middle east again...

This is a discussion on middle east again... within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; dunno where you get 8 % from ??? if it was 8 % of the land, it most certainly wasn't ...

  1. #301
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    dunno where you get 8 % from ???
    if it was 8 % of the land, it most certainly wasn't 8% of the population..more like 1/3...and altho the UN plan gave about 50% of the land to the Jewish state, deliberately most of it was desert, it wasn't the 'best' land.

    ."" The Israeli Jewish population increased from 650,000 in 1948 to 1.6 million in 1952 (Naff and Matson 1984, 34).
    Total non-Jewish population estimated as of 31 December 1947 1,388 ""

    also this is enlightening, the 1948 war was a war of annihalation against the Jews. ->

    On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared "jihad", a holy war. He said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".(1) The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (2) The armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded the tiny new country with the declared intent of destroying it.(3)

    talk about religious intolerance !!!!!
    ..................................
    however, that being said, the Arabs felt with considerable justification, that the Jews should be pushed out of Palestine. and few people have as much right to feel aggrieved than the Palestinians...

    like you said, blaming the jews of 1948 is like blaming the Germans of 1945, its history now, we must move on.. Israel is now a de facto state it isn't gonna be destroyed now, the Israelis and Palestinians must and will eventually make peace.....
    Steve

  2. #302
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "dunno where you get 8 % from ??? "

    A history book. Its echoed here: http://www.mideastweb.org/BriefHistory.htm

    One of the few sites i have found which don't seem biased to either side (you should see some of the ones out there)

    "it most certainly wasn't 8% of the population.."

    Very true, in 1948 there were 600,000 Jews and 1.1 million arabs in Palestine.

    "and altho the UN plan gave about 50% of the land to the Jewish state, deliberately most of it was desert, it wasn't the 'best' land. "

    Maybe so but understandably the Palestinians felt they were getting a raw deal.

    "talk about religious intolerance !!!!! "

    Yea I know, it sucks.

    "like you said, blaming the jews of 1948 is like blaming the Germans of 1945, its history now, we must move on.. "

    I agree completely.

    "Israel is now a de facto state it isn't gonna be destroyed now, the Israelis and Palestinians must and will eventually make peace....."

    The only way this will ever end is if the Palestinians get their own state, the extremists want all of Israel which is totally rediculous, compromises must be made.

    I just can't get over just how stupendous Sharon is though.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-17-2002 at 12:38 PM.

  3. #303
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    132
    hmm it seems we're talking about middle east ogain. oh well, just a couple points.

    19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.


    This verse states three things:

    1. The LORD made every animal
    2. The LORD brought every animal to the man
    3. The man named every animal

    It does not say that the man was created before the animals. Consider this sequence of events: You buy baby clothes; you put them on your baby. Does this mean that the baby was already born when you bought the baby clothes? No, in fact many people will but the clothes first. Although this may not be the most elagant way to state this, remember, the bible is a transliteration, this means that it takes EXACTLY what was said in the manuscripts. Therefore what seems like awkward grammer to us was not nescesarrily so to the author. This is a classic error that shows poor understanding of the scriptures.

  4. #304
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "It does not say that the man was created before the animals. Consider this sequence of events: You buy baby clothes; you put them on your baby. Does this mean that the baby was already born when you bought the baby clothes? No, in fact many people will but the clothes first."

    ROFL, you win the flimsiest argument of the year award. Congratulations!

    You know full well, that:

    "So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them"

    Implies that man was made before the animals.

    "Therefore what seems like awkward grammer to us was not nescesarrily so to the author. This is a classic error that shows poor understanding of the scriptures"

    Every translation in every language has the same contradiciton. One would expect contradictions after all the two books were written years apart.

    Of course you can't bring yourself to admit you eyes are truly welded shut.

    Rainbows are made form clouds dontchaknow, lol.

  5. #305
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    if bringing the animals to the man and getting him to name them is not saying that man was created first then well.......oh i give up!!

    anyway Clyde, you mention sites biased to either side, yeah, they are so incredibly biased to either side that it makes you wonder if peace is at all possible??? talk about 'poles apart'

    look at this map for a biased to the Israeli side !!
    http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/divide.html
    Steve

  6. #306
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    598
    howdy,
    Don't ........ me off or i'll blow me up.
    brilliant tactics
    M.R.
    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    Cheez
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

  7. #307
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    367
    Israel took control over more land than they were allowed by UN. For example, Sinai half-island, btw, where Moses got the 10 (whatever called in English).

  8. #308
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    Ten Commandments

    yeah, but its what you'd call the 'spoils of war'.
    Steve

  9. #309
    back? dbaryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    597
    Someone at my school (comm. college) is trying to start a little debate on this topic (defending Israel / Palestine)... a question was brought up (Copy > Paste, ignore the spellings/names/other irrelevant info):
    "It has always intruiged me as to why people get into these discussions on topics that they van do NOTHING about. (to be fair, I can get into those discussions easily too)

    Us discussing the Middle Eastern Crisis won't solve anything, we will just keep getting frustrated because the people on the oppsing side don't get our viewpont. Mouad, Mursal & Co. are on one side, and they "almost" blindly favoring Palestinians. Igor and Co. are "almost" blindly favoring Israelis. I don't see any side changing their opinion in near future, so why get frustrated?

    I am neutral on this issue, I don't watch news on this issue , propaganda is irritating the hell out of me, and I certainly won't miss on anything by waiting for the whole thing to end. It is almost like a basketball game, but the rush you get watching the end of a good, close basketball game is good for you (sometimes at least). Watching people kill each other over nothing for 100 years, each side balming the other, hoping the world turns on their side.

    What needs to happen? Who needs to become a president in order for peace? Are Palestinians guilty for this morning's shootings? Are Israelis masacaring little kids? IT DOESN'T MATTER -YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!So why waste time and discuss it?"
    What do you guys think, do discussions like this lead to anything useful, or just a waste of brain cells?
    This is my signature. Remind me to change it.

  10. #310
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    the region is VERY important (oil supplies), and VERY volatile (israels nukes, saddam , islamic fundamentalism etc)

    i think these discussions are worthwhile, even discussions at school and on here. at least discussions lead to people educating themselves about certain topics, and these people educate other people and these people are or will be voters. and politicians listen to voters. and the politicians of the USA in particular can have an effect on the conflict, the USA being so powerful and controlling aid to these combatants...

    the effect of discussing it at school is obviously minimal, but better than nothing. least you can understand the news , current affairs etc and not be in the dark, just believing whatever the reporter or politician is saying.

    the USA can help setting talks etc up eg Camp David agreements in the past. and exerting whatever pressure it can.

    on the other hand the Arab nations can only contol/influence the PLO to a certain extent and the USA/west can only control/influence the Israelies to a certain point. they will actually have to resolve it themselves. both sides have genuine grievences, its not black and white.
    Steve

  11. #311
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559

    Gould gone

    On a side note to the evolution side of this thread, Stephen Jay Gould just died from a rare form of cancer. He was 60 years old.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  12. #312
    back? dbaryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    597
    Um, excuse my ignorance, but who's Stephen Jay Gould?
    This is my signature. Remind me to change it.

  13. #313
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    dont you know that?????????????????????????



    (dont worry, i dont know it too) lol
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  14. #314
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    He was an evolutionary biologist who along with Niles Eldredge introduced the idea of punctuated equilibrium, an idea which seeks to explain the Cambrian explosion. Basically it says that speciation occurs in rapid (a few hundred thousand years) bursts, rather than a continuous process.

    To this day the debate still rages as to how much of an effect it actually has, Richard Dawkins notably thinks that punctuated equilibrium has only a very small effect.

    Unfortuneately creationists and people who don't understand evolution often quote both Gould and Eldredge out of context, claiming their findings invalidate evolution. This primarily centres around the term "gradualism", punctuated equilibrium seeks to explain why links between species are often missing, ie. you see species that look very much like each other and progressively alter with time, but you often don't see the links between the species. Punctuated equilibrium does not favour gradualism, that doesn't mean that they don't think evolution happens! Nor does it mean they think it happens instantly, it still takes 100s of thousands of years, but relatively speaking it takes less time than if evolution proceded by the non-punctuated equilibrium mechanism.

    The debate rages because many biologists and paelentologists argue that we wouldn't expect to see most of those links because such a small percentage of animals are actually fossilised. The punctuated equilibria proponents argue that you would, and their explanation is that speciation normally occurs in a small isolated group of a population, when that isolated group then moves back into the area occupied by the original species, it either finds a new ecological niche, outcompetes the old species, or is outcompeted itself. Either way what you would see in the fossil record is the new species appearing with no links, which is often the case.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-26-2002 at 04:54 AM.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Staying vs Leaving the Middle East
    By BobMcGee123 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 09:15 PM
  2. New source of oil in the middle east?
    By Lionmane in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 04:59 AM
  3. the definition of a mathematical "average" or "mean"
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-03-2002, 11:15 AM
  4. Binary searches
    By Prezo in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2002, 10:54 PM
  5. trying to sort a middle value
    By Led Zeppelin in forum C Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2002, 01:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21