Palestinian Solidarity Campaign disrupts Israeli Concert. Yeah!!!

I don't "hate" Africans, POOP, but I don't hate the United States like you and JTT here do either and I understand the history of the place, which you and JTT clearly do not.

Take slavery for instance... Slavery always existed in the Greek city states and Rome and in the Christian world in the form of serfdom; but the sort of slavery which we mainly read about was an invention of the slammite world. What happened was that Genghis Khan opened the China/Europe trade route which had been closed for a thousand years or so and Europeans got used to spices and Eastern goods and then, about 150 years later, Tamerlane shut the route down again and when Europeans subsequently started sailing around Africa they found themselves needing to put in at West African ports for water and food; the West Africans assumed they were slammites and rolled out the slave markets.

Have you been looking for some sort of a name for this hate-America/Hate Western Civ movement of yours, POOP? I mean, you might consider calling it "The Bowel Movement"...

That last bit was so full of bullshit one hardly knows where to begin. Serfs were not slaves, they had rights in property, which no slave ever has. The Mongols did not open up any trade routes which were not already in use. The Muslims did not create any form of slavery, they simply exploited an available market. Once Vasco da Gama has sailed from Malindi to Goa, they no longer needed to stop at east African ports--although they did so for the gold and ivory trade.

The slave trade exploded in the 16th century and afterward because of European settlement of the "new world." The big exploiters of that slave tade were the Dutch and the English, and later the New England merchants.

Gunga Dim should know better than to open his yap about history--he gets busted every time. Of course, come to think of it, i don't know of a single subject on which he posts where he's not utterly full of ****.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom




Russian serfdom ended in 1861, roughly the same point in time that slavery ended in the US.

You don't understand the history of anything. Your posts drip with racism and hatred, terms like 'slammite' and 'palisavage' would only be used by a bigotted ****.

It started in the mid 1400s with the sailing around Africa as I described, and was a slammite invention as I described.

Basically you can read aboutg slavery in the Christian world but you have to open a history book (which you clearly have never done) to do it.

Reading about slavery in the slammite world is easier, just open the classified ad section of a slammite newspaper under 'S', and possibly also under 'W' since women are basically slaves in slammite society as well.

This would be as good a place as any to start for any wishing to educate themselves on this particular topic:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=slave+trade+hugh+thomas&x=0&y=0

Ah, you're a bad Gunga--you claim to have me on ignore, yet you can't resist peeking.

Note that your article says "modified slavery." They were not slaves outright, and they had rights in property. If any serf could accumulate sufficient cash to buy property, they became free holders and ceased to owe labor service--then they were on their own and had to make enought out of their property to feed themselves and their families. It was not at all uncommon for serfs to escape their condition in that manner.

The abolition of serfdom in Russia was, literally, centuries behind the rest of Europe, so it's a pretty poor example to use. The great mortality of the "black death" dealt the death blow to serfdom in western and central Europe, with the die off so great that labor became a seller's market. Despite laws intended to prevent "masterless men" from working, the labor shortage was so desperate that the very aristocracy which had called for those laws bid against each other for the labor of peasants who had run away from their former masters.

It's no surprise to see that you, first, don't know what the **** you're talking about, and second, are centuries behind the curve on events which in most cases are well understood by secondary school children.

The Muslims did not invent slavery, your irrational hatred and bigotry notwithstanding. It is precisely that irrational hated which leads you to display your stupidity so glaringly. If there is someone here who needs desparately to open not just one, by many books of history, it's you, Gunga Dim.

Tell me again about how there were no wars in Europe from 1815 to 1914--i always love that one.

See what you think of this, POOP:

http://islamcomicbook.com/comics/english/pdfs/MBOE-HIRES.pdf

A significant difference between slavery in the Clasical world, and that used by the Western powers in the (primarily) 18th and 19th centuries was race. In the classical world anyone could be a slave, slaves were often freed, and could begin to move up the social ladder. The Roman Emperor's slaves for example, had real political power.

In the French, Spanish, British and American plantations the slaves were black with zero prospect of social advancement.

I didn't say they did, learn to read. What I DID say is that they invented the kind of slavery which you normally read about as opposed to serfdom or slavery in Ancient Greece or Rome, i.e. slavery within the last 400 years or so and, again, even that sort of slavery was vastly less severe in the United States than in the South and Central American places where the 85% of Africans brought to the New World ended up.

I wish he had me on ignore, I find it very irksome dealing with someone who acts like he's still in the playground.

The same was entirely true of black slaves in the US, POOP, in fact not a few of them ended up owning their own slaves.

http://civilwarreenacting.forumotion.net/t263-more-free-blacks-owning-slaves

No, they didn't "invent" any notional form of slavery such as you allege. Once again, it's you who need to learn to read--but more importantly, you need to abandon your obsessional hatreds and politically motivated bigotry so that you can actually learn something.

The slavery of Africans in the the West Indies, and later on the North American mainland originally followed the parttern by which the "Sugar islands" were first settled. At that time, labor was from bound servants who had signed an indenture, and who, if they survived (a rare event), were free to pursue their own fortune. The first African slaves who were brought to West Indies were also treated as bound servants. However, a white man who speaks English or Dutch or French, and more importantly, can read or knows someone who can read, can enforce the terms of his indenture. An African, by contrast, who is not only illiterate, but likely cannot speak the language of his master, is bound for life, because he can't understand his situation and enforce any equity.

Slavery as you seem to know it (the very little you seem to know) was invented by Europeans in the Sugar Islands.

In May of 2010 a flotilla of ships set off from a Turkish port, with the clear and expressed intent to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

Ostensibly, this was a humanitarian endeavor intended to bring food and medical supplies to the Palestinians of the territory.

The flotilla would not have been allowed to launch from any European port and Israel requested that Turkey prohibit it as well. Turkey refused.

Numerous Israeli warnings were issued to the flotilla, and the offer made that if the ships diverted to an Israeli port and offloaded their cargo, after inspection the Israelis would deliver all humanitarian aid to Gaza. The organizers of the flotilla refused.

Israeli commandos boarded the ships of the flotilla with the intent of preventing them from breaking the blockade. Not expecting significant resistance, they were armed with paintball guns. There was significant resistance on one ship where passengers and/or crew immediately attacked the Israelis with pipes and machetes. At one point the Israeli commandos seriously feared for their safety and requested permission to defend themselves with actual firearms. Permission was granted and in the ensuing action, 9 of the ship's passengers or crew were killed, and several of the commandoes were injured: two shot, and one seriously injured.

Subsequently, all Hell broke loose. The savage Israelis had slaughtered innocent and courageous humanitarians who were only seeking to aid the Israeli oppressed Gazans by breaking through Israel's illegal blockade!

Newspapers throughout the world condemned what they described as an act of piracy. Governments either denounced the Zionist Entity or lamented the unfortunate and unnecessary violent reaction of Israel. Turkey went berserk and the UN promised an investigation.

Israel’s A2K critics were outraged: http://able2know.org/topic/145403-1

Izzythepush was not a member of A2K back then, but I think it's fair to assume he would have joined in the outrage.

Now the long awaited UN report has been completed and lo and behold, Israel got a fair shake! This is hardly proof that an anti-Israel bias does not run throughout the UN, but it is unexpected and welcome nevertheless.

The Palmer Report (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf) concludes:

1) The Israeli blockade is legal and a legitimate security measure
2) The blockade is not intended to punish the people of Gaza for electing Hama to govern them
3) The blockade has had little to no causative effect on living conditions in Gaza
4) The primary objective of the flotilla was to generate publicity by attempting to break the Israeli blockade. The organizers had every reason to believe that the effort would be met with stiff resistance by Israel and that violence might easily ensue.
5) Only three of the six ships actually contained what could be considered humanitarian supplies
6) The Mavi Marmara carried approx 40 hardcore activists who were armed with pipes, clubs, chains and knives.
7) The Israelis ordered the flotilla to divert to an Israeli port where their cargo could be offloaded and then delivered to Gaza, but the captain of the Mavi Marmara refused.
8) Israeli soldiers came under violent attack aboard the Mavi Marmara and had the legal right to defend themselves
9) The force used by the Israelis in defending themselves was excessive and unnecessary and led to unacceptable able loss of lives
10) Isreal's treatment of the ships' passengers after the incident was abusive.
11) Israel should issue an approriate statement of regret over the loss of lives and pay compensation to the families of the victims.

Israel offered to comply with the reccommendation of the Panel (#11) and work with Turkey to supress the report (even though it was far more in line with their contentions than those of Turkey), but Turkey insisted on a "full apology," and now has expelled the Israeli ambassador and is making thinly veiled threats about naval actions.

While bloody conflicts are always better news fare than the release of UN reports, the international media has by comparison to their cries of condemnation at the time of the incident, virtually ignored the report, and forgive me for being a Jew loving cynic but I'm convinced the report would have gotten a lot more attention if it had starkly criticized Israel as virtually everyone expected it would, the day it was promised.

I beg your pardon, Finn.

Virtually? How many frontpages of the international media with headlines/first page stories/comments/reports about this do you want?

And you certainly missed that comments and reports are in those papers on a daily (sic!) basis ...

Thank you Walter, it's amazing how someone can completely misunderstand something like that. At lest he seems to have understood that Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador, if nothing else.

If tomorrow, Finn, Israel went on the outs with the US, you'd turn into a rabid Jew hater as fast as the next like you American Jew loving cynic.

And you would do it with no sense of shame whatsoever.

That I have asserted that the International Media made much more of the incident than the report is the only matter to which you feel compelled to respond?

Interesting.

I've done this with you before Finn, it's bloody hard work, and even then you don't understand. I know how Walter feels.

I'll keep it brief. Israel was found to have used 'excessive force.' They were not exonerated in any way. Admittedly some of the protesters did not come out smelling of roses either, but it was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Israeli action.

You've just disenfranchised close to one-third of American citizens. While before 1850 the U.S. did reflect a white Protestant country (for those that were not slaves), it is a process of evolvement that today we are not Europeans in our collective thinking. However, I do see European thinking amongst those Americans that identify with Europe. Specifically, white ethnics.

You also very ignore the 60 million born again Christians in the U.S.. Europe does not have them. Amazing how so many of the posters ignore such a huge constituency in the U.S.. Almost makes me wonder if there is a desire to pretend that the country is just liberal Protestants and Catholics that look to Europe as a role model?