Noam Perel, Head Of Jewish Youth Movement Bnei Akiva, Calls For Israeli Army To Take 300 Palestinian Foreskins

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:51 pm

The leader of one of the world's biggest Jewish youth movements has refused to apologise for a Facebook post which appears to call for Israelis to take the foreskins of 300 Palestinians as retribution for the killing of three Israeli teenagers.

The post comes as violence flared again in east Jerusalem after the killing of a 16-year-old Palestinian, which police have hinted may have been a revenge attack by extremists for the brutal kidnapping and murder of three Jewish teenagers hitchhiking home in the West Bank.

According to screengrabs of his Facebook wall, Noam Perel, the secretary general of Bnei Akiva, called for the biblical retribution, the same violence King David meted out to the Philistines in the Old Testament as a way to win his bride Michal from her father Saul.

Bnei Akiva is the largest Jewish youth movement in the UK, running summer and winter camps and gap years in Israel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/02/bnei-akiva-israel-palestine_n_5551749.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Odd one this, because are not Palestinian Muslims circumcised?
Thus is he advocating retribution against Palestinian Christians, as they are not obligated too?

scratch

You see, those that advocate hate, seek to continue hate.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:25 am

That's very disturbing.

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:46 am

Pfft God commands this kind of thing..
It does literally command it in the bible

psychos

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:49 am

I'll never understand why people think books that are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old have any relevance to life today, whatever the faith.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:59 am

bcause human nature hasnt really changed that much in 4000 years...in fact probably not much in the past 50,000 years...

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:59 am

oooook

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:01 am

That is just sooooooooooooo sad! PS, did you read my email I sent you?

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:04 am

yuss...I did thank you...I havnt replied yet but will try tomorrow....

been a bit hampered for the last couple of days, due to a minor ummm misjudgement, which resulted in circular saw versus index finger

ow ow OW OW OW

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:07 am

victorisnotamused wrote:bcause human nature hasnt really changed that much in 4000 years...in fact probably not much in the past 50,000 years...

Human nature has changed though, where as before 4000 years ago, a slight to a nation would have caused them to go to war.

Actually there is little evidence to show Humans when hunter gatherers waged war upon each other, there is evidence of killings, but not of wars, so again things change all the time, now people are more restrained accept for those who advocate hate and by extension of this violence.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:16 am

victorisnotamused wrote:yuss...I did thank you...I havnt replied yet but will try tomorrow....

been a bit hampered for the last couple of days, due to a minor ummm misjudgement, which resulted in circular saw versus index finger

ow ow OW OW OW

Oh that sounds nasty, hope it's getting better xx

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:18 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:bcause human nature hasnt really changed that much in 4000 years...in fact probably not much in the past 50,000 years...

Human nature has changed though, where as before 4000 years ago, a slight to a nation would have caused them to go to war.

Actually there is little evidence to show Humans when hunter gatherers waged war upon each other, there is evidence of killings, but not of wars, so again things change all the time, now people are more restrained accept for those who advocate hate and by extension of this violence.

Quite right
The Aboriginals had no concept of warfare, didn't even have real shields and all their weapons are designed for hunting not killing other men, they might have had minor fights and disputes but not the organised warfare of 'civilised' nations

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:25 am

yer but

you aint gonna find any evidence even if it DID happen ...are you???

hunter gatherer tribes were small....so no mass "burials"

what makes you think that any victors would not have eaten the defeated?

you aint going to find evidence of weapons of war (i.e distinct from normal hunters "tools")

war per se I would think required the founding of settlements
whereby a group claimed a prime patch of land for itself, to the exclusion of others....and concentrated wealth in the form of foood, beasts, crops, weapons etc....

then the risk is outweighed by the potential gains....

but I doubt our essential nature is much changed....

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:30 am

victorisnotamused wrote:yer but
you aint gonna find any evidence even if it DID happen ...are you???
hunter gatherer tribes were small....so no mass "burials"
what makes you think that any victors would not have eaten the defeated?
you aint going to find evidence of weapons of war (i.e distinct from normal hunters "tools")
war per se I would think required the founding of settlements
whereby a group claimed a prime patch of land for itself, to the exclusion of others....and concentrated wealth in the form of foood, beasts, crops, weapons etc....
then the risk is outweighed by the potential gains....
but I doubt our essential nature is much changed....

Again absurd, there is evidence from human remains, where this has been looked into.
No war does not require the founding of settlements, that is horseshit, what about the Native American Indians, who were nomadic? How about Ghengis Khan? Atilla the Hun? All these were small nomadic groups that later formed confederations.

Also see below

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20130722

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:42 am

They are nomadic and they had very little concept of ownership, the 2 things that make it most difficult for them to adapt to western lifestyle are probably the 2 things that made them so un-warlike. keep in mind they did not even have stone spear or axe heads.

And regarding weapon the Maori and pacific islanders have weapon that are hunting weapons and fighting weapons the designs are different.

Even in Europe the evolution of the Axe from a tool to a weapon is quite apparent in Nordic history.
Noam Perel, Head Of Jewish Youth Movement Bnei Akiva, Calls For Israeli Army To Take 300 Palestinian Foreskins 201104260002

Noam Perel, Head Of Jewish Youth Movement Bnei Akiva, Calls For Israeli Army To Take 300 Palestinian Foreskins 201104260002

From Right to left you can see the addition of the counter weight to the head and the broadening of the blade

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:42 am

...he wants 300 of their foreskins?...what a dick( pun intended).

Anyway, calling for 300 because 3 were killed ,the guy not to sharp at the math.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:43 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:yer but
you aint gonna find any evidence even if it DID happen ...are you???
hunter gatherer tribes were small....so no mass "burials"
what makes you think that any victors would not have eaten the defeated?
you aint going to find evidence of weapons of war (i.e distinct from normal hunters "tools")
war per se I would think required the founding of settlements
whereby a group claimed a prime patch of land for itself, to the exclusion of others....and concentrated wealth in the form of foood, beasts, crops, weapons etc....
then the risk is outweighed by the potential gains....
but I doubt our essential nature is much changed....

Again absurd, there is evidence from human remains, where this has been looked into.
No war does not require the founding of settlements, that is horseshit, what about the Native American Indians, who were nomadic? How about Ghengis Khan? Atilla the Hun? All these were small nomadic groups that later formed confederations.

Also see below

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20130722

erm I hate to point out your temporal error didge....

but native americans, atilla the hun ghegis khan etc were NOT hunter gatherers, living 50,000 years ago

nomads are not comparable, since they have effectively "settled an area" and have "concentrated wealth there" in the form of herds and (relatively) large communities which are worth raiding for currency slaves and wives

NOT the same thing.

I didnt say war has deep evolutionary roots either so stop staw manning

I DID say its unlikely that early hunter gatherers indulged in war.....
firstly their tribes were family groups, small and thus generally unable to "afford" losing members of the "tribe"
secondly it makes far more sense for hunter gatherers to co-operate now and again
thirdly you want to stay friendly with uggs tribe...cos you might want to marry your daughter to his son....

BUT still...you would NOT be able to show evidence...even if it did happen..not from that time period....

war began when populations got to sufficient size that there was "spare capacity" in terms of man power, such that losing a few members was sustainable and once the "group "was big enough to spare men to train as opposed to working in the field....

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:51 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:yer but
you aint gonna find any evidence even if it DID happen ...are you???
hunter gatherer tribes were small....so no mass "burials"
what makes you think that any victors would not have eaten the defeated?
you aint going to find evidence of weapons of war (i.e distinct from normal hunters "tools")
war per se I would think required the founding of settlements
whereby a group claimed a prime patch of land for itself, to the exclusion of others....and concentrated wealth in the form of foood, beasts, crops, weapons etc....
then the risk is outweighed by the potential gains....
but I doubt our essential nature is much changed....

Again absurd, there is evidence from human remains, where this has been looked into.
No war does not require the founding of settlements, that is horseshit, what about the Native American Indians, who were nomadic? How about Ghengis Khan? Atilla the Hun? All these were small nomadic groups that later formed confederations.

Also see below

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20130722

erm I hate to point out your temporal error didge....

but native americans, atilla the hun ghegis khan etc were NOT hunter gatherers, living 50,000 years ago

nomads are not comparable, since they have effectively "settled an area" and have "concentrated wealth there" in the form of herds and (relatively) large communities which are worth raiding for currency slaves and wives

NOT the same thing.

I didnt say war has deep evolutionary roots either so stop staw manning

I DID say its unlikely that early hunter gatherers indulged in war.....
firstly their tribes were family groups, small and thus generally unable to "afford" losing members of the "tribe"
secondly it makes far more sense for hunter gatherers to co-operate now and again
thirdly you want to stay friendly with uggs tribe...cos you might want to marry your daughter to his son....

BUT still...you would NOT be able to show evidence...even if it did happen..not from that time period....

war began when populations got to sufficient size that there was "spare capacity" in terms of man power, such that losing a few members was sustainable and once the "group "was big enough to spare men to train as opposed to working in the field....

well 50,000 years ago we still had Neanderthals to fight, Aboriginals where still living fairly similar lifestyle when Europeans arrived. there is a few factors that you can say are the point War exists, the invention of Shields Swords and Armour are All examples of war technology as they have no use for hunter gatherers and we know they start appearing in societies that reach the size and complexity to support a military or paramilitary element beyond the acquisition of food.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:52 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again absurd, there is evidence from human remains, where this has been looked into.
No war does not require the founding of settlements, that is horseshit, what about the Native American Indians, who were nomadic? How about Ghengis Khan? Atilla the Hun? All these were small nomadic groups that later formed confederations.

Also see below

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20130722

erm I hate to point out your temporal error didge....
but native americans, atilla the hun ghegis khan etc were NOT hunter gatherers, living 50,000 years ago
nomads are not comparable, since they have effectively "settled an area" and have "concentrated wealth there" in the form of herds and (relatively) large communities which are worth raiding for currency slaves and wives
NOT the same thing.

I didnt say war has deep evolutionary roots either so stop staw manning

I DID say its unlikely that early hunter gatherers indulged in war.....
firstly their tribes were family groups, small and thus generally unable to "afford" losing members of the "tribe"
secondly it makes far more sense for hunter gatherers to co-operate now and again
thirdly you want to stay friendly with uggs tribe...cos you might want to marry your daughter to his son....

BUT still...you would NOT be able to show evidence...even if it did happen..not from that time period....

war began when populations got to sufficient size that there was "spare capacity" in terms of man power, such that losing a few members was sustainable and once the "group "was big enough to spare men to train as opposed to working in the field....

Incorrect again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277071/hunting-and-gathering-culture

Thus the lifestyles of the Huns, the Mongols and native American Indians, were hunter gatherers.

Nomads do not settle, that is absurd, it is a temporary measure until foods are exhausted, they continue to move on to new areas with sources of food, they are thus hunter gatherers.

Your hypothesis is also flawed, why would they need to get along just to marry from another tribe, that again is absurd, when many families married within their group or of a clan over a wide area.

So again war happens when civilization really started, based mainly on material wealth, as the objective, being that from items to the furthest extreme humans themselves, an envy of what others had. So it is technology and civilization that has really brought about the advent of war itself, this shows again change and how now we are reverting back to more restraint

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:53 am

veya_victaous wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

erm I hate to point out your temporal error didge....

but native americans, atilla the hun ghegis khan etc were NOT hunter gatherers, living 50,000 years ago

nomads are not comparable, since they have effectively "settled an area" and have "concentrated wealth there" in the form of herds and (relatively) large communities which are worth raiding for currency slaves and wives

NOT the same thing.

I didnt say war has deep evolutionary roots either so stop staw manning

I DID say its unlikely that early hunter gatherers indulged in war.....
firstly their tribes were family groups, small and thus generally unable to "afford" losing members of the "tribe"
secondly it makes far more sense for hunter gatherers to co-operate now and again
thirdly you want to stay friendly with uggs tribe...cos you might want to marry your daughter to his son....

BUT still...you would NOT be able to show evidence...even if it did happen..not from that time period....

war began when populations got to sufficient size that there was "spare capacity" in terms of man power, such that losing a few members was sustainable and once the "group "was big enough to spare men to train as opposed to working in the field....

well 50,000 years ago we still had Neanderthals to fight, Aboriginals where still living fairly similar lifestyle when Europeans arrived. there is a few factors that you can say are the point War exists, the invention of Shields Swords and Armour are All examples of war technology as they have no use for hunter gatherers and we know they start appearing in societies that reach the size and complexity to support a military or paramilitary element beyond the acquisition of food.

sigh......which is exactly the piont I was making.....

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:59 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

erm I hate to point out your temporal error didge....
but native americans, atilla the hun ghegis khan etc were NOT hunter gatherers, living 50,000 years ago
nomads are not comparable, since they have effectively "settled an area" and have "concentrated wealth there" in the form of herds and (relatively) large communities which are worth raiding for currency slaves and wives
NOT the same thing.

I didnt say war has deep evolutionary roots either so stop staw manning

I DID say its unlikely that early hunter gatherers indulged in war.....
firstly their tribes were family groups, small and thus generally unable to "afford" losing members of the "tribe"
secondly it makes far more sense for hunter gatherers to co-operate now and again
thirdly you want to stay friendly with uggs tribe...cos you might want to marry your daughter to his son....

BUT still...you would NOT be able to show evidence...even if it did happen..not from that time period....

war began when populations got to sufficient size that there was "spare capacity" in terms of man power, such that losing a few members was sustainable and once the "group "was big enough to spare men to train as opposed to working in the field....

Incorrect again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277071/hunting-and-gathering-culture

Nomads do not settle, that is absurd, it is a temporary measure until foods are exhausted, they continue to move on to new areas with sources of food, they are thus hunter gatherers.

Oh bollocks didge...you "have " to be right even when you are wrong dont you
nomads are NOT hunter gatherers....(except as opportunists like the odd herbs and fruits)and yes they effectively "settle" an area often having summer and winter areas...which they claim as their own ie "settle"

Your hypothesis is also flawed, why would they need to get along just to marry from another tribe, that again is absurd, when many families married within their group or of a clan over a wide area.
50,000 years ago?....give over didge
small family groups, widley scattered....and in occaisional contact with other groups....

So again war happens when civilization really started, based mainly on material wealth, as the objective, being that from items to the furthest extreme humans themselves, an envy of what others had. So it is technology and civilization that has really brought about the advent of war itself, this shows again change and how now we are reverting back to more restraint

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:00 am

No it is not even the same, it is civilizations that invent shields and then later Armour, so again it is envy of material wealth that creates war itself of what others have, as seen in my previous points.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:02 am

Didge wrote:No it is not even the same, it is civilizations that invent shields and then later Armour, so again it is envy of material wealth that creates war itself of what others have, as seen in my previous points.

wtf is this in reply to???

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:04 am

victorisnotamused wrote:

Oh bollocks didge...you "have " to be right even when you are wrong dont you
nomads are NOT hunter gatherers....(except as opportunists like the odd herbs and fruits)and yes they effectively "settle" an area often having summer and winter areas...which they claim as their own ie "settle"

50,000 years ago?....give over didge
small family groups, widley scattered....and in occaisional contact with other groups....

You need to grow up in a debate, where if people disagree with you , that you stop diverting to the poster when they show some of your views are flawed and as seen Nomads are a form of hunter gatherers, there is no denying this, they fit the aspect very well as seen. This does not escape from my point that it is civilizations that brought about war through envy of material wealth. not only that I have evidence from anthropologists to back my stance.
If it was rare such occurrences of meeting other humans then why do we now today have small genetic amounts of DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans?

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:05 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:No it is not even the same, it is civilizations that invent shields and then later Armour, so again it is envy of material wealth that creates war itself of what others have, as seen in my previous points.

wtf is this in reply to???

You obviously in reply to your reply to Veya, you failed to understand his point!

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:10 am

The social structure of the Huns civilization was affected by political structure in that it changed the roles of the social classes. While other civilizations were settled, the Huns were nomadic, which brought them to live like hunter-gatherers. The political structure affected how the rich and the poor interacted. Most of the people were warriors, and therefore the poor and the rich interacted more than in other civilizations, because they all fought together. The idea of social classes within the men of the Huns wasn't very defined, because of the military and way the leaders were selected.

https://sites.google.com/site/ahdhunsresearchproject2012/home/applications/social-structure

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:12 am

Siberia (the Asian part of Russia) is a frigid land covered mainly in softwood forest, with tundra in the far north; prior to the Russian expansion, this region was populated by small nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers and reindeer herders.3 Compared with Siberia, the Steppe is mild and fertile, allowing much larger tribes to flourish there. Indeed, the Steppe gave rise to the largest nomadic tribes the world has ever seen.

Main Article

Traditional Steppe Life

The traditional lifestyle of the Steppe is nomadic herding. Grassland is ideal for such a lifestyle, as it provides a regenerating food supply for grazing animals. The vastness of the Steppe allowed tribes to maintain as many animals as they could manage, including sheep, goats, and cattle. On the other hand, the nomadic lifestyle of these tribes prevented civilization (urban life) from ever developing in the Steppe region (prior to the modern age).1

The most important animal for Steppe life was the horse, used for both transportation and combat. Indeed, it was the Steppe tribes that achieved the domestication of the horse, as well as the innovation of riding horseback. These advances diffused from the Steppe across the Old World.1

Prior to the age of gunpowder, cavalry was the world's supreme land-based military unit. The Steppe tribes thus held a great military advantage over settled cultures, in that they could easily maintain great herds of horses; settled peoples, on the other hand, were forced to incur the major expense of feeding horses with farmed grain. Until the development of advanced gunpowder weapons, raids by Steppe tribes were a constant and serious danger to settlements across much of Eurasia.1

The primary form of traditional social organization on the Steppe is the tribe. When great numbers were needed, however (e.g. for raiding or empire-building), tribes often joined together in confederations. Tribal loyalties remained paramount, however, such that Steppe confederations were prone to civil war.

http://www.essential-humanities.net/world-history/steppe/

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:18 am

it appears that nomads can have war they do claim territories etc they just don't set up permanent settlements but still have territorial boundaries and fight between themselves over the specifics. they still have concepts of ownership regarding herds and women etc so they is still room for disputes that could evolve into warfare.... which it did to the highest extent in the Steppes.

Interesting there are parts of both your and victors arguments that are true. One of the those things it seems where it is not so black and white, some nomads clearly had war while others didn't.

I think the sword is the proof of war, Sword are great for fighting other humans but not good for hunting and pretty shit as a cutting tool, axes spears, bows and arrows are part weapon, part tool.

Spartans are an example with very little concern for physical wealth more just a decision to All be Fighters instead of Farmers.
I think it is cultural, it is a natural advancement of a society once it reaches a certain size and complexity but there are other factors like external pressure or the social structures of neighbouring peoples. Aboriginals lacking many of the external pressures remained relatively warless while the steppes tribes had many of these external pressures making them more warlike.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:22 am

bugger it didge...i aint bothering...you are obviously such an exspurt in everything

lets see

history
science
technology
animal welfare
animal psychology
ethics
religion
ethnology
human psychology
international relationships
fuck me you even know what folks mean better than what they do....

so theres no point debating anything ...since its never a debate...just another driveling "didge lecture"

even when someone supports an equally valid but different view point to yours...you HAVE to be right....

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:
it appears that nomads can have war they do claim territories etc they just don't set up permanent settlements but still have territorial boundaries and fight between themselves over the specifics. they still have concepts of ownership regarding herds and women etc so they is still room for disputes that could evolve into warfare.... which it did to the highest extent in the Steppes.

Interesting there are parts of both your and victors arguments that are true. One of the those things it seems where it is not so black and white, some nomads clearly had war while others didn't.

I think the sword is the proof of war, Sword are great for fighting other humans but not good for hunting and pretty shit as a cutting tool, axes spears, bows and arrows are part weapon, part tool.

Spartans are an example with very little concern for physical wealth more just a decision to All be Fighters instead of Farmers.
I think it is cultural, it is a natural advancement of a society once it reaches a certain size and complexity but there are other factors like external pressure or the social structures of neighbouring peoples. Aboriginals lacking many of the external pressures remained relatively warless while the steppes tribes had many of these external pressures making them more warlike.

The Spartans were very unique, a nation on a continuous war footing, where they enslaved people ten time their numbers to sustain society, as well as the middle class free men Perioikoi.
There was limitations though to their expansion mainly due to their numbers, which they found to their cost when they tried to take Tegea, they got humiliated and then had to come up with a ruse on some bones of Orestes (son of Agamemnon to seek an alliance with them. They were one of the strongest allies for many years. They were some of the most renowned troops of the ancient world mind

Anyway have to go, so night all

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:30 am

victorisnotamused wrote:bugger it didge...i aint bothering...you are obviously such an exspurt in everything

lets see

history Extensive knowledge
science Limited
technology Very limited
animal welfare Limited
animal psychology Limited
ethics Extensive
religion Extensive
ethnology working knowledge
human psychology Extensive
international relationships Good working knowledge
fuck me you even know what folks mean better than what they do....

so theres no point debating anything ...since its never a debate...just another driveling "didge lecture"

even when someone supports an equally valid but different view point to yours...you HAVE to be right....

All it shows is you detract from a debate, when you come up short, even more so on the Cain debate, when I used the same academic as you to back my views and here no on who are forms of hunter gatherers. This is why you are being childish. You need to stop throwing your dummy out and grow up and clearly it is you that has the problem when you have little to counter back with, you come out with childish excuses and seek to attack the poster instead.
That is both lame and pathetic, not my fault being younger than you on certain subjects I tend to have more knowledge on certain subject through reading and studying, as I am sure you have on some too.
There are areas I have very little knowledge in but just do not get involved in such debates, more than anything I am just very good at showing flaws in views claimed

So again be a good chap and grow the fuck up

Night

by Original Quill Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:55 pm

veya_victaous wrote:well 50,000 years ago we still had Neanderthals to fight, Aboriginals where still living fairly similar lifestyle when Europeans arrived. there is a few factors that you can say are the point War exists, the invention of Shields Swords and Armour are All examples of war technology as they have no use for hunter gatherers and we know they start appearing in societies that reach the size and complexity to support a military or paramilitary element beyond the acquisition of food.

The interplay between modes of economic production--such as hunter-gatherer, agrarian and industrial--defined the interaction between societies in terms of peace and/or war. According to Lynn White, Jr., warfare technology is more closely associated with agrarian societies.

Warfare begins in competition. Thus warfare is defined by the nature of the object of the competition. By object, we generally think of food, but it can be other more complex things as well—economic production. To the hunter-gatherer the nature of the object is opportunistic: it depends on when prey presents itself or objects to be gathered are present. To the farmer, the object becomes more stable and permanent.

There is certainly competition between and among hunter-gatherer societies, but only over such things as prey, shellfish, nuts and berries, etc. Thus the possibility for conflict is only relatively chance and occasional. Competition for prey and collection depends on where the prey is found, and that factor changes with conditions and climate. True, we can broaden our scope and speak of hunting territories, but the whole layout suggests that successful hunting and gathering groups be smaller and temporary, and occasions for conflict fewer.

The possibility for conflict increases exponentially when the mode of economic production become agrarian. Land to grow crops and graze animals is introduced as an economic factor. Land, as distinct from hunting territories, is relatively permanent and can be spatially defined. Hence, land becomes an object of dispute and territories become well-defined. Boundaries appear, and maps to abstractly articulate the object of competition take shape. The terrain of warfare becomes important, and the placement of castles and forts add to the relative permanency of land.

Professor White uses an example to portray the link between agrarianism and war…the invention of the stirrup. Before the mounted knight, horses had long been used in battle. But, either the horse-mounted warrior had to be confined to a chariot, or he was limited to small, relatively insignificant weapons that could be wielded by the grip of the knees, and he was limited as to armor. But things changed radically with the addition of the stirrup. The stirrup gave the mounted warrior an ability to plant his feet while on horseback, and hence the mounted knight became the first cavalry (which is followed-up today with tanks and helicopters), merging speed, armor and heavy weaponry together in a single unit.

But, horses need land, as does corn, grain and room for cattle and sheep to graze. A symbiosis took shape between the economic mode of agriculture, technology and war—or, more specifically, the ability to defend the land. Voila…the Landed Aristocracy. The means of government and power, as well as the ability of war, was defined by the economic means of production.

So…but all the king’s horses, and all the kings men…couldn’t put humpty-dumpty back together again. And we are voting for Scottish Independence, when?

by gerber Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:01 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:bugger it didge...i aint bothering...you are obviously such an exspurt in everything

lets see

history
science
technology
animal welfare
animal psychology
ethics
religion
ethnology
human psychology
international relationships
fuck me you even know what folks mean better than what they do....

so theres no point debating anything ...since its never a debate...just another driveling "didge lecture"

even when someone supports an equally valid but different view point to yours...you HAVE to be right....

He is THE Professor of ALL forums.................. no subject is beneath his knowledge.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:50 pm

well you know what an "expert" (exspurt) is dont you

an ex is a has been
and a spurt is a drip under pressure......

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:52 pm

Now, I like that definition.

On the subject of the thread, Noam Perel sounds just as extremist as any other extremist, and I don't think it's just foreskins he's referring to.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:38 pm

Well I'm an extreme moderate, and I'm going to bomb you all into moderation, which will be policed by my moderators
who will have the power to summararily execute anyone not being moderate Razz

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:43 pm

Bombing's old hat, can't you come up with anything new lol

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:12 pm

teh true..but its traditional....

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:15 pm

Now when were you and I traditional lol. Personally I'd lock them in a room with Andrea Borman clips on a repeat circuit for weeks lol

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:16 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:well you know what an "expert" (exspurt) is dont you

an ex is a has been
and a spurt is a drip under pressure......

lol I see you forgot to pick all your dummies off this thread last night.

Seriously, grow the fuck up, its pathetic

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:19 pm

Oh here we go looby lou
here we go looby lie
here we go down the drain
cos clever dick's posting again.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:24 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh here we go looby lou
here we go looby lie
here we go down the drain
cos clever dick's posting again.

And sassy breaking the rules already

Grow up sassy, you do enough stirring on this forum already.

Your score tally of sites imploding is impressive enough, time you also learnt to grow up!

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:25 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:well you know what an "expert" (exspurt) is dont you

an ex is a has been
and a spurt is a drip under pressure......

lol I see you forgot to pick all your dummies off this thread last night.

Seriously, grow the fuck up, its pathetic

well that told me didnt it...

I'm SOOOOOO upset ......

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:26 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

lol I see you forgot to pick all your dummies off this thread last night.

Seriously, grow the fuck up, its pathetic

well that told me didnt it...

I'm SOOOOOO upset ......

Clearly you still need to move on, as people are going to disagree with you on things in life, hence why you are acting very silly!

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:27 pm

Oh, and he told me too, whatever shall I do, my heart is breaking and I'm crying. The crying is with laughter though, bless him, he should be on the stage, he's even more miserable that Jack Dee.

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:28 pm

You know what Ben said about always picturing Nems sucking on a lemon? I think she lends it to Didge lol

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:29 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh, and he told me too, whatever shall I do, my heart is breaking and I'm crying. The crying is with laughter though, bless him, he should be on the stage, he's even more miserable that Jack Dee.

Well as it seems all you can do is try to stir up matters between posters, it will only be a matter of time before Ben sees that you are a fundamental problem on this forum, as you have been on so many Sassy.

I am happy to wait!

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:32 pm

Sassy wrote:You know what Ben said about always picturing Nems sucking on a lemon? I think she lends it to Didge lol

See now you are dragging in other posters, who have not even debated here, you have offered nothing to this debate and just jumped in to start on posters.

Keep it up, because it just proves the point of what many people are saying.

I like Victor and most of the time we always have digs, but respect his views loads, but we have always been on logger heads on certain views and he knows this too!

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:35 pm

and at the moment I'm a loggerheads with my left index finger

ow
ow
ow
ow
ow

bllody 'ell OW

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:49 pm

gerber wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:bugger it didge...i aint bothering...you are obviously such an exspurt in everything

lets see

history
science
technology
animal welfare
animal psychology
ethics
religion
ethnology
human psychology
international relationships
fuck me you even know what folks mean better than what they do....

so theres no point debating anything ...since its never a debate...just another driveling "didge lecture"

even when someone supports an equally valid but different view point to yours...you HAVE to be right....

He is THE Professor of ALL forums.................. no subject is beneath his knowledge.

Quite! All Hail the Grand Master lol

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:50 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:and at the moment I'm a loggerheads with my left index finger

ow
ow
ow
ow
ow

bllody 'ell OW

I do hope that's not death from a thousand didge-cuts, being bored to death is not funny ::D::

by Sponsored content