Nobody deserves abuse and that's the point of any Arab which points to the scriptures I cited in regard to Jews eating children...which is often misconstrued as a charge of "blood libel", as is much of anti-Israel sentiment being construed as "anti-semitism" when it isn't.
I am missing something here. WHAT is the POINT of an Arab [or anyone else] who cites the Hebrew Bible while accusing Jews of murdering children in order to use their blood to make matzah?
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. al-Odeh was talking about JEWS. Is that right?
One thing you know I'll never do: attempt to find reason in religious insanities, and that includes the religious insanity of claiming a real estate deed from God. Unless and until God shows his copy to a human court of law that matches word for word, with signatures, to a contract in the possession of some assigned Jewish keeper of the document, I say the claim should always be viewed as invalid. The ancestral argument won't work with me either until Israel is returned to the Canaanites and America (North and South) gets handed back over to the Indians. IMHO, ALL Abrahamic religions are insane, and here's a good time to remind you that I'm an atheist.
Tall tales get told about all kinds of people in power, which is where the word "libel" originates (France, in regard to vicarious novelettes about alleged scandals among nobility and royalty). What makes these stories stick, though? Some do, some don't. I'm saying a record, especially one regarded as sacred record--could very well be one significant element of the glue.
This particular "tale" is of Christian origin, not Muslim, as is the "tale" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Arabs took their cues from both about a century ago. Am I understanding correctly that you think this is OK?
I do not think it is OK. I don't believe any more nor any less that any tales of that nature are tales to be sure, but there's that itty bitty matter of there being a reason to believe that it's a matter of "playing telephone" with something that is on actual scriptural record. Again--no more and no less. You are not in a position to deny the contents of scripture. The contents of the Protocols, definitely; scripture, no.
Tribal animosities are, well, tribal--as in archaic. None of us will be part of a civilized species until we leave the tribe behind to the dust of history and move forward.
That is a beautiful sentiment. How, exactly, is it supposed to be applied to the activities of Messrs. al-Odeh and Ahmadnijihad?
It can't be applied exclusively to those two people--it has to be applied to every Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic tribalist on the planet, equally.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register