed? Do you think the further sanctions imposed on Afghanistan did not exacerbate the humanitarian crisis?

You are correct, although it certainly should be mentioned that the Taliban should not be considered as the monolithic group that many view it as: "There is no such thing as ‘the Taliban’ today. Many different groups with different leaders and aims call themselves “Taliban,” and many more are called “Taliban” by their enemies...In general terms, any group that calls itself “Taliban” is identifying itself as against the government in Kabul, the U.S., and U.S. allies." See here for more. Such information is important, and it requires us to be more cautious regarding news-stories that concern the ‘Taliban.’

And like I said, it shows that the international community was more concerned for the safety of the inanimate objects than for the sufferings of the Afghan population (more so by the fact that Japan threatened further sanctions if the Taliban were to destroy the inanimate objects). Of course, I can’t put the blame entirely on Japan, as that goes to the more powerful Western state(s) that can exert considerable pressure when it comes to matters of international sanctions (as it was in the case of the Iraq).

How so?

We have, but not in the case we are currently discussing.

Kudos to them.

Yes, and there are certainly many other examples.

You are free to post as many links as you want that portray the evil deeds of the Taliban. I can do the same with links that show the Taliban in another light, but I don’t see any point in doing so (you’ll probably deem them as propaganda/hogwash, and I’ll just be using the same faulty logic you are practicing).

You may find that ‘inexcusable,’ but this is the reality. There are some on this board (and outside of it) who believe that the coalition troops should adopt a similar approach to that of the Taliban. They do have a point; after all, if the coalition troops did indeed mimic the Taliban’s ‘strategy,’ they may get the job- whatever that is- done in a much quicker fashion (not to mention that such an approach would result in far lesser losses on their side). There is no denying that the Taliban are brutal; their opponents may have well done the same to them and their followers if given the opportunity (which did in fact occur). But such examples of brutality fail to prove that the Taliban does not 'care' about their population and also fail to prove that the destruction of the inanimate objects was not over the further sanctions imposed on Afghanistan. Such examples simply show that the Taliban are cruel to their opponents, to those they deem as ‘invaders,’ etc….

Refer to the above.

How so?

 

Oh you are going to receive Usual Suspect feed back on that one! Ha ha~ When we Christians or other sane members, especially I a Zionist Christian, use the Jewish Virtual library or similar sources they are ridiculed by the usual suspects* as being inaccurate or worse. However I have yet to see one of the usual suspects discredit a fact on the Jewish library Virtual site.

Definitions;

Zionist ; Zi·on·ist [z ənist]n 1. judaism supporter of a Jewish state: a supporter of 19th-century Zionism, or a modern supporter of the state of Israel Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 2004-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved…And similar definitions by Webster’s etc.

Usual Suspects; ‘Terrorist Hamas Palestinian’ apologists, the 911 terrorist apologists or simply Christian, Israel, western hating members here.

Hamas as a terrorist group; HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) - Terrorist Groups
www.nctc.gov/site/groups/hamas.htmlHAMAS formed in late 1987 at the beginning of the first Palestinian Intifada (uprising). Its roots are in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is ...

Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas The European Union, the United States, Canada, Israel and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, while the Arab nations and countries such as


reva

 

I don’t know what bible you are reading. Ok I will be nice and just ask that you give the scripture chapter book and verse etc for each of your outrageous and I believe fabricated by accident or otherwise, claims.

What? That makes no sense. Where in the bible does it say anything about Jesus confessing at being or not being at the temple????

That sentence makes zero sense. Please clarify. As written it is FALSE. Please I am a Zionist I know what we believe eh? Jesus of the bible and that is what we are referencing IS AND WAS THE MESSIAH. Also, are you claiming that the temple where Jesus disrupted the money changers (look it up) is the same temple where the dome of the rock sits?

Please explain (if you can). Maybe by being forced to explain maybe you will learn what Zionist Christian is. I tried to help, I even took the trouble to define Zionist which I will do again here in the notes (below). I am amazed that members will criticize something they know very little or nothing about (obvious by the inaccurate or outright wrong ie not factual statements made). However your statement is kind of a opinion I suppose. Ok why do you feel CZ is a ‘weak’ theological pursuit. (what ever that means in the context used). Silly me according to your thinking I wasted many semester hours studying the history etc of the various religions geography cultural anthropology of Israel(is) [sic] and other middle and near east subjects !

 

How is that an insult? It was very very VERY obvious. However if saying 'something is obvious' is an insult then you need to grow a layer of skin. Your post is however insulting to the extreme, you make baseless accusations, aimed somewhat hidden at me and speak of a subject that in the past as well as in this reply you have demonstrated that you haven't even the rank basic knowledge of. Again that is not insult its provable fact.

reva

ps if you think berating or criticizing someone for not knowing their scripture is an American Christian shortcoming you must hate all Muslims. Try not knowing your Koran , or misquoting misinterpretation etc the muslim holy book when on an 'real' Islamic web site. If not on an Muslim site, but rather in the presence of a rMuslim cleric you just might lose your head for a perceived insult such as fabricating something that is not in the Koran and saying it is!

 

Such reckless hostility against believers is insulting regardless of which hated Semites one condemns. That's obviously anti-Semite.

Sorry, but I have never tolerated Semite-haters and have no reason to regardless of how strongly they honor their racism.

One has the right to believe that Jews are greatly honored when one smears them with racist hatred. Yet, most Jews, like Muslims actually oppose racism.

 

Ah I understand, you mean the question is irrelevant to what you would rather focus on! So you don't care about the context, whether the source can be taken at face value or whether reading between the lines is necessary to understand the true message. What do you mean by exceptions, what exceptions?

The alternative is that you are dishonest but I guess it is my opinion that you took it at face value.

Perhaps you are doing so in the same manner in which you unintentionally distorted what I wrote?

Perhaps you don't understand the idiom? Being taken for a ride is not something desirable.

The inanimate objects in this case are of great cultural value and there loss adds to the suffering of the Afghan population just as demolishing the pyramids would be for Egyptians. Only a couple of years prior to the statues destruction the Taliban had deliberately prevented the UN World Food Program in delivering much needed food to 160,000 Afghans living in the very region of the statues. Knowing this how do you explain your claim that the Taliban may have had qualms about Afghan civilians suffering from lack of food due to the drought?

No, such brutal policies are certainly not to be expected in times of conflicts or otherwise. You take Iran as an example and yet provide no evidence that during the long period of conflict with Iraq, the longest conventional war of the century, did the Iranian regime refuse international aid to hundreds of thousands of its people to shortly afterwards systematically demolish inanimate objects of great national heritage. The other example mentioned of the murder of aid workers is not supported by evidence either and as you are aware of other crimes committed by the Taliban you will know that they practiced systematic trafficking of Afghan women for sex. Again where is the evidence that this kind of brutality was also practiced by your example of Iran? Or are you really shadow boxing by hiding behind “many on this board (and outside) who would assert the same about the relationship between the Iranian government and its people” and not really yourself taking Iran as an example? It’s a mistake to avoid the obvious because it does not suit one.

Interesting that you are prepared to bend over backwards to keep an open mind about whether a criminal regime involved in sex trafficking and having no compulsions about preventing acute food relief from getting through to 160,000 starving domestic refugees has any qualms for civilian suffering and yet so closed minded when it comes to sanctions.

If we assume that your argument by proxy is correct and that the destruction of the statues was in fact in response to sanctions then the situation is akin to a hostage crisis. Giving way in to kidnappers on the basis of short term humanitarian considerations increases the risk of an escalation in demands and new hostage taking. So no I doubt very much that in the long term making concessions to the Taliban would have alleviated the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. You are mistaken in describing the sanctions as against Afghanistan, they were in fact against the senior Taliban leadership and therefore for and not against the state. Individual sanctions against leaders is a sound approach. The problem with sanctions is that they are too easily circumvented thanks to a lack of solidarity in the international community with states having special interests and unethical business practice by individuals and companies.
I gather that you want to focus now on sanctions instead of the issue of how badly a regime has to behave towards its population before it can rightly be said not to have any qualms about civilian suffering. Does that mean you now accept you were wrong and that the Taliban does indeed qualify as having no qualms for civilian suffering?

The issue is not so much the Taliban today but the Taliban more than a decade ago and here they operated as a cohesive disciplined regime with recognised leaders. Being aware of the crimes committed by the Taliban we don’t need to be concerned with the issue of caution regarding news stories about them, unless of course you are backtracking and don’t accept the crimes as being such?

Nonsense, we’ve already established there’s no conflict between the concern for inanimate objects of national and international heritage and the suffering of the civilian population. You are assuming that further sanctions ultimately results in greater suffering which you certainly haven’t established. Many were desperate to find some way of saving the statues but that in no way indicates a lack of concern for civilian suffering.

Because they are being taken for a ride! It was a complete nonsense to suggest that the international community wasn’t willing to offer humanitarian help and to link sanctions with aid. The sanctions were in place because of the Taliban’s gross acts causing civilian suffering and they did not hinder humanitarian aid. It was the Taliban holding the population hostage which did that.

So why insult them?

Showing that you are wrong to believe the Taliban have qualms about civilian suffering.

Well if they are propaganda then naturally I would! There is nothing faulty about my logic.

To be continued....

 

No it is not the reality, even your example of Iran doesn’t work. No they do not have a point and until you have decided what the job is then you can’t claim it would be done faster or better that way! By opponents do you mean the Afghan population and what do you mean by “their” population? No, the Northern Alliance did not adopt the same tactics against the civilian population as the Taliban and why do you think they didn’t have the opportunity? The population you were claiming the Taliban may have qualms about was the Afghan population, are you shifting the goal posts? The proof would satisfy a court of law. Sanctions were not imposed on Afghanistan. The examples were not of cruelty to Taliban opponents but cruelty to the civilian population. The example of the medics murdered was not given as an example of cruelty to those deemed invaders but cruelty to the civilian population denying them humanitarian help on offer. Focus on the issue, qualms about the suffering of the Afghan population and explain why the murder of these aid workers is not evidence the Taliban have no qualms for that suffering.

You previous response does not address my point that sanctions did not hinder major aid relief programs nor does it refute another telling example of clear evidence that the Taliban have no qualms for the Afghan population’s suffering.

Because the evidence, accepted by you, is clear and overwhelming.

 

Actions speak more than words.
See how the Palestinans hold that church:
[video=youtube;lR0G9n_OGMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0G9n_OGMw[/video]

 

Reckless hostility eh? Dang I didn’t get that much bad mouth from the judge when I accidentally tried to run over two cops with my giant yellow 72 Cadillac in 1990. Anyway, you could have saved a lot of reply if you would have said the insult you accused me of was my comment, ie;calling the dome an 'Islamic atrocity'. I agree only that it did not read as I meant it. What I meant that because the dome of the rock is built over and on top of one of the most holy Christian sites ie the temple, it is considered an atrocity and yes of course it is Islamic. Lastly you do your part in condemning the hated Semites (the Israelis) so please stop and desist the nit picking!

Who are you calling an Semite hating racist? Oh boy that is sticking foot in infracted mouth…

Huh?

Most people oppose blatant racism. However racism is difficult to define as it becomes less and less obvious. Some racism ain’t. And some is, my advice is to ignore anything but the truly obvious racist remarks. Subjective judgment calls are best left up to God.

reva

 

False clippings. The correct quote related to my response is:

This is a clear case of one-sided and bigoted extreme Semite-hostility. Racism would be a more fitting word. The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic monument that stands today and certainly one of the most beautiful. Thus, your hostile mumblings are extreme in this context. So, stop talking mumbling non-sense about racism because your writings are far to hostile against Semites to have any say over the matter.

 

Time elapsed to post this one reply due to database error etc about an hour~

Did you not read my clarification? If so address the clarified comment not insist on commenting about the original not accurate comment and stop this silly deceptive tact. Additionally my accurate assessment was not even close to bigoted nor was it hostile. Maybe if you would explain why you are so bent on making such insults or why exactly you think my comments were bigoted (each one because they are not the same) perhaps I could explain or clarify. Until then you are making fully unsupported insult and claims. I expect an apology, if not I have no other choice than to report the offending comments. I cant turn the other cheek forever.

Again are you calling me a Racist and a bigot? Besides, I already explained all in my reply which you did not read or are ignoring because my clarification did not fit your prejudiced opinions of me and the claims made in this and other threads. I am not going to go back only a few posts to repeat what I already commented on, so again; Did you not read my clarification? If so address that and stop this silly deceptive tact (actually its an attempt, albeit a dim weak attempt, at character assassination, among other insults) and save yourself a report by a simple making simple public apology.

Deception alert!! ha ha…Jesus, do you think I would not notice the addition of ‘Islamic’ to monument? However I am happy you admitted you were incorrect in the first claims you were making.

I did not say that it is ugly or make other ('not clarified' demeaning remarks , I said it was built on top of one of Christianities most holy site. Big difference.

No not my comments are far from extreme. I have already clarified the atrocity comment without additional comment on your part so I assume you agree. So that leaves the part where I said that the Muslims built the dome of the rock on top of Christianity’s most holy site (the remains of the temple of Solomon). So how do you square your ignorance* (see notes) about the site where the Mount was built ? (I say ignorance because you made some gross false comments about the site, while not insulting or deceptive the falsehoods did project a arrogant tone)

Hmm another borderline reportable insult (baiting and flame saying my comments are nonsense) I am sorry, but its my opinion that you are not qualified to make such statements. Maybe if your grammar improves, and you not use your vague to the point of being meaningless made up words (example ‘hated semites&#8217 and seemingly blind devotion to rIslamic propaganda and incorrect references to history, Christianity, Theology, archeology among others, (whew) I may consider future criticisms. As it is there are far too many mistakes in your posts.

Notes; (ignorance used in this context denotes an extreme lack of knowledge, not a insult)

reva

 

Show religions respect and such will be appreciated.

Christianity must show other religions respect if it does not wish to be a racist insult.

To be far from extreme, one must stop insulting other religions.

Talking about racism is pointless when one is extremely hostile against others.