The question I have had for years is why none of the other Arab countries have taken in the "Palestinians"?

If you look at the region around Israel, it is sparsely populated. Egypt and Saudi Arabia could both give up a few hundred million acres on their mutual border and not notice it.

Condell is absolutely brutally truthful on Islam and his unwillingness to suffer any bullshyt about makes him an international treasure. Long may he tell truths.

Well, let's be honest that Christianity has a rather spotted history regarding the Jews. The "savior" of the West has not been faith. It was the breaking the back of religion's hold on society - notably the reformation as well as the Enlightenment - that made us civilized. The Arab spring may be the beginning of their Enlightenment or just another cycle of their Dark Ages.

Only time will tell.

Actually he makes one mistake. He says that the Palestinian misery is a result of their Jew hatred. I suspect that if they were to succeed in wiping out Israel and all the Jews they would still be miserable.

I think history has pretty clearly shown that where you find totalitarianism you find misery. Sharia is a form of totalitarianism.

The question I have had for years is why none of the other Arab countries have taken in the "Palestinians"?

Really? Two countries have taken in large numbers of "Palestinians": Jordan and Lebanon. How'd that work out? they attempted to murder Jordan's king and take their country. See Black September.

(continued, original post eaten by the spam monster because of multiple links)

And Lebanon got a nice little civil war an Sryian occupation for hosting the "Palestinians"...

After that, who in their right mind would take in the "Palestinians"?

@Andrew Hall: "Well, let's be honest that Christianity has a rather spotted history regarding the Jews. "
___________

History, yes, But not recent history, particularly in America. (Yes, there was Nazi Germany, and no Hitler was not a Christian, but it was largely western soldiers that died to stop him.)

Christianity in America, which is most of western christianity, has largely been kind and tolerant. And conservative Christians (the "religious right" that Jews seem so afraid of) tend to be, ironically, the Jews most loyal friends.

Andrew preaching the secular gospel:

The "savior" of the West has not been faith. It was the breaking the back of religion's hold on society - notably the reformation as well as the Enlightenment - that made us civilized.

But the Enlightenment didn't spring from nothing. In fact, it grew from Jewish ideas, further developed by Christianity.

So when Enlightenment philosophers started framing various "Universal Rights of Man" - those rights were only obvious or "universal" to people raised in the Judeo-Christian West.

No similar concept of individual human worth, conscience, or rights have arisen spontaneously anywhere else in the world.

Certainly Christendom had its problems with Judaism. But at least appeal could be made to common Judeo-Christian teaching - at least the Christian anti-Semite (like the Christian slaveholder) was being hypocritical.

No such appeal can be made in most non-Judeo-Christian cultures of the world, and the previous clarity on these moral matters is quickly being blurred in the "post-Christian" secular West.

But the Enlightenment didn't spring from nothing. In fact, it grew from Jewish ideas, further developed by Christianity.

Nice try! Might fit some tidy religious explanation on your part, but you're just not right. The Enlightenment sprang from the reintroduction of classical philosophy to the West (you know, all Aristotle, Plato, and so on), the progress in understanding the world made during the Scientific Revolution, and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Key enlightenment values are reason, autonomy, progress; religion was a backdrop at best.

Love Pat Condell, trouble is he appears to be the only person actually saying these things.

1. Shitty lighting.

2. Shitty audio / cheap, camera-mounted microphone.

3. Shitty (unvariegated) background.

4. Lens / proximity issues.

5. Onanistic intensity. What gives this fucker the right to look into his home video camera with such solipsistic ferocity, as if I've agreed to take him seriously?

________

Friends, countrymen: Why do you WATCH these things?

Can't you at least select a sexable pedant? (Why can't Patty at least do that Veronica Lake thing with his hair?)

If he'd write it out and put it on a blog or a pamphlet or the back of a book of matches, it would be easier to deal with.

But the Enlightenment didn't spring from nothing. In fact, it grew from Jewish ideas, further developed by Christianity.

Nice try! Might fit some tidy religious explanation on your part, but you're just not right. The Enlightenment sprang from the reintroduction of classical philosophy to the West
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nope.
The "universal rights of man" part of the Enlightenment has no parallel in classical Greco-Roman thought - only Judeo-Christian monotheism postulates that humans are created in the image of God - giving their lives worth independent of their skills or power - and fundamentally equal children of *one* God.

Plato's ideal "Republic" explicitly calls for the subjugation of the less able/well-connected, and views foreigners as sub-human barbarians.

Because when you look at the world through pagan eyes, there is no "universal equality and rights of man" - just a bunch of naked chimps, who are more or less strong/talented/useful.

But as you said - nice try!

only Judeo-Christian monotheism postulates that humans are created in the image of God - giving their lives worth independent of their skills or power

Right, have you forgotten slavery again? Or the ethnic cleansing your people visited on the people already living in Judea when your prople invaded from the Siani desert?

What gives this fucker the right to look into his home video camera with such solipsistic ferocity, as if I've agreed to take him seriously?

By that logic crid, who gave you the right to post here and why should we take you seriously?

"lujlp" -- I've never seen you deploy logic. Not once.

Who said anything about "rights"?

I get the feeling you're a shut-in, on the dole from some penurious state agency, but always angry when others get benefits. You mumble bitter tales of how the world done you wrong with its churches and the bris, trusting the ugliness of your topics to convey gravitas rather than isolation. And you like to pick a second-grader's arguments with me, for some reason. And I'm expected to to care and engage, or to admire your illiterate, infantile fartings as if they were principle. "Rights!"

Here's the difference: I don't watch Condell videos. I think they're pathetic.

But you apparently take me very seriously. For months I've begged you to ignore my comments, but you can't resist answering them with the most pointless, defendsive little belches you can muster. It's starting to seem like I give your life meaning, and the rest of it is daytime talk and Hot Pockets.

"luljp": Don't. Don't read; don't be convinced. No one cares, OK? Not about you, not about me, not about your opinions of me. AAAAaaaaaaaaaannnddd poof, it's over!

For Crid

“Crid,” “I'm” “not” “sure” “what” “happened” “to” “you” “on” “your” “hiatus,” “maybe” “it” “was” “some” “sort” “of” “traumatic” “brain” “injury,” “perhaps” “you” “decided” “that” “since” “your” “medication” “for” “your” “mental” “disorder” “was” “working” “you” “were” “cured” “and” “decided” “to” “stop” “taking” “it” “-” “either” “way,” “the” “net” “result” “is” “you” “and” “your” “arguments” “are” “a” “shadow” “of” “their” “former” “selves.”

“At” “one” “time” “you'd” “have” “torn” “apart” “an” “argument” “based” “on” “its” “context;” “not” “the” “fact” “that” “it” “was” “recorded” “from” “a” “web” “cam” “and” “the” “set” “up” “wasn’t” “professional” “enough” “to” “be” “watchable” “according” “to” “your” “unknown” “standards.”

“As” “for” “'rights'“ “and” “who” “brought” “them” “up?” ““ “Why” “that” “was” “you,” “in” “fact” “I” “even” “quoted” “you” “directly” “in” “order” “to” “avoid” “this” “confusion.” “Here” “it” “is” “again” “as” “you” “obviously” “missed” “it” “when” “I” “quoted” “you” “”What” “gives” “this” “fucker” “the” “right” “to” “look” “into” “his” “home” “video” “camera” “

“I” “took” “the” “liberty” “of” “only” “quoting” “the” “first” “half” “of” “your” “sentence” “in” “case” “reading” “the” “entire” “thing” “would” “be” “too” “taxing” “for” “you,” “as” “apparently” “it” “was” “the” “last” “time” “I” “quoted” “you”

“As” “for” “you” “not” “caring” “about” “me” “or” “what” “I” “write,” “if” “that” “we” “true” “you” “wouldn’t” “bother” “to” “respond,” “or” “put” “quotes” “around” “my” “name” “in” “a” “churlish” “attempt” “to” “annoy” “me,” “and” “you” “certainly” “wouldn’t” “go” “out” “of” “your” “way” “to” “explain” “how” “much” “you” “and” “everybody” “else” “doesn’t” “care.”

“You” “wrote” “something” “monumentally” “stupid” “and” “I” “responded,” “it’s” “as” “simple” “as” “that,” “I” “don’t” “care” “enough” “to” “stalk” “you” “-” “you” “might” “have” “noticed” “that” “I've” “never” “responded” “to” “your” “comments” “on” “other” “websites” “-” “then” “again” “with” “this” “recent” “cognitive” “impairment” “you” “might” “not” “have.”

“And” “finally” “if” “you” “don’t” “ever” “watch” “the” “guy's” “videos” “then” “how” “do” “you” “know” “what” “quality” “the” “video” “and” “audio” “are” “and” “that” “the” “background” “never” “changes?”

For everyone else

Crid, I'm not sure what happened to you on your hiatus, maybe it was some sort of traumatic brain injury, perhaps you decided that since your medication for your mental disorder was working you were cured and decided to stop taking it - either way, the net result is you and your arguments are a shadow of their former selves.

At one time you'd have torn apart an argument based on its context; not the fact that it was recorded from a web cam and the set up wasn’t professional enough to be watchable according to your unknown standards.

As for 'rights' and who brought them up? Why that was you, in fact I even quoted you directly in order to avoid this confusion. Here it is again as you obviously missed it when I quoted you "What gives this fucker the right to look into his home video camera

I took the liberty of only quoting the first half of your sentence in case reading the entire thing would be too taxing for you, as apparently it was the last time I quoted you

As for you not caring about me or what I write, if that we true you wouldn’t bother to respond, or put quotes around my name in a churlish attempt to annoy me, and you certainly wouldn’t go out of your way to explain how much you and everybody else doesn’t care.

You wrote something monumentally stupid and I responded, it’s as simple as that, I don’t care enough to stalk you - you might have noticed that I've never responded to your comments on other websites - then again with this recent cognitive impairment you might not have.

And finally if you don’t ever watch the guy's videos then how do you know what quality the video and audio are and that the back ground never changes?