Comments by "Acid Joke" (@PWMoze) on "Double Down News" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15.  @samirabenalia6473  There was never a 'time of Adam'. I think, like many people in this thread, you need a history lesson based upon facts rather than legend, misinformation and mythology. Allow me to provide one. The earliest historical records show that the area in question (which we shall call 'The Levant' so as to show no bias) was inhabited by the Canaanites. They were followed by the Egyptians and then, some time after 'the Bronze Age collapse', the Israelites. They were there for 414 years and established the Kingdom Of Judah. They were eventually replaced by the Babylonians, The Persians, The Greeks, interrupted briefly by the Hasmoneans or the Maccabee rebellion. This period was followed by a period of occupation by The Romans, then the Byzantine Empire, the Christians, the Sassanids and then the Muslim Caliphate under the Umayyad dynasty and later the Abassid dynasty. They were then followed by the Tulunids, The Falamids, The Seljuk Turks, The Christian Crusaders, The Ayyubids, The Khwarezmians, The Mamluks and The Ottomans who remained for 400 years. After WW1 the British and French assumed control over the entire region, with the British eventually passing responsibility for the region to the newly created states of Israel and Jordan. Finally this led to Israeli control of the region. Throughout all that time it was under Islamic control for 1,283 years, Judaism for 1,197 years, Christianity for 410 years. The people who occupied it for the longest were the Romans for 683 years, the ancient tribe of Judahites for 414 years and the Ottoman Turkss for 401 years. It has never been ruled over by the group we now call the Palestinians. If you are able, therefore, to conclude that a certain ethnic, religious or cultural group has more right to the Levant than another, you are probably over-simplifying. The future peace will based upon compromise, tolerance and co-operation, not fanaticism and religious dogma. Learn from history and then you might not repeat it.
    1
  16.  @samirabenalia6473  There was never a 'time of Adam'. I think, like many people in this thread, you need a history lesson based upon facts rather than legend, misinformation and mythology. Allow me to provide one. The earliest historical records show that the area in question (which we shall call 'The Levant' so as to show no bias) was inhabited by the Canaanites. They were followed by the Egyptians and then, some time after 'the Bronze Age collapse', the Israelites. They were there for 414 years and established the Kingdom Of Judah. They were eventually replaced by the Babylonians, The Persians, The Greeks, interrupted briefly by the Hasmoneans or the Maccabee rebellion. This period of occupancy was followed by The Romans, the Byzantine Empire, the Christians, the Sassanids and then the Muslim Caliphate under the Umayyad dynasty and then later the Abassid dynasty. They were then followed by the Tulunids, The Falamids, The Seljuk Turks, The Christian Crusaders, The Ayyubids, The Khwarezmians, The Mamluks and The Ottomans Turks who remained for 400 years. After WW1 the British assumed control eventually passng responsibility for the region to the ewly formed states of Israel and the Jordan. This eventually led to Israeli control. Throughout all that time the land was under Islamic control for 1,283 years, Judaism for 1,197 years, Christianity for 410 years. The people who occupied it for the longest were the Romans for 683 years, the Judahites for 414 years and the Ottomans for 401 years. It has never been ruled over by the group we now call the Palestinians. If you are able, therefore, to conclude that a certain ethnic, religious or cultural group has more right to the Levant than another, you are probably over-simplifying. The future peace will based upon compromise, co-operation and tolerance not fanaticism and religious dogma.
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. Disappointed with this content DDN. I've no objection to his stance on Palestine, but Its quite possible that people are so ready to misinterpret Roger Water's work at this time because of the various ill informed, rambling speeches that he has made on other subjcts in recent years. He has defended Russian agression in Ukraine, he has defended the CCP, he has spread various conspiracy theories about COVID and usually has very little statistical evidence or data to back any of it up. He is not bothered about evidence, he prefers invective, and swearing! He belittles people who don't agree with his perspective and usually insults them rather than debating with them. He presents his case in such a rambling, haphazard way, its often quite difficult to follow the logic or divorce it from all the ad hominem attacks. His grandiose statements about how he has been 'cancelled' because he is an existential threat to Isreal seems narcissistic, egotistical and frankly highly unlikely. It doesn't help the cause. In fact, in relation to the state brutality of Israel, I think his raging speeches alienate sensible people from the issue, rather than bringing people over to the right side of the debate. He does more harm than good with all his shouting and swearing. It doesn't make his argument stronger. And by the way, what reading exactly should we all do Roger? No doubt all the same books as him I suppose, and not the ones that counter his arguments because they must automatically be 'propaganda' and lies. He may well dismiss the mainstream media, but come on Roger, anyone with a world tour, huge record sales and an international platform is pretty mainstream too, surely? I know his fans will probably disagree with me, but I think he should stick to playing the bass and leave the political speeches to people who are not self-entitled, multi-millionaire meglomaniacs. And also apparently probably half drunk? People who are better at presenting their argument and better at debating with others rather than shouting at them and calling them rude names. And by the way Roger you did not write 'Dark Side of the Moon' and 'Wish You Were Here' they were a collaborative effort with Dave Gilmore, Rick Wright. Even Nick Mason contributed towards some of it. I always preferred the Syd Barett stuff anyway. And Dave Gilmore was a much better singer by the way.
    1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1