Time Travel

[Anachronous Rex]

If I had a time machine, I'd go back to 1992 to prevent the eugenics war and WW3. I hate living in a postatomic wasteland.

And no, I didn't join this site just so I could say that. But I would have if I hadn't joined already.

(What he's talking about

 

[Memeticemetic]

(What he's talking about

Why thank you, Rex. Now I know what I'm going to be wasting the rest of my day on.

Edit: Holy crapsicle! There's a metric butt-ton of these! Now I know how I'll waste a good portion of the next month!

 

[dtsj]

The endlosing would be the killing of all the jews. So if you'd do it right after that, that would work.

Would that prevent Japan getting nuked, or the state of israel?

I've no idea. I am a pacifist. Good question, I think.

I think that killing Hitler will prevent the foundation of the state of Israel as we know it. The Holocaust was one of the major reasons for the foundation of Israel.
Though without it, I would've been born...
By the way, I'm from Israel

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I think that killing Hitler will prevent the foundation of the state of Israel as we know it. The Holocaust was one of the major reasons for the foundation of Israel.
Though without it, I would've been born...
By the way, I'm from Israel

I think perhaps preventing the creation of the state of Israel (at least as it occurred in our time-line) might be a good thing. I think we can all agree that the whole enterprise could have gone much better.

 

[dtsj]

I think that killing Hitler will prevent the foundation of the state of Israel as we know it. The Holocaust was one of the major reasons for the foundation of Israel.
Though without it, I would've been born...
By the way, I'm from Israel

I think perhaps preventing the creation of the state of Israel (at least as it occurred in our time-line) might be a good thing. I think we can all agree that the whole enterprise could have gone much better.

The state of Israel prevent another Holocaust from happening again, To the Jews at least. But I agree that this whole enterprise could have gone much better (believe me, I live there!).
I have a very bad feeling that you guys are very misinformed about the whole Middle East problem. I don't think it's intellectually honest to make a judgement about something you don't know about.

I'm sorry if I made any grammer/spelling mistakes, feel free to correct me, English is not my native language.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The state of Israel prevent another Holocaust from happening again, To the Jews at least. But I agree that this whole enterprise could have gone much better (believe me, I live there!).
I have a very bad feeling that you guys are very misinformed about the whole Middle East problem. I don't think it's intellectually honest to make a judgement about something you don't know about.

I'm sorry if I made any grammer/spelling mistakes, feel free to correct me, English is not my native language.

Well, it was the focus of my major... but what do I know?

 

[dtsj]

Well, it was the focus of my major... but what do I know?

Really? We're that interesting?
You studied it for 3 years, I live there 22.
Hence I won the pissing contest
A simple question: Since when there is a Palestinian nation?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well, it was the focus of my major... but what do I know?

Really? We're that interesting?

We're getting a tad off-topic here, so maybe we should start a new thread? Anyway... actually no, I just really like the Ottoman and British Empires, and there's a lot of overlap when it comes to the subject of your little nation. Although, in fairness, I should have said 'a' focus of my major rather than 'the;' this was a bit misleading on my part. Truthfully, I only find you interesting as one of two examples demonstrating how religious partition is a terrible idea. Though perhaps that might have gone better if your Zionists had deigned to settle instead somewhere in South America, as was oft proposed.

You studied it for 3 years, I live there 22.
Hence I won the pissing contest

I'll not fight you over a claim of greater expertise, it's possible that you do. Though I submit your reasoning is faulty: I know Americans who have lived in this country all of their lives and are still painfully ignorant of both American History and current affairs.

A simple question: Since when there is a Palestinian nation?

If I grasp your meaning correctly...

The answer to that might depend a somewhat upon how one defines various Ottoman provinces in the region (which have at various times been semi-independent), but mostly upon when one acknowledges the development of a 'Palestinian' national identity as separate from the larger Arab Nationalist movement. It's rather obvious that 'Palestinian' is something of a contrivance, with no historical president or real meaning prior to the Zionist movement. I mean, certainly we do see elements of this identity even before the Young Turk Revolution, largely in reaction to the local arrival of non-Sephardic Jews, although it would be misleading to call those people Palestinian; preferring perhaps Al Misr or Al Suryah Arabic. The 1947 UN partition plan, as you no doubt know, calls for the creation of an Arab state, but not a Palestinian one. Of course, Palestinian nationalists will today say that this was the creation of a Palestinian state, one that was merely immediately annexed by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, but this is something of an anachronism given the weakness of the identity at the time.

If we are to ignore the consideration of how the people of the region define themselves, however, then in a moment of supreme irony, the best answer might actually be the Kingdom of Jerusalem under the Baldwins; even if the leadership was foreign, it would still have been an ethnically Palestinian (or Palestinian precursor) state, and little things like having a foreign king seem not to have reduced the national identity of, for instance, the English, so I think we could still call it that. Anyway, certainly none of the inhabitants of this Kingdom would have thought of themselves as being Palestinian, so this would all be foolish on our part.

 

[dtsj]

We're getting a tad off-topic here, so maybe we should start a new thread? Though perhaps that might have gone better if your Zionists had deigned to settle instead somewhere in South America, as was oft proposed.

Agreed and agreed. Suggest a forum, I don't know the site very well...
I think that the land that was proposed was in Uganda, and today it's in Kenya.
That land is rich in natural resources, and was much less settled.

I'll not fight you over a claim of greater expertise, it's possible that you do. Though I submit your reasoning is faulty: I know Americans who have lived in this country all of their lives and are still painfully ignorant of both American History and current affairs.

It was supposed to be funny...

If I grasp your meaning correctly...

The answer to that might depend a somewhat upon how one defines various Ottoman provinces in the region (which have at various times been semi-independent), but mostly upon when one acknowledges the development of a 'Palestinian' national identity as separate from the larger Arab Nationalist movement. It's rather obvious that 'Palestinian' is something of a contrivance, with no historical president or real meaning prior to the Zionist movement. I mean, certainly we do see elements of this identity even before the Young Turk Revolution, largely in reaction to the local arrival of non-Sephardic Jews, although it would be misleading to call those people Palestinian; preferring perhaps Al Misr or Al Suryah Arabic. The 1947 UN partition plan, as you no doubt know, calls for the creation of an Arab state, but not a Palestinian one. Of course, Palestinian nationalists will today say that this was the creation of a Palestinian state, one that was merely immediately annexed by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, but this is something of an anachronism given the weakness of the identity at the time.

If we are to ignore the consideration of how the people of the region define themselves, however, then in a moment of supreme irony, the best answer might actually be the Kingdom of Jerusalem under the Baldwins; even if the leadership was foreign, it would still have been an ethnically Palestinian (or Palestinian precursor) state, and little things like having a foreign king seem not to have reduced the national identity of, for instance, the English, so I think we could still call it that. Anyway, certainly none of the inhabitants of this Kingdom would have thought of themselves as being Palestinian, so this would all be foolish on our part.

I see you are well informed about the history of the conflict. It is a very pleasant surprise I must say...
The correct answer is of course when you do consider how the people define themselfs, a nation cannot be a nation if the people do not define themselfs as such.

 

[Deleted member 5174]

If I could travel back in time, I'd take the most scientific papers I could, proofs and experiments and trials and failed trials and what not, and show them to the scientific giants (and other giants of philosophy, etc.)

Then, we wouldn't have to deal with "But Newtwon was Christian!" or "Founding Fathers made America a Christian nation!"
At least not as much as we do now. I'm sure many of them would have changed their minds.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

If I could travel back in time, I'd take the most scientific papers I could, proofs and experiments and trials and failed trials and what not, and show them to the scientific giants (and other giants of philosophy, etc.)

Then, we wouldn't have to deal with "But Newtwon was Christian!" or "Founding Fathers made America a Christian nation!"
At least not as much as we do now. I'm sure many of them would have changed their minds.

I think you underestimate the stupidity and dishonesty of the people who make such arguments.