Jump to content
270soft Forum

Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?


Guest

Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?

    • yes
      17
    • no
      7


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, koneke said:

the Turkish lords had the right to take any Christian women, even if she was married to a Christian man and have sex with her.

That's not true.  Jus Primae Noctis and Droit de Seigneur are fictional constructions of the 20th century.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, pilight said:

That's not true.  Jus Primae Noctis and Droit de Seigneur are fictional constructions of the 20th century.

That's probably true, especially once the Millet system came into existence in the Ottoman Empire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I remind you, those Turkish lord also ruled what is now the Palestine/Israel region for a longer period than Bosnia, and imposed similar laws. And also, not everyone living in that region (or who historically has) is only either a Jew or Moslem, despite that stereotype being propagated by omission of information in Western media in many cases...

well a signicifcant majority are either Jewish,Muslim or Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 2:14 AM, jvikings1 said:

The entire city of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should be regained as such by the US and the international community.  It is also completely part of Israel.  the US embasy should be moved to Jerusalem, and I am really hoping that Trump takes the initiative to do it.

Word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Patine said:

I remind you, those Turkish lord also ruled what is now the Palestine/Israel region for a longer period than Bosnia, and imposed similar laws. And also, not everyone living in that region (or who historically has) is only either a Jew or Moslem, despite that stereotype being propagated by omission of information in Western media in many cases...

the turks are real baddies they treated balkan very bad and the Bosniak genocide was a response to that.

they were fed up with being treated like dogs by muslims

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, koneke said:

the turks are real baddies they treated balkan very bad and the Bosniak genocide was a response to that.

they were fed up with being treated like dogs by muslims

The Turks weren't involved in the Bosniak genocide, and there was probably only a tiny handful of centenarians who were alive in the Ottoman days who were in Bosnia at the time of the genocide. And, with generalized stereotyped absolute false crap statements you like to spew like, "the turks are real baddies," I'm really getting sick of dealing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Patine said:

The Turks weren't involved in the Bosniak genocide, and there was probably only a tiny handful of centenarians who were alive in the Ottoman days who were in Bosnia at the time of the genocide. And, with generalized stereotyped absolute false crap statements you like to spew like, "the turks are real baddies," I'm really getting sick of dealing with you.

the bosniak genocide was in 1990's and happened because muslims had been real baddies to christians for 100's of years

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, koneke said:

the bosniak genocide was in 1990's and happened because muslims had been real baddies to christians for 100's of years

Well, Christians weren't exactly nice to Moslems in those old days, either, and it wasn't always in just DEFENSE. Remember the horrid excesses of the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition - oh, and don't forget Vlad the Impaler, whose campaigns were not the purely national defensive things he's often remembered for, but he liked to make precipitous, gratuitous strikes of horrific proportions, often against civilians, and during times of cease-fire with the Turks no less. These horrible acts you speak were not a one-sided affair of blame. They were much more of a vicious cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, Christians weren't exactly nice to Moslems in those old days, either, and it wasn't always in just DEFENSE. Remember the horrid excesses of the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition - oh, and don't forget Vlad the Impaler, whose campaigns were not the purely national defensive things he's often remembered for, but he liked to make precipitous, gratuitous strikes of horrific proportions, often against civilians, and during times of cease-fire with the Turks no less. These horrible acts you speak were not a one-sided affair of blame. They were much more of a vicious cycle.

The Crusades was a defensive campaign because of 100's of years of muslim aggression, if it wasn't for the Crusades you would probably have been a muslim today because it stopped the muslim advance a few hundred years for Europe to gather strength.

The Spanish Inquisition was a catholic thing and catholicism has never represented true christianity in any way.

Vlad the Impaler was a sadistic king which is not unknown of, but most kings had councils that adviced the king and with the Magna Carta Barons and nobles could overthrow the king if something that was bad was done by the king. I know that kings in Europe didnt have unlimited power before the absolute monarchy of the 1600's.

The Turks had conquered Anatolia which was Greek and Orthodox Christian, and they had a lot slavedriving.

One ancestor of Boris Johnson was a Circassian slave who had been bondaged by the turks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, koneke said:

The Crusades was a defensive campaign because of 100's of years of muslim aggression, if it wasn't for the Crusades you would probably have been a muslim today because it stopped the muslim advance a few hundred years for Europe to gather strength.

The Spanish Inquisition was a catholic thing and catholicism has never represented true christianity in any way.

Vlad the Impaler was a sadistic king which is not unknown of, but most kings had councils that adviced the king and with the Magna Carta Barons and nobles could overthrow the king if something that was bad was done by the king. I know that kings in Europe didnt have unlimited power before the absolute monarchy of the 1600's.

The Turks had conquered Anatolia which was Greek and Orthodox Christian, and they had a lot slavedriving.

One ancestor of Boris Johnson was a Circassian slave who had been bondaged by the turks.

 

Holy historical revisionism, Batman! I am really done with you. You're not rational in any sense of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Holy historical revisionism, Batman! I am really done with you. You're not rational in any sense of the word.

you have no insight into muslim aggression against the west.

1529 siege of vienna

1683 siege of vienna

look it up

the muslims have tried to conquer europe several times and has failed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, koneke said:

you have no insight into muslim aggression against the west.

1529 siege of vienna

1683 siege of vienna

look it up

the muslims have tried to conquer europe several times and has failed

 

First of all, you mean the Ottoman Turks. Let's stop speaking in hive-mind blocs here. Secondly, the Crusades had NOTHING to do with these particular battles - in fact, the Ottoman Empire didn't even really exist yet as political entity at the time of the Crusades. Also, the Crusades were not defensive - the advance of Umayyid  Caliphate had already been halted a couples centuries before the Crusades began - the Crusades were essentially just a gratuity. And, just to be clear the Ottoman Empire was NOT the same nation, or even any sort of direct political continuation, from the Umayyid Caliphate, just before you try to that argument. And, as for Catholicism, as flawed as it was, especially in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, there would have been NO other Western European Christian Churches as we know them in existence today if it had not been for the long existence of Catholicism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

First of all, you mean the Ottoman Turks. Let's stop speaking in hive-mind blocs here. Secondly, the Crusades had NOTHING to do with these particular battles - in fact, the Ottoman Empire didn't even really exist yet as political entity at the time of the Crusades. Also, the Crusades were not defensive - the advance of Umayyid  Caliphate had already been halted a couples centuries before the Crusades began - the Crusades were essentially just a gratuity. And, just to be clear the Ottoman Empire was NOT the same nation, or even any sort of direct political continuation, from the Umayyid Caliphate, just before you try to that argument. And, as for Catholicism, as flawed as it was, especially in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, there would have been NO other Western European Christian Churches as we know them in existence today if it had not been for the long existence of Catholicism.

The Ottoman Turks had several vassal states or marches including, Syria, Egypt etc. Their soldiers came from all over the muslim world.

The reason for the Crusades was that the Byzantine Emperor asked for help.

Another reason was the multiple sackings of Christian cities and villages around the mediterranean.

We hear about the sacking of Rome by muslim pirates in the 800's and many other places. Even Ireland was sacked by muslim privateers.

What they did when sacking was taking white christian as slaves and taking them back to north africa or other places middle eastern region or even asia minor.

The Umayyid caliphate had taken Jerusalem by force in 732 and build a mosque. They landed on Spain in the start 700's. and met with Charlemagne in Poitiers in 732 at a battle that'd save Europe.

Catholicism were real baddies they weren't really good fighters because they told priests to be commanders etc.

Only with Protestantism we had the pure spirit of christianity that had been struck by catholics etc.

martin luther was very critical of the jews and muslims and catholics

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, koneke said:

The Ottoman Turks had several vassal states or marches including, Syria, Egypt etc. Their soldiers came from all over the muslim world.

The reason for the Crusades was that the Byzantine Emperor asked for help.

Another reason was the multiple sackings of Christian cities and villages around the mediterranean.

We hear about the sacking of Rome by muslim pirates in the 800's and many other places. Even Ireland was sacked by muslim privateers.

What they did when sacking was taking white christian as slaves and taking them back to north africa or other places middle eastern region or even asia minor.

The Umayyid caliphate had taken Jerusalem by force in 732 and build a mosque. They landed on Spain in the start 700's. and met with Charlemagne in Poitiers in 732 at a battle that'd save Europe.

Catholicism were real baddies they weren't really good fighters because they told priests to be commanders etc.

Only with Protestantism we had the pure spirit of christianity that had been struck by catholics etc.

martin luther was very critical of the jews and muslims and catholics

I still don't understand whose teaching you this crap. It sounds like the typical formula for propoganda, though - there's nuggets and foundations of truth, which are then exaggerated and embellished with lies and half-truths to deceive people to think a certain way for an ulterior political motive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

I still don't understand whose teaching you this crap. It sounds like the typical formula for propoganda, though - there's nuggets and foundations of truth, which are then exaggerated and embellished with lies and half-truths to deceive people to think a certain way for an ulterior political motive.

Propaganda is recognised as a wanting to hit the receivers feelings. As long as i am factual it isn't propaganda. Most of my claims are rooted in historical truths. You just won't recognise it as being true as which i am unhappy and wish for you to get the truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

That was because they wouldn't become protestants.

 

yes, and the jews spread lies about jesus and said that non-jews was animals.

muslims killed christians and took them as slaves

catholics used the church to wage war which was against the bible and lots of other stuff that isnt in the bible they did

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, koneke said:

yes, and the jews spread lies about jesus and said that non-jews was animals.

can I please see your venidence to support that statement

2 hours ago, koneke said:

muslims killed christians and took them as slaves

Yes those masssacres are horrible but it was only recently that it was seen as unacceptable to attack,enslave or kill citizens in warfare and it's still happens in part of the world today.(take syria as an example)

2 hours ago, koneke said:

catholics used the church to wage war which was against the bible and lots of other stuff that isnt in the bible they did

I'm assuming you're talking about the time before the protestant reformation and during the wars that happened after it.

The (for the most part) only educated people were church officials so the public wouldn't know if they were following corrupt leaders or waging a war which was prohibited by the bible. (which before the protestant reformation forced change the catholic church was at least somewhat corrupt)

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

can I please see your venidence to support that statement

Yes those masssacres are horrible but it was only recently that it was seen as unacceptable to attack,enslave or kill citizens in warfare and it's still happens in part of the world today.(take syria as an example)

I'm assuming you're talking about the time before the protestant reformation and during the wars that happened after it.

The (for the most part) only educated people were church officials so the public wouldn't know if they were following corrupt leaders or waging a war which was prohibited by the bible. (which before the protestant reformation forced change the catholic church was at least somewhat corrupt)

a goy is a subhuman non-jew, they spread lies about jesus because they dont think he is the real messiah

yes but they came to europe to kill and enslave and said that they did it because of their religion, that was pretty bad

yes the catholic leaders made up stuff to collect more money and other stuff

all three are baddies

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, koneke said:

a goy is a subhuman non-jew

I'm asking for a proof that this is part of jewish theology.

3 minutes ago, koneke said:

yes but they came to europe to kill and enslave and said that they did it because of their religion, that was pretty bad

yes the catholic leaders made up stuff to collect more money and other stuff

I agree with you on those two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, koneke said:

a goy is a subhuman non-jew, they spread lies about jesus because they dont think he is the real messiah

yes but they came to europe to kill and enslave and said that they did it because of their religion, that was pretty bad

yes the catholic leaders made up stuff to collect more money and other stuff

all three are baddies

The "baddies" part though. Ahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaha ???????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...