Iran Isreal and US

You are going by what you resd in the bible,which has a judeo/christian point of view,the jews conquered caananites,but are you trying to tell me none survived,fled or assimilated with other tribes in the region.

So,what became of the displaced cannanites.Certainly many were killed,but history shows that many survived outside the borders of present day israel.They survive in places where the name Amorite is only scarcely masked - in the regions of Morocco,Mauretania and neighbouribg Tunisia and Algeria.When they were driven out of Canaan they fled to Africa,to a land that was rightfully their own,and they have been there for over 3000 years,Unlike many peoples,they actually know who their ancestors were.They are people known as the Berbers,living along the Barbary coast of northern africa.Locals legends survive that they are the people driven out of Cannan by joshua and later generations of Israelite leaders.

It dosent matter what i say,you seem to think the jews have a divine right to the land no matter what,numerous different tribes and nations conquered and ruled the land,and im sure they all have left some ancestry behind.

"What kind of PR is it to admit is it to admit that you commited genocide"
Well the world knows about the holocaust of the Jews !

Nice post. I like the provided evidence in particular.

The Berbers have always lived in Africa, at least they were there a loooong time before Israel.

Peoples and tribes have always came and gone,and assimalated within other tribes,you have just totally dismissed that they're are no peoples left on this planet who have cannanite ancestry,it dosent matter what i say,you seem to think that the Jews have the divine right to palestine no matter what,end of story.

But the Jews were there longest, and they are really the only race major enough that has previously ruled the land and wants it.

What exactly is your reason to say that the Jews do not have a right to rule the land?

Well, maybe you would appear more credible if you could actually back up what you say.

Who says they were there the longest,you and the bible ?

Lots of historians disagree with that,and the post about the berbers was written by a jew :thumbup:

And your credible evidence is the bible lol it must be true then :thumbup:

Good for him. What's his source? Folklore? I'd say the Bible, as a historical account, is a bit more valid considering there is about no proof otherwise. Care to prove me wrong?

The Bible is a valid historical resource. There is no such thing as an unbiased historical resource when it comes from one of two sides.

And who wrote the old testament written in the bible,not a very fair and balanced point of view is it ?

The Bible is invaluable religious literature. It's neither history nor science. Nonetheless, it's extremely important.

"The positives far outweigh the negatives" really ! the iraqi government is a mess, the people in control mostly shia,have their own militias,and the US is arming them,and we know that 60% of the population is shia,the same religion as Iran,yeh thing are looking good for the future :wtf:

The Bible is full of historical accounts, they simply have religious undertones.

Concerning the U.S., the war is definitely on the positive side. The greatest asset to date is the fact that there have been no terrorist style attacks in the U.S.. AQ members migrated to Iraq for the purpose of fighting Americans. They have done that and they have lost.
Shihite, Sunni, who cares? Muslim Arabs hate America and Jews. Anything America does to put the finger in the dike of Muslim advancement is a plus. It's just a matter of time till Iran or another Muslim nation or nations decide that all the infidels must die. Oh wait, they've already decided that.

I'd say the reverse is true. The Bible isn't history or science. Just a good religious read -- a very good one, at that.:thumbup:

I have to disagree. Much of the Old Testament is verifiable as a good historical source. It's quite heavy on religious events, but it is nonetheless largely a historical account of the Jewish people and is generally a good outline of events.

As a big fan of history and somebody whose job requires him to teach it accurately, as it's commonly viewed by the American public, I have to disagree. Again, it's not history. It's literature. How could it possibly qualify as history, with all its mythologies and fables? Then there's the massive issue of source verification and validation. I'll conceed that it's an interesting view of the Jews offered by editors of a text written about them by their fellow Jews. I guess what I'm saying is that I'll go as far as to recognize it as a note-worthy, collective autobiography of the ancient Hebrews.:dunno:

Current debate concerning the historicity of the various Old Testament narratives can be divided into several camps.

One group has been labeled "biblical minimalists" by its critics. Minimalists (e.g., Philip Davies, Thomas L. Thompson, John Van Seters) see very little reliable history in any of the Old Testament.
Conservative Old Testament scholars, "biblical maximalists," generally accept the historicity of most Old Testament narratives (save the accounts in Gen 1?11) on confessional grounds, and some Egyptologists (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen) admit that such a belief is not incompatible with the external evidence.
Other scholars (e.g., William Dever) are somewhere in between: they see clear signs of evidence for the monarchy and much of Israel's later history, though they doubt the Exodus and Conquest.
The vast majority of scholars at American universities are somewhere between biblical minimalism and maximalism;[citation needed] Notably, both Kitchen and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University are not the only scholars from the maximalist and minimalist camps who are sufficiently trained to address these questions with the necessary sophistication but both are experts in their fields ? and both come to different conclusions.

Some contemporary Israeli archaeologists have now rejected much of the Deuteronomistic history of the Old Testament. Notably, Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman have written popular books detailing their view that many of the best-known Biblical stories are incompatible with the archaeology of the region. Conversely, in 2003 Kenneth A. Kitchen published the 662 page book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, which defended the Bible's reliability throughout. Although some archaeologists have argued that many Biblical accounts should be rejected due to a lack of corroborating archaeological evidence, opponents point out that this is a return to the 19th century idea that anything not confirmed by current archaeology should be dismissed, a methodology that had once led some to question the existence of major empires such as Assyria.

Because the composition of the Pentateuch according to Wellhausen was so much later than the events it described, some who accept Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis tend to regard the narratives of the Pentateuch as largely fictional, while others argue that Wellhausen's method is not valid given that so many of our surviving copies of historical documents date from a much later time period: e.g., the earliest extant copies of Julius Caesar's famous "Commentaries on the Gallic War" are medieval copies dating from the 9th century, nearly a thousand years after Caesar wrote the original.

The most important issue would seem to be the length of the period between the actual events and the setting of them down in writing. Internal evidence in the books themselves suggests that events of the Hebrew monarchies period were set down by royal scribes soon after they happened, and the writer(s) of the Book of Kings had direct access to these writings and quoted extensively from them ? whereas earlier events, such as the Exodus and the Conquest, might have spent centuries as oral traditions before a written account of them was set down, which might make the written account considerably different from any actual events that gave the original basis to the tradition.

Umberto Cassuto wrote The Documentary Hypothesis, challenging Wellhausen's theory.

For various archaeological finds dating from the relevant era which purportedly confirm the accuracy of Biblical accounts, see Cyrus Cylinder and Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet.

See also Dead Sea scrolls in which a copy of the book of Isaiah has been radiocarbon dated by the University of Arizona Department of Physics to between 335 BCE and 122 BCE.