Eadora Posted August 18, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Yoh! Regarding Shiloh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Yoh! Regarding Shiloh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Quote Shiloh357 According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica Palestine was, at that time, inhabited by a large assortment of peoples from nation-subjects of the Ottoman empire. There was a wide assortment of nationalities representing over 50 different languages. This assortment included Algerians, Armenians, Bosnians, Circassians, Druzes, Greeks, Egyptians, Kurds, Turks, Jews, Tatars, and others as well. The region of Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for 402 years, What is to dispute here? There is a large assortment of peoples living there now! The fact is there was and is now an Arab majority since before the building of the Dome. A citation from a more recent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Game, set, match. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 2 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,073 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/02/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/10/1923 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Checkmate. as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadora Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted August 20, 2005 double Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadora Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Wow! The quickness of your response and the shear quantity of your verbiage is astounding! However, does shear quantity of response win a point? Let us check the Quality. Caught in the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 20, 2005 You have nothing. Your entire defense can be summed up in "n...n...no it's not!" No evidence, no logic, nothing. There was no Arab majority in "Palestine", ever. Turkish, Bedouin, Persian, Jewish, Anglos, Franks, Italians, and Arabs all inhabited the land a majority of the time. There was never an "arab" majority unless you consider Turks, Bedouins, Persians, and Jews arabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadora Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted August 20, 2005 You have nothing. Your entire defense can be summed up in "n...n...no it's not!" No evidence, no logic, nothing. There was no Arab majority in "Palestine", ever. ......... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A most unbecoming response. I have cited two respected scholarly authorities in the field, that prove my contention. Both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted August 20, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Greetings! Back on page 7 of this thread, in one of my rather long posts in exchange with Fenwar, I stated this: Do a Google on the recently relieved FORSCOM Commander, and you can see an example of what I mean. He was recently relieved for....well....bad things. That statement was wrong. What I meant to say was that the TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) Commander was recently relieved for seemingly unseemly behavior involving someone other than his wife. For some reason, I messed it up and put in FORSCOM (Forces Command) instead of TRADOC. Two different commands, and two different people. As far as I know, the FORSCOM Commander has done nothing wrong and is not involved in anyway with this case, nor has he been implicated in any wrong doing. My simple mistake is all it was. I have gone back and fixed it in the original post. Thanks, t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts