Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« September 2006 »
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Friday, 29 September 2006
History of the Middle East
Topic: Politics

The Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks, Jews, Romans, Byzantines, Caliphs, Crusaders, Saladin, the Mongols and the Europeans have all at some point controlled some or all of the area we call the Middle East.

This 90 second video shows the history of the Middle East from 3000 BC to the present day.

Fascinating viewing.

Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:22 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

And as easy as that we are back to Israel. You were the one saying that I am always finding a link with what you write and Israel. You need to get your head checked out. You keep going on and on and on and on and on with your twisted lies.


I haven’t even opened the link yet but I bet you will be referring to Israel. You will say how people have occupied that territory at some point or other. You will then go on to explain why it is ok for Israel to now occupy it.



Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:31 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

No, that wasn't the point at all. If I had any agenda in mind at all, it was to show people the Caliphate, as it's something I'll be addressing shortly.

It's not all about Israel you know. 


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:36 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

Ok now I have seen it I am in disbelief. I thought that you would be able to dig something up that is better than that.


A)    It tries to show Israel as original land. This is not true.


B)     Even worse. After showing Israel as the original land which is not true, it shows it established in 1948 as a tiny piece of land. This was true at the time. It does not show the expansion on territory.


So in conclusion, the link is pathetic. While it shows occupation on territory of other people and tribes, it is not true with Israel. Israel is shown as original land which was a big piece of land. It is then shown as a small piece of land with the expanded territory not being touched upon.






Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:40 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

It shows 5,000 years of history in 90 seconds, as advertised. Just how much detail did you expect it to go into? For Heaven's sake, go to bed you freak.

Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:52 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

If I am going to be 100% honest, this whole Israel debate does not bother me in the slightest way at all. I am not that interested in the subject. What I dislike is your continous lies.

Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 12:56 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

What Israel debate? You mentioned it, I didn't. This is yet another irrelevant Israel-related rant on a topic that has nothing to do with it. You brought it up when I wrote about Peak Oil and before that when I wrote about Syriana, a film that doesn't mention Israel at all. You really ought to see a psychiatrist.

Unless you are one of those supposedly hilarious comic personae that clutter up the forums, like Essex Ted, Baby Jane and so on. In which case, you've had your fun, now piss off.


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 1:17 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

Here is what I was talking about with reference to the subjects you write:


Oil = War in Iraq was justified and had nothing to do with oil. You said “This hapless unfortunate has invested a great deal emotionally in the idea that the depletion of the Earth's resources will bring about a revolution”.  A political message from you? Of course it is. You then went to talk about the war in Iraq, zzzzzzzz.


Syriana = A film in America which the pro Zionists branded as anti-Semitic. Another political message in there DY?


Now this. Funny you said that it has nothing to do with Israel when a while ago you went through a long list of who actually occupied Israel throughout its history. You then tried to justify that because everyone had that land that Israel has a rightful claim to it.


You keep bringing up the subject, not me. Or maybe it is just your Neo-con views. Oh wait, there the same.


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 1:26 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

With respect to Peak oil, you mentioned Israel and the war on Iraq. I said: "I'm struggling to see what possible relevance Israel has to the theory that world oil production is peaking, but there you go. To answer your utterly irrelevant points - " and then went on to address things that YOU had said!

Syriana has nothing to do with Israel. It's hard to see how it could be taken as anti-semitic as Jews and Israel are not mentioned, as far as I can recall.

You do seem to have a problem. You see Israel in everything. I will talk about Israel again some time. You know this when the word 'Israel' appears in the posting. That'll be the special clue.


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 1:31 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

Just did a google search for "Syriana anti semtic" and found no reference to any claim that it is. 


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 1:41 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

Look harder.,11382,L-3212503,00.html

 You do not have to mention "Israel". You continually state your views through different means. Like I said, this issue does not bother me. Your narrow mind and lying does.

Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 1:55 AM BST

Name: "David Young"


The thread you linked to is about the film 'Paradise Now'. Only in post 29 does anyone mention Syriana, and that's only to say 'Same problem as with movies like Munich, JFK, Syriana and others. They do not pretend to be documentry, but they don't work too hard on reminding people that they aren't.' That isn't an allegation of anti-semitism. It's a criticism of a film-making technique.

Other than that, I found no mention of Syriana in the first two pages of the link, which was as far as I read.

Please please please see a doctor about your obsession. You really need help.


Saturday, 30 September 2006 - 2:20 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

How many times do I have to tell you that this subject does not interest me? I am amuzed by your lies. Maybe I could ask you a different question. Why did the war in Iraq happen and why are you pro war? Since so many people are against it, I would like to see a different opinion? What about our civil liberties being curtailed due to terrorism?

Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 9:46 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Are you a moral person, David?

Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 1:39 PM BST

Name: overlay_uk3
Home Page:


yes, I think so. But my view of morality is grounded in the 'Golden Rule' - that you should do unto others and you would have them do unto you. That isn't the same as being uptight about sex, which is what some people infer morality to mean. The Golden Rule isn't perfect. It falls down when people start believing in the afterlife, because they try to save your soul, as it's what they would want you to do for them.

However, it's the best guide we have. I suppose in part it led me to support the war in Iraq. If I were living in some awful dictatorship I would want the free world to liberate me from it. It always sickened me that we didn't help the Iraqis who rose up against Saddam in 1991. I wouldn't have wanted to be let down like that.


Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 1:46 PM BST

Name: "Richard123"

Yes David. We all know it sickened you. I bet you were screaming your head off at America at the time.

 More lies.

Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 1:55 PM BST

Name: overlay_uk3
Home Page:

I was angry at the time, I can assure you. But I didn't realise just how many people were killed when Saddam put down the uprisings until later. And I was more angry that he's been allowed to use his air force to do it. Had Thatcher still been in power, she would never have allowed this. But Major didn't refuse Saddam's request to use air power to suppress insurrection and thousands died as a consequence.

It was later brought back to me in the film 'Three Kings' [set in the first Gulf War]. In it you see Iraqis shouting 'Where is George Bush?' We let those people down. Had we finished Saddam in 1991, we would not be experiencing half the problems we're having there now.



ps You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'lie'. It means when someone says something they know isn't true. It doesn't mean when someone says something you don't agree with.

Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 3:09 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Are these terrorist organisations?

1) The ANC circa 1960s.

2) Jewish insurrection fighting in Palestine circa 1948.

3) ZanuPF and Zipra forces fighting Rhodesian forces circa 1970s. 

Sunday, 1 October 2006 - 10:39 PM BST

Name: "Baby Jane"

"Get back to bed you freak"


Can I borrow this one Mr Young?


I don't want to clutter this forum up so I'll allow you and Mr 123 to carry on.




Monday, 2 October 2006 - 12:42 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

What I want to know is what you think about your Israeli friends who were caught filiming the 9/11 attacks and cheering as the planes went into the towers. What do you think about that? They were Israeli spies who were immediately arrested. They were then secretely let off and flown straight back to Israel. It would not supprise me if Israel were behind September 11th, along with a few Muslim fanatics. It would not be the first time that Israel has attacked America for their own advantage. Who are the people that benefits out of this "War on Terror"? Let us not forget the Mossad's saying, "by way of deception thou shalt do war"  

View Latest Entries