Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Also, I suggest looking at historical maps of Europe to see petty land disputes at work. It’s not unique to the Middle East, which is clearly what you implied with the silly reference to the Old Testament but then did a U turn when it was pointed out as stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Chinahand said: No it doesn't it says the bible describes well the current situation. Nothing more. But it doesn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 No more than reading a book on the Franco-Prussian War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Or the War of the Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Aristotle said: So you’re blaming Jews and their ownership of an area of land (which is undisputed according to the Islamic religion) for all the contemporary problems in the Middle East . No, my understanding of what Uhtred was saying is that the bible describes tribal warfare with spears and nowadays we have tribal warfare with AK47s. That is it. You can try as desperately as you can to turn this into a fight about your usual fetishes but that requires your usual distortion and over reach, but do carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, Aristotle said: But it doesn’t. You're saying the OT doesn't include lots of tribal warfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Sorry, I reject that explanation as to why putred cited the Bible. Why is it civil war or war when it’s Europeans or Americans, but if it’s brown or olive skinned people it’s “tribal”? The French and Germans are no less tribes in fighting over Alsace-Lorraine. Why when speaking of the present day Middle East do you think it relevant to bring up the Bible (which has nothing to do with the present day situation there) but if you were to discuss Alsace-Lorraine I’m sure the last thing you’d do is cite the Poetic Edda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Looks like Hasbara-bot has kicked into life again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, Chinahand said: You're saying the OT doesn't include lots of tribal warfare? You’re saying any textbook on modern European history doesn’t either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Point here is there is a subtle racism in reducing the Middle East to “tribal warfare” but not applying the same derogatory terminology to European conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 44 minutes ago, Aristotle said: Your post clearly makes a case for the Middle East being unique and backward relative to Europe, even though Europe only recently started two world wars. You are a fantasist (or a particularly abject troll). Nothing in my post can be interpreted as drawing distinctions between the Middle East and Europe, which isn't mentioned, any more than is North America or Australasia. Stop now. It's really quite embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 He's got a total blind spot. Saying A is a good analogy for B, doesn't say anything about whether A would also be a good analogy for C, D or E. He's putting all his efforts - making accusations of racism, anti-semitism, calling things idiotic etc - to claim something about C or to say F is a good analogy for C and A, but no one is saying anything about C or F other than him. Someone just made the observation that A is a good analogy for B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 No region has a greater propensity to fight than any other. The circumstances and events shift over time, but it's humans that fight. The causes change, the weapons become ever more ferocious, but it's humans that fight. Always have and always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 7 hours ago, Chinahand said: He's got a total blind spot. Saying A is a good analogy for B, doesn't say anything about whether A would also be a good analogy for C, D or E. You just made my case for me, except that A (the Bible) is not a good analogy either for the current Middle East (B) or for the Franco-Prussian War (C), The War of the Roses (D) or World War III (E). A (the Bible) is an extensive body of literature, not a military treatise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 7 hours ago, Uhtred said: You are a fantasist (or a particularly abject troll). Nothing in my post can be interpreted as drawing distinctions between the Middle East and Europe, which isn't mentioned, any more than is North America or Australasia. Stop now. It's really quite embarrassing. Oh, I'm so embarrassed. Except you clearly did suggest a continuity between the Old Testament (for some vague reason you've yet to explain) and the current Middle East. You didn't cite the Poetic Edda,the Aeneid, or the Bhagavad Gita, even though all of these texts heavily involve wars. It is no coincidence that you picked the Bible. It came from the Middle East. You're implying a causal relationship or at least a correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.