NationStates Jolt Archive

The state of Israel will soon be history, says Iran's President

THE President of Iran further fuelled the flames of confrontation with the West yesterday by saying that the “Zionist regime” in Israel would soon be annihilated.

...

The Iranian leader, appearing at a conference on the Palestinian issue yesterday, said that Israel was “heading towards annihilation”, questioned whether the Holocaust had ever happened, and predicted that the Middle East would “soon be liberated”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2135387,00.html

Does Iran have a death wish or something? And this guy has a nuclear program? Anyone else afraid of what might happen if Iran is actually building nukes?

Probably. But truly, this is old news. Isreal would probably end up sending a couple of missils into Iran for being so troublesome and pestering.

The state of Israel will soon be history, says Iran's President

THE President of Iran further fuelled the flames of confrontation with the West yesterday by saying that the “Zionist regime” in Israel would soon be annihilated.

...

The Iranian leader, appearing at a conference on the Palestinian issue yesterday, said that Israel was “heading towards annihilation”, questioned whether the Holocaust had ever happened, and predicted that the Middle East would “soon be liberated”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2135387,00.html

Does Iran have a death wish or something? And this guy has a nuclear program? Anyone else afraid of what might happen if Iran is actually building nukes?

No. I'm afraid what might happen if Bush is elected for a 3rd period.

And this guy cracks me up. Really does.

No. I'm afraid what might happen if Bush is elected for a 3rd period.

I guess you don't realize that Bush cannot run again?

And this guy cracks me up. Really does.

Yea the Iranian President has one heck of a sense of humor :rolleyes:

I think that any sane person should side with this Persian fuck.

Israel = ethnocentric zionist terror state.

Even Orthodox Jews say Israel shouldn't exist.

I support a Palestine, in which Jews, Moslems, and Christians could all live side-by-side, not what we have now (Israel) which is explicitly a state for Jews (giving Moslems and Christians unequal rights to that of the Jews).

I think that any sane person should side with this Persian fuck.

Israel = ethnocentric zionist terror state.

Even Orthodox Jews say Israel shouldn't exist.

I support a Palestine, in which Jews, Moslems, and Christians could all live side-by-side, not what we have now (Israel) which is explicitly a state for Jews (giving Moslems and Christians unequal rights to that of the Jews).

I agree that Israel should allow for more toleration however, I don't see a reason to support someone who wants to wipe off the map the very people that real Muslims consider their brothers.

I agree that Israel should allow for more toleration however, I don't see a reason to support someone who wants to wipe off the map the very people that real Muslims consider their brothers.

Not the people, but the state.

In itself, the name "Israel" is ethnocentric, as it is a direct reference to Jacob and the name that YHWH gave to him, which means "struggle with YHWH".

That is why I support a state in that region under the name of Palestine, since Palestine is the historical name for that area (ever since the Romans, that is), Palestine does not convey in it any explicit religious or ethnocentric ideas, and a Palestine would let everyone, regardless of religion, ethnicity, et cetera, become an equal citizen.

No. I'm afraid what might happen if Bush is elected for a 3rd period.

Luckily Bush cannot run again. For once I am happy that term limits are in place.

I think that any sane person should side with this Persian fuck.

Israel = ethnocentric zionist terror state.

Even Orthodox Jews say Israel shouldn't exist.

I support a Palestine, in which Jews, Moslems, and Christians could all live side-by-side, not what we have now (Israel) which is explicitly a state for Jews (giving Moslems and Christians unequal rights to that of the Jews).

Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and those Muslims living in Gaza and the West Bank, the idea that they can live together in the same state is plainly absurd. This kind've proposition and others like it, e.g. the right of return, would result in unparalleled oppression of Jews and Judaism, only via demographic and democratic rather than military means. If you have a unified state of Palestine the electorate will be overwhelmingly Muslim and one has to only look at the way predominantly Islamic countries treat minorities in their midst to imagine what their policies would be towards Jewish Israelis.

I believe that the Jewish state ought to allow the same rights to all its individuals, that has to be a corner stone of any modern democratic society yet this 'one state solution' you propose would likely only serve to bring about a second holocaust.

This kind've proposition and others like it, e.g. the right of return, would result in unparalleled oppression of Jews and Judaism, only via demographic and democratic rather than military means.
Oh, noes. You mean, a minority will actually have to behave like a minority would in any parliament?

Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and those Muslims living in Gaza and the West Bank, the idea that they can live together in the same state is plainly absurd. This kind've proposition and others like it, e.g. the right of return, would result in unparalleled oppression of Jews and Judaism, only via demographic and democratic rather than military means. If you have a unified state of Palestine the electorate will be overwhelmingly Muslim and one has to only look at the way predominantly Islamic countries treat minorities in their midst to imagine what their policies would be towards Jewish Israelis.

I believe that the Jewish state ought to allow the same rights to all its individuals, that has to be a corner stone of any modern democratic society yet this 'one state solution' you propose would likely only serve to bring about a second holocaust.Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and Muslims: Israel should have been created in Europe or North America.

Oh, noes. You mean, a minority will actually have to behave like a minority would in any parliament?

No, I mean the minority would be the victim of insidious brutalisation and repression.

Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and Muslims: Israel should have been created in Europe or North America.
Israel shouldn’t have been created at all.

Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and Muslims: Israel should have been created in Europe or North America.

The Jewish state was established where a large number of Jews had migrated to. Establishing an "Israel" in North America or Europe would have been about as impractical as establishing it on the moon.

"Soon" is an awfully relative term.

The problem is, creating any new country anywhere forces someone out. The days when a superpower could redraw a region's borders and create new political entities without penalty, died earlier in the century. This particular colonial technique has not given rise to much long-term success. Witness Iraq.

Unlike Bush, what has Captain Crackpot done? Bluster and empty-handed fist shakings as far as I can see. Who the hell listens to him any more? I think they just report every threat for shits and giggles, it probably is an easy report compared to reporting real shit.

The Jewish state was established where a large number of Jews had migrated to.

New York?

New York?
South Florida?

I'm against any state that is borne of nothing but religious dogma and enforces that dogma with firepower.

The majority of jews in Israel are extremists, getting ever-so-pissed when someone whizzes on their "special wall of god" or whatever it is.

Israel is a perfect example as to why I dislike religion in general.


That being said, Iran is a fuck of a nation and is no better.

Some of Iran's leaders think he is pushing the envelope. Maybe the Ayatollah will get rid of him...

~~SNIP~~
Are these the same Iranians that you want to BBQ?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21

So why not let them have a go at each other when the time is right? I don't see why the rest of us have to pick sides.

So why not let them have a go at each other when the time is right? I don't see why the rest of us have to pick sides.

Apparently, picking sides is what caused 9/11 if you believe what OBL said.

Israel shouldn’t have been created at all.

They have a right to a homeland.

I'm against any state that is borne of nothing but religious dogma and enforces that dogma with firepower.

The majority of jews in Israel are extremists, getting ever-so-pissed when someone whizzes on their "special wall of god" or whatever it is.

Israel is a perfect example as to why I dislike religion in general.


That being said, Iran is a fuck of a nation and is no better.

Extremists? Then why did they vote in a centre government?

Given the history and the conflicting political and religious cultures of Jews and Muslims: Israel should have been created in Europe or North America.

And you wonder why people do not take your viewpoints seriously...

They have a right to a homeland.

Who does? And what right legitimizes the inequality of everyone but those who are chosen for this supposed "homeland"?

Why was it bad for Germany to want to wipe out everyone and create a homeland of their own?

They have a right to a homeland.
Why? Just because a few million got killed during the holocaust? Please.

Gypsies, Kurds, Tibetans and various native peoples of the Americas do not have a homeland, nor do they “deserve” one.

Extremists? Then why did they vote in a centre government?

I'm not aware of one. Their actions (militaristic and overly religious) are more defining than their title (centre? If you say so.).

Luckily Bush cannot run again. For once I am happy that term limits are in place.
Didn't Congress recently repeal the law restricting a President from seeking a third term?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:24:./list/bss/d109HJ.lst:@@@L&summ2=m&

This bitch is a Demon A Demon I tell you. Someone must do something about this, Iran wants a War thats why they are saying sutch foul stuff. This has got to stop. THe world is better off without this freak in power(Iran).
"Prenez garde ! Vos démons nous pinceront jusqu'à ce que nous apprennions les laissions partir !"

Who does? And what right legitimizes the inequality of everyone but those who are chosen for this supposed "homeland"?

Why was it bad for Germany to want to wipe out everyone and create a homeland of their own?

Why was it bad? Are you out of your mind? The creation of Israel was long over due, and they have a historical right to that land.

They have a right to a homeland.

It is written in Talmud that Jews can only return to Israel by the will of God, not by military might. It is written that if it is taken back by military might, ceaseless war will be the result.

Good read on this:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/scriptures/scriptures/scriptures1.pdf

I'm not aware of one. Their actions (militaristic and overly religious) are more defining than their title (centre? If you say so.).

Perhaps you have been living in a cave and have failed to notice the new election in Israel. If Israel was attacked by multiple nations and asked for volunteers to help defend itself, I would gladly volunteer.

"Soon" is an awfully relative term.

Just ask Jesus.

I don't understand why the US don't load up a few of their F-117s, alternately one of the B-2s with a few JDAMs and bomb the s***heads house to smithereens. It'd save us all a whole lot of trouble. They do have the ability of blowing up just one house, leaving the rest of the houses in the street intact, so why not use it? And while they're at it, take out the clerics too.

Didn't Congress recently repeal the law restricting a President from seeking a third term?
Where did you get that? The term limit on the constitution is established in the Twenty-Second Amendment to the constitution. The only way to change it would be another amendment which would need to be approved by two thirds of congress and a majority in three fourths of the states’ legislatures.

Perhaps you have been living in a cave and have failed to notice the new election in Israel. If Israel was attacked by multiple nations and asked for volunteers to help defend itself, I would gladly volunteer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you lived in Israel at all you'd be forced to when you turned 18 (age-enforced draft).

Didn't Congress recently repeal the law restricting a President from seeking a third term?
Um, no. It's not just any law, it's the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which can't be repealed simply by act of Congress.

Didn't Congress recently repeal the law restricting a President from seeking a third term?

......no........I hope.

Where did you get that? The term limit on the constitution is established in the Twenty-Second Amendment to the constitution. The only way to change it would be another amendment which would need to be approved by two thirds of congress and a majority in three fourths of the states’ legislatures.

Good lord, that man scared the shit out of me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you lived in Israel at all you'd be forced to when you turned 18 (age-enforced draft).

So? Many nations have drafts, your point?

Where did you get that? The term limit on the constitution is established in the Twenty-Second Amendment to the constitution. The only way to change it would be another amendment which would need to be approved by two thirds of congress and a majority in three fourths of the states’ legislatures.
You tell me?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:24:./list/bss/d109HJ.lst:@@@L&summ2=m&

Bush.....four more TERMS?

You tell me?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:24:./list/bss/d109HJ.lst:@@@L&summ2=m&

"Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution."

Dead in committee. Happens with a lot of propositions.

They have a right to a homeland.
One they hadn't had since before even the crusades were a glimmer in Europe's eye.

Time for you to vacate your house to a Native American.

You tell me?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:24:./list/bss/d109HJ.lst:@@@L&summ2=m&
Doomed to failure. As much as the Republican and Democratic parties are similar, they do have a certain petty rivalry which prevents neither from gaining complete control, not that it matters much.

This amendment will suffer the same fate as the definition of marriage one.

If we amended the constitution you’d know. It’d be big news. We’ve only done it seventeen times in over two hundred years.

One they hadn't had since before even the crusades were a glimmer in Europe's eye.

Your point? They have claim to the land and Israel is here to stay.

"Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution."

Dead in committee. Happens with a lot of propositions.
Dead in Committe?

28. H.J.RES.24 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Dead in Committe?

28. H.J.RES.24 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Sponsor: Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Would you prefer he said "dead in subcommitee"?

Your point? They have claim to the land and Israel is here to stay.
More like the land was carved out with the careful precision of the surgeon who cut up Africa and handed to the Jews as a concession for the Holocaust. A joke.

More like the land was carved out with the careful precision of the surgeon who cut up Africa and handed to the Jews as a concession for the Holocaust. A joke.

They needed to go somewhere, and the Holocaust was no joke.

Your point? They have claim to the land and Israel is here to stay.
The only way to accept their claim as genuine is if you believe the whole tripe about a chosen people and god interfering in our world.

If you don't, then the Jews lived there for a while, and before them others did, and after them others did, and most recently many Palestinians did. They all have an equal "claim" on the land, if having lived there once is all it needs.

Would you prefer he said "dead in subcommitee"?
Well that would be a huge relief for Americans and the world, to say the least.

Dead it is......unless......naw.....a military takeover?

Drop a nuke on Iran and end it once and for all. An ultimate show of force is the only thing people in this region understand and respect. Sometimes a don't F***k with me tactic is what's need. What the "diplomats" refuse to acknowlege is that we are in bar fight with the people of this region and as such you sometimes have to smash a beer bottle or two in someones face to get the rest of the bar's attention and to walk out alive. Too bad there's no Ronald Regan or Harry Truman to take care of these guys.

They needed to go somewhere, and the Holocaust was no joke.
Oh, they needed to go somewhere? I guess it was easier, and looked better, to "give" them "their own" country in order to get them out of Europe?

Dead in Committe?


There hasn't been a major action on it since 4/4/2005. That's over a year ago.

That resolution's dead.

They needed to go somewhere, and the Holocaust was no joke.

Why did they have to go somewhere? Anywhere is as good as anywhere else, why ship them all to one place because they all happen to be the same religion?

and the Holocaust was no joke.He did not say that.

Learn to read.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10766872&postcount=52

More like the land was carved out with the careful precision of the surgeon who cut up Africa and handed to the Jews as a concession for the Holocaust. A joke.

Think of it this way though. If the Bush Administration follows the mindset of most posters here on General, then there's going to be a systematic concentration and eradication of Muslims all over the world, and then the survivors will get a homeland of their own awarded as a concession.

Oh, they needed to go somewhere? I guess it was easier, and looked better, to "give" them "their own" country in order to get them out of Europe?

I do not believe they had many friends in Europe at the time.

He did not say that.

Learn to read.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10766872&postcount=52

One could look at that line in many different ways.

Drop a nuke on Iran and end it once and for all. An ultimate show of force is the only thing people in this region understand and respect. Sometimes a don't F***k with me tactic is what's need. What the "diplomats" refuse to acknowlege is that we are in bar fight with the people of this region and as such you sometimes have to smash a beer bottle or two in someones face to get the rest of the bar's attention and to walk out alive. Too bad there's no Ronald Regan or Harry Truman to take care of these guys.

I've said it before and I say it again. Drop a nuke on Iran or Mecca, and not only does Bin Ladin get elevated to Global Resistance Leader of Muslims everywhere, the whole Islamic population of the world (1.3 billion +) will turn on the US. And they're not all rock throwing camel herding sand n*****s that most if not all of the Islamaphobic members of NS believe they are. Which includes Saudi Arabia and practically all of OPEC, not to mention Pakistan and Egypt.

Too bad there's no Ronald Regan or Harry Truman to take care of these guys.
Yeah, all you have is weak, soft liberal pinko-commie traitors like Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Think of it this way though. If the Bush Administration follows the mindset of most posters here on General, then there's going to be a systematic concentration and eradication of Muslims all over the world, and then the survivors will get a homeland of their own awarded as a concession.I would put that new Homeland in a peaceful place.. Not in a place that is sure to create Wars, murders, terrorism , Not like Israel

I would put that new Homeland in a paceful place.. Not in a place that is sure to create Wars, murders, terrorism , Not like Israel

The people matter more then the place.

The people matter more then the place.you can create a successful Israel in any fertile land with access to a navigable waterway.

and It would cost a lot less of my taxes. mucho -dinero

you can create a successful Israel in any fertile land with access to a navigable waterway.

and It would cost a lot less of my taxes. mucho -dinero

But, it would not be their historical homeland.

Drop a nuke on Iran and end it once and for all. An ultimate show of force is the only thing people in this region understand and respect. Sometimes a don't F***k with me tactic is what's need. What the "diplomats" refuse to acknowlege is that we are in bar fight with the people of this region and as such you sometimes have to smash a beer bottle or two in someones face to get the rest of the bar's attention and to walk out alive. Too bad there's no Ronald Regan or Harry Truman to take care of these guys.

So we should nuke civilians so they don't nuke civilians?

I do not believe they had many friends in Europe at the time.
So grabbing a chunk of land from some one else and giving it to them was a good idea?

The people matter more then the place.
Exactly.

Which means that the Middle East doesn't have to be the place for a Jewish state. It could be Argentina, or Uganda, or the US for that matter.

I can understand that obviously the Jews didn't want to stay in Europe after WWII. It saddens me, because I for one always thought that Germany and the modern Jews belonged together, that they both created each other. I would love to see them come back.

Nonetheless, what bothers me is this religious aspect that they put to it. Israel is politicised religion put into practice. It's existence is only justified because it is written in the Old Testament.

And that's ridiculous, seeing how many people suffer because of it.

So grabbing a chunk of land from some one else and giving it to them was a good idea?

There were already many Jews living there and Jordan could be considered a Palestinian State.

But, it would not be their historical homeland.My Historical homeland is in Europe, just like 200million of my countrymen.

We are not going to bomb and kill whoever lives there now just to go back there.

and remember what you said 2 post ago:
You said: "The people matter more then the place"

My Historical homeland is in Europe, just like 200million of my countrymen.

We are not going to bomb and kill whoever lives there now just to go back there.

and remember what you said 2 post ago:
You said: "The people matter more then the place"

I believe it was the Arabs who started the bombing and killing after the creation of Israel, not the Jews.

I believe it was the Arabs who started the bombing and killing after the creation of Israel, not the Jews.
Both sides were happily bombing and killing away, before and after the creation (which was the unilateral declaration by Ben Gurion without consultation).

At any rate...why don't you respond to my posts? :(

There were already many Jews living there and Jordan could be considered a Palestinian State.
Out of bounds.

Exactly.

Which means that the Middle East doesn't have to be the place for a Jewish state. It could be Argentina, or Uganda, or the US for that matter.

I can understand that obviously the Jews didn't want to stay in Europe after WWII. It saddens me, because I for one always thought that Germany and the modern Jews belonged together, that they both created each other. I would love to see them come back.

Nonetheless, what bothers me is this religious aspect that they put to it. Israel is politicised religion put into practice. It's existence is only justified because it is written in the Old Testament.

And that's ridiculous, seeing how many people suffer because of it.

And where would you give them land? They were given the land that they had claim too and already lived in anyways. The suffering of many could stop if both sides agreed to a peace deal and two states, but with Hamas in control I do not see how that will happen.

Both sides were happily bombing and killing away, before and after the creation (which was the unilateral declaration by Ben Gurion without consultation).

At any rate...why don't you respond to my posts? :(

Yes, both sides were bombing and killing each other. But, the Arabs states did not have to attack Israel after its creation.

I believe it was the Arabs who started the bombing and killing after the creation of Israel, not the Jews.that is like a red Jacket saying "the Colonials started the bombing and killing."
Or (a few decades later)a colonial pesting against the American Native terrorist tactics.

And where would you give them land? are you a Jew, How would you like to live in Rhode Island?

And where would you give them land?
Today...it's a bit late. Israel is where it is, and there it will stay.

If it was me, I would go back to the UN's plan and start from there. The wars which Israel won will be forgotten, military conquest should not be rewarded anyways.

Jerusalem must be neutral. You could even seat the UN there, since the Americans don't want it in New York anymore anyways.

They were given the land that they had claim too and already lived in anyways.
What was that claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
On this website you can see two maps too big for me to upload. One shows the partition plan, the other the actual places where the Jewish settlements were.

The suffering of many could stop if both sides agreed to a peace deal and two states, but with Hamas in control I do not see how that will happen.
Hamas is the result of years of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Their election was no surprise, when Israel has for years done nothing but make the PA and thus Fatah look pathetic and weak.
A much better policy would have been to choose one group that was to Israel's liking, and support it. Give it the strength, the power and the money to make something out of the Palestinian areas, and no one would vote for radicals.

are you a Jew, How would you like to live in Rhode Island?

I am not a Jew, if I was a Jew I would want to live in Israel.

I am not a Jew, if I was a Jew I would want to live in Israel.
If I was a Jew, I would want to live in Canada.

Oh, wait. I want to live in Canada anyways. :eek:
Maybe my life is more important to me than my religion.

Today...it's a bit late. Israel is where it is, and there it will stay.

If it was me, I would go back to the UN's plan and start from there. The wars which Israel won will be forgotten, military conquest should not be rewarded anyways.

Jerusalem must be neutral. You could even seat the UN there, since the Americans don't want it in New York anymore anyways.

I agree that Jerusalem should become an International Free City, but I do not believe either side would agree to that. I also agree with forgetting the territory taken during wars, except for the Golan Heights, which should remain under Israeli control.

I am not a Jew, if I was a Jew I would want to live in Israel.what if i told you the cost of (You and your fellow Jews)creating Israel (in Palestine instead of Rodhe Island) would be of about 100 years of misery and over 1 million (men, women and children)deaths, mainly non-Jews.

You would not care. and still want to move at any cost?

If I was a Jew, I would want to live in Canada.

Oh, wait. I want to live in Canada anyways. :eek:
Maybe my life is more important to me than my religion.

I am sure you would be welcome here, but better get here soon before the next election. If I was a Jew, how could I possibly pass up free citizenship in Israel?

what if i told you the cost of (You and your fellow Jews)moving to Israel would be of about 100 years of misery and over 1 million (men, women and children)deaths, mainly non-Jews.

You would not care. and still want to move at any cost?

1 million killed? Where did you pull that number out of? 100 years of misery? Hasn't been 100 years since the creation of Israel, unless you think I will live for a 100 more years, in which case thank you.

If it was me, I would go back to the UN's plan and start from there. The wars which Israel won will be forgotten, military conquest should not be rewarded anyways.


and while we are at it scrap the entire UN and start anew they dont have the power to do what they are supposed to do, which leads to wasted money and resources.

Its not fair to take others land. WHy not just give them Antarctica?;)

Hasn't been 100 years since the creation of Israel...I know.. (the bloodbath is ongoing)

Now answer the question:

what if i told you the cost of (You and your fellow Jews)creating Israel (in Palestine instead of Rodhe Island) would be of about 100 years of misery and over 1 million (men, women and children)deaths, mainly non-Jews.

You would not care. and still want to move at any cost?

Its not fair to take others land. WHy not just give them Antarctica?;)it is not fair to give them other peoples Land (like Palestinean Land)

But Antarctica is not acceptable.
I like the Rhode Island Proposal because its in North America.

I know.. (the bloodbath is ongoing)

Now answer the question:

what if i told you the cost of (You and your fellow Jews)creating Israel (in Palestine instead of Rodhe Island) would be of about 100 years of misery and over 1 million (men, women and children)deaths, mainly non-Jews.

You would not care. and still want to move at any cost?

If I say yes, you will say I am a heartless bastard. If I say no, you will say I am a hypocrite. You have given me a question that has no right answer, in my case, so why should I try to answer it?

it is not fair to give them other peoples Land (like Palestinean Land)

But Antarctica is not acceptable.
I like the Rhode Island Proposal because its in North America.

North America would still be other peoples land, and it is not just Palestinean Land. Hell, why not make turn it into some UN controlled nation? Would that make you happy?

If I say yes, you will say I am a heartless bastard. If I say no, you will say I am a hypocrite. You have given me a question that has no right answer, in my case, so why should I try to answer it?I would say No. (of course)

Would you say I am an Hypocrite?
Do you really think anyone in the world would say I am an Hypocrite if I say No.

I would say No. (of course)

Would you say I am an Hypocrite?
Do you really think anyone in the world would say I am an Hypocrite if I say No.

I meant in my case, not yours or anyone elses.

I would say No. (of course)

Would you say I am an Hypocrite?
Do you really think anyone in the world would say I am an Hypocrite if I say No.

Would you say it is worth for terrorists to kill innocent civilians in the name of destroying Israel? Even if the majority deaths that come from the conflict they create are not Jews?

North America would still be other peoples land..But if The American people would offer this small island to you(and your fellow Jews) in order to save a lot of pain and misery.
Would you accept this gift from our hearts?

But if The American people would offered to you, in order to save a lot of pain and misery.
Would you accept this gift from our hearts?

If I was a Jew, no. It is not the same land.

If I was a Jew, no. It is not the same land.You are rigth, You are a heartless bastard.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767114&postcount=92

You are rigth, You are a heartless bastard.

You have not answered my question.

Its very hard to justify the taking of a man's life. But to be frank, most people in the world decide by the lesser of the two evils. The jews complain about the holocaust, but now they are the dominant culture and they are inflicting great damamge. I still remember a few years ago, when i read on the newpaper about a school girl who was shot buy jews and then after she died they emptied a whole cartridge into her. I was already sickened by the jews but this really made me change. The palestinian people have suffered long enough. Either the jews decide to live peacefully side by side with them or get out.
U must know, when a person is under attack he is allowed by every international right to defend himself. This partially explains the palestian motives but fails to support the jewish intentions.

You are rigth, You are a heartless bastard.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767114&postcount=92

History is full of pain and misery. In this case, that pain and misery would stop if both sides reached an agreement. But, I do not see Hamas making peace with Jews.

You have not answered my question.what question, post#?

If I was a Jew, no. It is not the same land.
But be realistic: Most Jews have nothing in common with the people who lived so many thousands of years ago.

I believe the majority of Jews are Ashkenazi. In which case they're Germans, Poles or maybe Russians for all intents and purposes, because that was where the European Jews lived.

You're not going to tell me that these Jews have some sort of ancient homeland. Indeed, that idea of Zionism is well documented and explained as being a simple reaction to the romantic nationalism and utopianism that was common in 19th century Europe.

Herzl was a German nationalist and Socialist, until one day he was convinced that perhaps the Jews are not all Germans, and instead became a Jewish nationalist and Socialist. Same thing, just replace the words.

But be realistic: Most Jews have nothing in common with the people who lived so many thousands of years ago.

I believe the majority of Jews are Ashkenazi. In which case they're Germans, Poles or maybe Russians for all intents and purposes, because that was where the European Jews lived.

You're not going to tell me that these Jews have some sort of ancient homeland. Indeed, that idea of Zionism is well documented and explained as being a simple reaction to the romantic nationalism and utopianism that was common in 19th century Europe.

Herzl was a German nationalist and Socialist, until one day he was convinced that perhaps the Jews are not all Germans, and instead became a Jewish nationalist and Socialist. Same thing, just replace the words.

Why should Jews be denied a nation? Why should Buddhists be denied a free Tibet?

what question, post#?

Would you say it is worth for terrorists to kill innocent civilians in the name of destroying Israel? Even if the majority deaths that come from the conflict they create are not Jews?

Would you say it is worth for terrorists to kill innocent civilians in the name of destroying Israel? Even if the majority deaths that come from the conflict they create are not Jews?both sides are using terrorism.

I still side with the Pals because its heartless bastards like you* who artificially created this bloody problem by evicting the Pals

* http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767114&postcount=92

Why should Jews be denied a nation? Why should Buddhists be denied a free Tibet?
Because "Jews" are not a people. Jews are simply those who believe in Judaism. They come from a billion different peoples, histories and cultures.
I don't think that means that they should necessarily be denied a nation, but it severly questions the justification for putting that state into the Middle East.

As for Buddhists and Tibet - same thing. Buddhists come from many different places. And besides, Tibet was an undemocratic dictatorship and theocracy.

both sides are using terrorism.

I still side with the Palestinians because its heartless bastards like you* who artificially created this Problem

* http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767114&postcount=92

And you dare call me a heartless bastard? I side with Israelis and Palestinians, they both have equal rights to free nations.

Because "Jews" are not a people. Jews are simply those who believe in Judaism. They come from a billion different peoples, histories and cultures.
I don't think that means that they should necessarily be denied a nation, but it severly questions the justification for putting that state into the Middle East.

As for Buddhists and Tibet - same thing. Buddhists come from many different places. And besides, Tibet was an undemocratic dictatorship and theocracy.

True, they come from all over. But their history is really in Israel. You would really argue Tibet is better off?

And you dare call me a heartless bastard.Yes.
But in case you missed it, Ill do it again:

You are a heartless bastard. Based on your own post.

Yes.
But in case you missed it, Ill do it again:

You are a heartless bastard.

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post, and you are judging me based on these posts on Israel?

Wow Goderich_N plz dont include Tibet and buddhism into this. U dont seem to understand the relation of Da lai la ma and tibet has. True the Chinese is oppressing the culture. So if u view this scenario from different positions, from a oppressed tibetian and a chinese official then u get different results. The two arguments are:

against: Tibet people's culture is oppressed. THeir spiritual leader is kikcked out.

Pro: Tibet was part of China, and CHina is a union of many different cultures which tries to respect them all.
Da Lai La Ma was a the living Buddha, a feature not very acceptable in Buddahism. He just sits there and lets people touch him, so he blesses them while they feeds him. He is not a pacifist like the pope. He has his own army and while he was also in power he supported SLAVERY. His army actually fought against China after submitting to China initially but then he changed his mind and started to fight for independence. He is just a leader of a CHinese region that hsa decided to start his own nation. A very common occurance in Chinese history.

you are judging me based on these posts on Israel?well, I have to base my Judgments on something, don't you think? (you barely have 100 posts)

I believe it was the Arabs who started the bombing and killing after the creation of Israel, not the Jews.

lets take an example of a bank robber, who walks into a bank and steals $100 000. this robber is israel, and the money is the land.

now, using your logic, if the police come and fire on the robber (arabs declare war on israel), the police are bad because they broke the peace while the bank robber just wanted to peacefully take his $100 000.

then, u could say that $100 000 is rightfully his since his great-great grandfather was once wealthy, however distributed all his money to the population (the disapora.) and so the money is rightfully the robbers.

now, the robber says that he wants to end the fighting, and will give back $30 000 to the bank (the west bank and gaza). when the bank says it wants all of it, the robber is the good guy because he was trying to make peace, while all the bank and police want is conflict.



all u n00bs need to realise that all the points that support israel (democratic, etc.) are from the perspective its already been created, when it in fact should not have been. Less than 10 000 jews lived in palestine before the year 1900, and jews lived in a jewish canaan about 5000 years ago (some "historical right", why dont we just redraw all borders back to their 3000bc lines?). imagine if in 5000 years the native americans suddenly say "hey give us our country back." during the 1900s however, huge waves of jews migrated, ILLEGALLY, into palestine, so imagine if the mexicans in south US suddenly say they want their own country.

jews were not the only people killed in the holocaust, theyre just the ones who whine about it the most. millions of gypsies were killed (you could say their homeland is romania) as well as about 1 million homosexuals, but ive never seen gay rights advocates telling people like bush and cheney "REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO US DURING THE HOLOCAUST!!" and lets not even start about the genocide that happens regularly in africa, like the tutsis who were killed in the millions just a few years ago, but no1 gave them a country.

if they needed to go somewhere, then y dont u give them a country. the arabs have a right to make their own decision, and if they have to go somewhere, while all other countries reject them, well so can the arabs, and so israel was not allowed to be founded in palestine

I'll ask again: Why would you give a bunch of religious people an entire country just because they all happen to be the same religion? Why not let them move wherever they want to, instead of opening up an entire area for them all to go to? Some could've moved to America, some to the mid-east, some to asia, some to Russia, some could've stayed in Europe.

Point is, they share no commons other than they happen to worship the same god and follow the same faith.

Why should white people not get their own nation? Keep all the black people out. Same rule applies, doesn't it?

well, I have to base my Judgments on something, don't you think?

So the fact that I support two states doesn't mean a damn thing? That I don't really like either sides actions in some cases?

well, I have to base my Judgments on something, don't you think? (you barely have 100 posts)

Under this nation.

True, they come from all over. But their history is really in Israel.
What history? The history of the Cochin Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews)?

You would really argue Tibet is better off?
I wouldn't know. But I would argue that much of the "Free Tibet" stuff comes from an emotional point of view, rather than a rational one.
Tibet was not democratic. It was a theocracy, with a god king at the helm. You tell me how many Tibet-supporters would like to see that sort of government ruling them.

And I don't like the Dalai Lama either. His views are even more conservative and regressive than the Pope's.

all u n00bs...
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Under this nation.LOL,
Sierra is that you?
Come and give me a hug you old heartless Zionist . :D :D ;) :D
I missed you :p

LOL,
Sierra is that you?
Come and give me a hug you old Zionist Basturd. :D :D ;) :D

Who is Serra?

Who is Serra?ah never mind,
someone almost as hardheaded as Corneliu.

ah never mind,
someone almost as hardheaded as Corneliu.

You must really love to be reported to the mods? Not that I am going to, it wouldn't do any good in your case. Since you are so very careful not to cross the line.

you are so very careful not to cross the line.That is a fact. I studied the rules, the Mod "Jurisprudence", and I am able to walk the edge of the abyss, yet I do not fall.

I do not recommend you follow me into that path, you may not have what it takes.

That is a fact. I studied the rules, the Mod "Jurisprudence", and I am able to walk the edge of the abyss, yet I do not fall.

I do not recommend you follow me into that path, you may not have what it takes.

It is sad to see that your behaviour is tolerated around here, but rules are rules afterall....

both sides are using terrorism.

I still side with the Pals because its heartless bastards like you* who artificially created this bloody problem by evicting the Pals

* http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767114&postcount=92


The pals evicted the Jews first you fucking moron.

It is sad to see that your behaviour is tolerated around here, but rules are rules afterall....You never told us who you are.

You never told us who you are.

Did you ever ask?

The pals evicted the Jews first you fucking moron.see Goderich_N, that what i mean, they are reduced to:

#1 Going to the local internet Cafe
#2 Creating a puppet Nation with a post count close to zero.

.. just insult me. :D

The Creek Nation
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1

How pathetic.

see Goderich_N, that what i mean, they are reduced to:

#1 Going to the local internet Cafe
#2 Creating a puppet Nation with a post count close to zero.

.. just insult me. :D

The Creek Nation
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1

How pathetic.

I think one would have more reasons to do that then to just annoy you. Also, I do not believe the post count would matter to them. It is a mere number and a slighty humourous name at times.

Did you ever ask?I would like to know.
honest.:cool:

...slighty humourous name at times.I do find them humourous.

I would like to know.
honest.:cool:

I bet, but I really must go now. I have been really wanting to go play Silent Hunter 3 all of this time, plus this thread is getting off topic.

I bet, but I really must go now. I have been really wanting to go play Silent Hunter 3 all of this time, plus this thread is getting off topic.Ok, I hope you realize I did not know you were a veteran player,
and that the "Judgments" we post here should not be taken too seriously.

Good Hunting @ Silent Hunter, may the force be with you.

All this talk of "we created Israel..." is amusing...it was the aspirations of the jewish people that was the main driver behind the creation of Israel.

Besides, if you are against the formation and sustenance of Israel, because it is a religious state, then you must be against the creation of Pakistan which was also created in the same goddamned lines.

Atleast the jews have holocaust to show for :p , the muslims of pre-partition India had no such discrimination.

So muslims can create a state for themselves citing fears of discrimination and drive millions of non-muslims out of their ancestral homelands and form a theocratic muslim state which has state sanctioned institutional and societal discrimination against non-muslims, but still enjoy the recognition of a sovereign state but somehow Israel cannot...:rolleyes:

I guess it is ok if muslims do it...;)

[for Oceandrive - Pakistan got like 10 billion dollars after 9/11 with direct loans, aids, some direct money, loan write offs, rescheduling, free weapons etc etc.. - but NO it is the money that goes to Israel that you crib about...]

for Oceandrive - Pakistan got like 10 billion dollars after 9/11 with direct loans, aids, some direct money, loan write offs, rescheduling, free weapons etc etc.. - but NO it is the money that goes to Israel that you crib about...Turkey was offered a lot of money too.
Other Key Countries in the Coalition of the Willing got economic "envelopes".

But all of that is "we need you now".. But they will not get the decades long welfare Israel gets.

BTW, what is the mood in the Indian streets regarding the "we are in the Nuclear Club now" Iranian statement.

Turkey was offered a lot of money too.
Other Key Countries in the Coalition of the Willing got economic "envelopes".

But all of that is "we need you now".. But they will not get the decades long welfare Israel gets.

Fair enough, but it can be argued that Pak has also been getting money decades long if you account for the largesse they got for the Afghan jihad (runs into billions, that one too), and the SEATO and CENTO things even before that...

BTW, what is the mood in the Indian streets regarding the "we are in the Nuclear Club now" Iranian statement.

Nothing. These kind of things are above the head of ordinary folks....they tend to worry about things such as....next meal;)

But the govt and informed educated class is against nuclear weapons to Iran. We are suffering from the nuclear blackmail and the audacious attacks from Pak based jihadis.....and Ahmedinejad is not winning any sympathy from Indians with his rhetoric.....it reminds us eerily of Pakistan's rhetoric following their acquiring nuclear weapons.

Anyone else long for the "cold war" days? ;)

ah never mind,
someone almost as hardheaded as Corneliu.
Ummmm, Sierra is Deep Kimchi and started a thread yesterday:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477585

Just in case you want to give him a (shudder) hug. :eek:

Because "Jews" are not a people. Jews are simply those who believe in Judaism. They come from a billion different peoples, histories and cultures.


I love you and totally agree.

Ok, I hope you realize I did not know you were a veteran player,
and that the "Judgments" we post here should not be taken too seriously.

Good Hunting @ Silent Hunter, may the force be with you.

Four ships sunk on the first patrol of the war, it was good hunting around Scapa Flow. Only one destroyer and aircraft spotted, never attacked either.

Now, to see how this thread has moved along...

Anyone else long for the "cold war" days? ;)

Yea, who didn't love the risk of Nuclear Winter every second for decades on end?

Yea, who didn't love the risk of Nuclear Winter every second for decades on end?
I grew up in that era and it really wasn't that bad. I would imagine this is worse for Americans:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/images/threat/elevated.jpg

Seems to be stuck on that for like 5 years and counting?

omg pakistan and india were split through a bilateral agreement between the two peoples who thought that it would be best for both of them if they split into their own countries. israel was created when a bunch of jews decided they should take some land and keep it for themselves

omg pakistan and india were split through a bilateral agreement between the two peoples who thought that it would be best for both of them if they split into their own countries. israel was created when a bunch of jews decided they should take some land and keep it for themselves

No, a bunch of Jews didn't decide to take some land for themselves. That land was owned by the British, and a portion of it was legally given to the Jews to form a state. There was no land called "Palestine." There was land called the "British Mandate" that was to be divided up, part of it going toward a Jewish State and part of it toward a Palestenian State. The Jews peacefully formed their state within the territory granted to them, while the Arabs left the Jewish territory into the territory granted to them, only to turn around along with the neighboring Arab countries and attack Israel. Needless to say, Palestine had the opportunity to be a state that was recognized by Israel in 1948. It chose terror and war. The formation of the State of Israel, however, was within the Rule of Law, and was the result of the transferred ownership of land from the British Mandate to the Jews.

Drop a nuke on Iran and end it once and for all. An ultimate show of force is the only thing people in this region understand and respect. Sometimes a don't F***k with me tactic is what's need. What the "diplomats" refuse to acknowlege is that we are in bar fight with the people of this region and as such you sometimes have to smash a beer bottle or two in someones face to get the rest of the bar's attention and to walk out alive. Too bad there's no Ronald Regan or Harry Truman to take care of these guys.

You're an idiot. Nuff said.

The Isrealis have no claim to their land other than from their holy book. The Palestinians have an actual claim to the land, as do the various arabic states. Why don't they just take the land?

The Isrealis could still have their cities and lives, they just wouldn't have their nation. And that would solve a hell of a lot of disputes.

Alright, lets say that some nation decides that its time for the Jews to be 'removed' to some other state outside of Israel.
How are you going to do it?
Israel took on the entire Middle East, excepting one or two states, and won. Easily. Yes, they dont have the greatest militaries, but Iran has a million plus man army, Iraq had some pretty good Soviet tank tech at the time, and everybody else had a whole lot of AK-47's to pass around.
And they beat everybody.
To my mind, that makes them quite capable of taking on any two European countries you care to name, as well as (possibly, if they invested heavily into anti-air technology) the US.
On a random note, does anybody find it ironic that one of the weapons most associated with plane-hijacking evil Muslim terrorists (the Uzi) is made in Israel by Jews? :P

Alright, lets say that some nation decides that its time for the Jews to be 'removed' to some other state outside of Israel.
How are you going to do it?
Israel took on the entire Middle East, excepting one or two states, and won. Easily. Yes, they dont have the greatest militaries, but Iran has a million plus man army, Iraq had some pretty good Soviet tank tech at the time, and everybody else had a whole lot of AK-47's to pass around.
And they beat everybody.
To my mind, that makes them quite capable of taking on any two European countries you care to name, as well as (possibly, if they invested heavily into anti-air technology) the US.


they'd do well but i'd say their previous victories have more to do with the fact that an arab couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, in many cases the middle eastern states like egypt had much better technology and numbers and still lost! :eek:

they'd do well but i'd say their previous victories have more to do with the fact that an arab couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, in many cases the middle eastern states like egypt had much better technology and numbers and still lost! :eek:

Not true. At all.

they'd do well but i'd say their previous victories have more to do with the fact that an arab couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag
Gosh, is that why we have such an excellent record with Crusades?

Indeed. Or why many Americans have died in Iraq?

You've got Interceptor body armour, the most expensive weaponry on the planet etc. and your soldiers still get killed by teenagers with AK-47s.

I should also point out that 'Arabs' consist of people from Arabia, and even then you have issues. Many Arabs still identify with their own sub-minority or whatever you want to call it.
Arabs aside, you still have Turks, Persians, Pakistanis, Tajiks, Kurds, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, etc. etc. etc., depending on what you consider to be 'The Middle East'. And thats just counting the natives, the list would get quite long if I was to include the various ethnicities from Europe and Asia that moved there at some point, like the Mongolians, Chinese, Russians, various Europeans etc. etc.
At the very least, you get Arabs, Egyptians, Turks, Kurds and Persians, plus some others whose names I dont remember.

I'm not aware of one. Their actions (militaristic and overly religious) are more defining than their title (centre? If you say so.).
Israel overreligious? LOL!!! THen why are orthodox Jews in the minority there. Most Jews in Israel are of the very lenient reform following. They are a secular government.

You obviously know nothing about Israel and are nothing but a dumbass who hides his true hatred for the Jews under the thin veil of "anti-zionism."

The Jews have a right to the homeland. They offered the Arabs to stay in the land that was given to Israel in the 1947 partition. The Arabs responded to Israel's offer by going to war. Most of the "Palestinians" (They are really Jordanians) who left did so at the urging of Arab leaders expecting a quick war where the Mufti and the racist Arab armies would win quickly. Learn your fucking history before you post here again.

The Jews have a right to the homeland. They offered the Arabs to stay in the land that was given to Israel in the 1947 partition. The Arabs responded to Israel's offer by going to war. Most of the "Palestinians" (They are really Jordanians) who left did so at the urging of Arab leaders expecting a quick war where the Mufti and the racist Arab armies would win quickly. Learn your fucking history before you post here again.

Let's put it this way - someone invades your land and offers you a place there. Do you let them take it off you, or do you try and remove them from the area so that you can live your life as it has always been?

The Jews have as much right to a homeland as I have to inherit the earth.

Its funny though, how the Arabs shout and sceam that they have been invaded.
Look at a map of the middle east, the amount of land that the Isralies have is laughable.
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/map-middle-east.gif
Its not even like the land was just snatched away from the arabs, it was a British mandate for 28 years.
If the Palistines had of accepted the Partition plan (like the jews did), drawn up by the united nations and voted in at 33-13, the on-off-on-off again war thats been running for the last 50 years would never have started. Yet the Irainians have the cheek to make coments about somthing they obviously know sweet F*ck all about and further more dose not effect them in the slightest.

There were already many Jews living there and Jordan could be considered a Palestinian State.

There were indeed Jews living there. In the vast minority. Nice of you to consider Jordan a palestinian state. Its not like the Jordanians matter in the equation, being non-Europeans. After all, just look at the success the borders "whitey" drew up have had at creating stable nations all over the world. I agree with your more rational post about the two state solution however.


The jews complain about the holocaust, but now they are the dominant culture and they are inflicting great damamge. I still remember a few years ago, when i read on the newpaper about a school girl who was shot buy jews and then after she died they emptied a whole cartridge into her. I was already sickened by the jews but this really made me change..

The officer that shot her was not Jewish but in fact an Arab-Israeli. A member of the Druze community. The religon or race of who does what is largely irrelevant, save that some use it as an excuse. Think of Israelis and Palesintians, or two opposing nations, rather than terms of "Jew" and "muslim".


lets take an example of a bank robber,(waffle)..

Your figures re "Gypsies" in the Holocaust, Jewish population of Palestine are completely off. I presume you are taking the piss.


The pals evicted the Jews first you fucking moron.)..

Nope.


No, a bunch of Jews didn't decide to take some land for themselves. That land was owned by the British, and a portion of it was legally given to the Jews to form a state. There was no land called "Palestine." There was land called the "British Mandate" that was to be divided up, part of it going toward a Jewish State and part of it toward a Palestenian State. The Jews peacefully formed their state within the territory granted to them, while the Arabs left the Jewish territory into the territory granted to them, only to turn around along with the neighboring Arab countries and attack Israel. Needless to say, Palestine had the opportunity to be a state that was recognized by Israel in 1948. It chose terror and war. The formation of the State of Israel, however, was within the Rule of Law, and was the result of the transferred ownership of land from the British Mandate to the Jews.)..

Yet yesterday you said it was privately bought by European zionist emigres.....In 1946 94% of that land was owned by Arabs. Secondly, it was the neighbouring Arab states that did the attacking.

And as for The Jews peacefully formed their state within the territory granted to them - Aren't you leaving out one or two details there? Like the rather violent campaign to drive the british out? The Irgun and Lehi? The "stern gang"?


Most of the "Palestinians" (They are really Jordanians) who left did so at the urging of Arab leaders expecting a quick war where the Mufti and the racist Arab armies would win quickly. Learn your fucking history before you post here again....

O yes. You're the gentleman who couldn't explain why they are recognised as seperate from Jordanians by, amongst others, the CIA. And whereas I doubt the various Arab armies involved were ptoponents of multi-culturalism, the members of the Haggannah et al who drove 700,000 Arabs out weren't exactly choir boys themselves now, were they.

700,000? LOL. You are such a fool Nodinia. Your lie is even more full of bullshit than the PLO's. They don't even claim that many, so why the hell should I take you seriously here.

If the Palestinians are so different than the Jordanians, then tell me what specific difference they have? Is there any racial difference, religious difference, language difference, et cetera? NO!!!

The Palestinians mandate was actually originally a part of Trans-Jordan. The West Bank was under Arab rule from 1948-1967. Take a wild guess who ran it? It wasn't Palestinians, it was Jordan.

You are so full of yourself it isn't funny. Perhaps if you stopped hating Jews and could pull your head out of your ass you would know this.

700,000? LOL. You are such a fool Nodinia. Your lie is even more full of bullshit than the PLO's. They don't even claim that many, so why the hell should I take you seriously here.

If the Palestinians are so different than the Jordanians, then tell me what specific difference they have? Is there any racial difference, religious difference, language difference, et cetera? NO!!!

The Palestinians mandate was actually originally a part of Trans-Jordan. The West Bank was under Arab rule from 1948-1967. Take a wild guess who ran it? It wasn't Palestinians, it was Jordan.

You are so full of yourself it isn't funny. Perhaps if you stopped hating Jews and could pull your head out of your ass you would know this.
You have been here for quite some time. Why so much anger?

You have been here for quite some time. Why so much anger?
Because I'm sick of people who keep repeating the same lies over and over again in a different thread after I've refuted them in past threads where they haven't truly responded.

What we are seeing is nothing but thinly veiled antisemitism.

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

I will say Israel isn't perfect, but they are by far the least flawed of the MIddle Eastern nations.

Israel overreligious? LOL!!! THen why are orthodox Jews in the minority there. Most Jews in Israel are of the very lenient reform following. They are a secular government.

You obviously know nothing about Israel and are nothing but a dumbass who hides his true hatred for the Jews under the thin veil of "anti-zionism."

The Jews have a right to the homeland. They offered the Arabs to stay in the land that was given to Israel in the 1947 partition. The Arabs responded to Israel's offer by going to war. Most of the "Palestinians" (They are really Jordanians) who left did so at the urging of Arab leaders expecting a quick war where the Mufti and the racist Arab armies would win quickly. Learn your fucking history before you post here again.

I'm no dumbass, and I've got nothing against Jews that I don't have against any other religious group.

Nobody has a right to a "homeland". Not ethically or morally, anyway. Legally and politically, that's a different story. Maybe we're taking two different bases on our stances, which would explain it.

I've never said I was a history major or anything near that, I've simply said my piece - pointing out a vague record of when someone pissed on a holy wall or something to that effect, and they retaliated in the way an overly religious person would. The record in my mind being dimmed to the point where I don't remember exactly what they did, but I remember thinking it was overreacting because of their religious beliefs.

If what I've said is incorrect or incomplete, please let me know. I'm always up for being corrected - I'm only human, and make mistakes, and always have room for improvement.

Being humble aside, you had no right to explode like that and become as angry and offensive as you did. I'd ask for an apology, but coming from you it wouldn't be worth much. Maybe if you offered one without it being requested.

If the Palestinians are so different than the Jordanians, then tell me what specific difference they have? Is there any racial difference, religious difference, language difference, et cetera? NO!!! .

Then why can the CIA say theres a difference and how? I'd imagine you have wonderful theories about how the UN do it, but I really want to hear the CIA one.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html


The Palestinians mandate was actually originally a part of Trans-Jordan. The West Bank was under Arab rule from 1948-1967. Take a wild guess who ran it? It wasn't Palestinians, it was Jordan. .

And the whole area was run by the Ottoman turks for far longer. Does that make them Turkish? My country was run by the English for a few hundred years. I'm neither English or "british".


You are so full of yourself it isn't funny. Perhaps if you stopped hating Jews and could pull your head out of your ass you would know this.

Strawman false accusations from somebody whose doesnt like having the facts pointed out to them. And please don't hit the keyboard when typing. Somebody else may wish to use it for something worthwhile.


Because I'm sick of people who keep repeating the same lies over and over again in a different thread after I've refuted them in past threads where they haven't truly responded. .

Really? Then why not take it out on them. Because you may rest assured that I'm not one of them. Nor am I lkely to be.


What we are seeing is nothing but thinly veiled antisemitism..

Whatever about anyone else, I've been talking about the activities of the state of Israel. I suggest you direct your hissy fit at them.


You have been here for quite some time. Why so much anger?..

Lack of parental attention, embarrasment at being caught out again..who knows really?

Because I'm sick of people who keep repeating the same lies over and over again in a different thread after I've refuted them in past threads where they haven't truly responded.

What we are seeing is nothing but thinly veiled antisemitism.

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

I will say Israel isn't perfect, but they are by far the least flawed of the MIddle Eastern nations.

I totally agree....I've been to Israel...and I'll be the first to say...it has its problems...but it is totally more capable and westernized than any 'rab state.

I totally agree....I've been to Israel...and I'll be the first to say...it has its problems...but it is totally more capable and westernized than any 'rab state.

"Arab" state. I am unaware of another modern "western" state that has invaded, occupied and begun to colonise neighbouring lands without being under sanctions or military action for doing so, certianly in the last four decades. Many of the states in the area are indeed flawed, corrupt and occassionally brutal. None of them are given immunity by the US however, nor given the cloak of respectability that superpowers influence can bring.

"Arab" state. I am unaware of another modern "western" state that has invaded, occupied and begun to colonise neighbouring lands without being under sanctions or military action for doing so, certianly in the last four decades. Many of the states in the area are indeed flawed, corrupt and occassionally brutal. None of them are given immunity by the US however, nor given the cloak of respectability that superpowers influence can bring.
Thats because Israel cannot be expected to act like a normal western country...BECAUSE....no other western country is LOCATED IN A FUCKING 'RAB CESSPOOL. They cant be peaceful...they cant mind their own bussiness...because as soon as they let their guard down...they get blown up by some extremist towel head with a death wish.

Got it?

Then why can the CIA say theres a difference and how? I'd imagine you have wonderful theories about how the UN do it, but I really want to hear the CIA one.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html

They were one under Trans-Jordan, but Britain split them along a geographical boundary to give most of it to an ally of theirs, King Abdullah, to create a coutnerweight to the Saud family who was anti-British. The CIA of course sees it as a seperate nation because they are a sovereign nation. The fact remains that Palestine was actually a part of Jordan until the British split it in the 20s. There is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians other than the fact the "Palestinians" live west of the river.


And the whole area was run by the Ottoman turks for far longer. Does that make them Turkish? My country was run by the English for a few hundred years. I'm neither English or "british".
No, but they share the same culture, religion, language and everything else with the Jordanians. Tell me 1 difference between the 2 people.



Strawman false accusations from somebody whose doesnt like having the facts pointed out to them. And please don't hit the keyboard when typing. Somebody else may wish to use it for something worthwhile.
WTF? I just killed your stupid facts.



Really? Then why not take it out on them. Because you may rest assured that I'm not one of them. Nor am I lkely to be.
You are. You have no knowledge of the history and are repeating the same mantra over and over again in each thread.



Whatever about anyone else, I've been talking about the activities of the state of Israel. I suggest you direct your hissy fit at them.
It is anti-semitism. I want to see you attack the nations of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that are far more barbaric than Israel.


[

Thats because Israel cannot be expected to act like a normal western country...BECAUSE....no other western country is LOCATED IN A FUCKING 'RAB CESSPOOL. They cant be peaceful...they cant mind their own bussiness...because as soon as they let their guard down...they get blown up by some extremist towel head with a death wish.

Got it?
Obviously there are "extremists" on both sides.

Thats because Israel cannot be expected to act like a normal western country...BECAUSE....no other western country is LOCATED IN A FUCKING 'RAB CESSPOOL. They cant be peaceful...they cant mind their own bussiness...because as soon as they let their guard down...they get blown up by some extremist towel head with a death wish.

Got it?

Your continued use of "rab" as opposed to the proper term "Arab" strikes me as being bigoted, unnecessary and ignorant.

And LOCATED IN A FUCKING 'RAB CESSPOOL ditto. Your talk of extremists with death wishes also ignores the fact that Suicide bombing is in the case of Palestinians, borne of desperation, rather than anything else. 40 years of occupation will do that to a people. And nobody has suggested that Israel cease to guard its 1967 borders.


The CIA of course sees it as a seperate nation because they are a sovereign nation. ?

The question was why (and indeed how) do the CIA (or anybody else) differentiate between the large numbers of Palestinians living in Jordan and Jordanians?


WTF? I just killed your stupid facts.?

Actually I fear you misinterpreted the question. Better luck this time.


It is anti-semitism. I want to see you attack the nations of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that are far more barbaric than Israel.?

Syria was forced by imminent sanctions to withdraw from Lebanon. Egypt is a semi-fascist dictatorship now an ally of the US, as is Jordan. Saudi is a backward looking monarchy whose self-righteousness is none too popular in the Arab world. None of these nations have a superpower defending their actions. None may act outside their borders with immunity. Thus, flack for Israel.

Your talk of extremists with death wishes also ignores the fact that Suicide bombing is in the case of Palestinians, borne of desperation, rather than anything else. 40 years of occupation will do that to a people. And nobody has suggested that Israel cease to guard its 1967 borders.

Saying that Palestinian suicide bombings are "borne of desperation" is a way of justifying them. It attempts to shift the blame off the suicide bomber and onto his social situation. The only person responsible for strapping a bomb to their body, planning, and targetting innocent civilians is the suicide bombers and terrorist organizations. These are not crimes of passion. These acts are cold, calculating, and take weeks, months, and possibly years of planning individually.

This justification of Palestinian suicide bombing sounds exactly like what IDF mentioned in a previous post - thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

Saying that Palestinian suicide bombings are "borne of desperation" is a way of justifying them. It attempts to shift the blame off the suicide bomber and onto his social situation. The only person responsible for strapping a bomb to their body, planning, and targetting innocent civilians is the suicide bombers and terrorist organizations. These are not crimes of passion. These acts are cold, calculating, and take weeks, months, and possibly years of planning individually.

This justification of Palestinian suicide bombing sounds exactly like what IDF mentioned in a previous post - thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

Eh?

The Palestinians don't have all of the weapons that the Isrealis have, so they use unconventional methods to fight their wars. That's all it is. If they had fighter jets, helicopter gunships etc. then I'm sure that they'd fight their wars in that way.

And labeling any criticism of Isreal as anti-Semitism is utter bullshit. I, for example, have nothing against Jews, I'm just quite angry that they get a whole country to themselves simply because their holy book says that they should.

Eh?

, I'm just quite angry that they get a whole country to themselves simply because their holy book says that they should.


Are you as angry with Islam for banning non- muslims from the Mecca/Medina areas of Saudi ? Cant seem to remember Judaism banning non-jews from the wailing wall, Or one of christaniities holiest sites, the church of the holy sepuchre actually belongs to a muslim family ( althought this is to stop all the christians having a punch up over who owns it :) )

But you are more than likely one of the people who would condemns Israel for killing 3500 palestinians over the period 2000-2005, but forgets Jordon killed 15 000 palestinians in 1970 alone during 'Black September'

Take the blinkers off, Israel is'nt perfect, in fact its quite f**ked up... but compared to the surrounding countries, its a beacon of light

Eh?

The Palestinians don't have all of the weapons that the Isrealis have, so they use unconventional methods to fight their wars. That's all it is. If they had fighter jets, helicopter gunships etc. then I'm sure that they'd fight their wars in that way.

And labeling any criticism of Isreal as anti-Semitism is utter bullshit. I, for example, have nothing against Jews, I'm just quite angry that they get a whole country to themselves simply because their holy book says that they should.

Oh, I see. So terrorist attacks on civilians is "all it is." Perhaps you should tell me, were the 9/11 attacks any different than suicide attacks on Israeli civilians? Think carefully of the implications of your answer.

And, I've said it before, but you must have ignored it. They didn't get the land because the holy book says so. They got it because it was legally granted to them by the owner of the land, Britain. This was a British territory, the British Mandate of Palestine. The entire area plus some that is now Israel was granted to the Jewish people to form a state.

Oh, I see. So terrorist attacks on civilians is "all it is." Perhaps you should tell me, were the 9/11 attacks any different than suicide attacks on Israeli civilians? Think carefully of the implications of your answer.

And, I've said it before, but you must have ignored it. They didn't get the land because the holy book says so. They got it because it was legally granted to them by the owner of the land, Britain. This was a British territory, the British Mandate of Palestine. The entire area plus some that is now Israel was granted to the Jewish people to form a state.

Yes, yes they are. The Palestinians have some reason to attack people, as they're being invaded. The 9/11 attacks were a blow at America. At the time they hadn't invaded anyone, so it's a different story entirely.

The holy book of the Jews did also play a role in where it was chosen, actually. The British at the time still had a fairly large empire. We could have put them in India, amongst other places, as long as we gave them relatively unoccupied land then I'd have been happy. But as it stands, it was a damned foolish place to put them.

Yes, yes they are. The Palestinians have some reason to attack people, as they're being invaded. The 9/11 attacks were a blow at America. At the time they hadn't invaded anyone, so it's a different story entirely.

The holy book of the Jews did also play a role in where it was chosen, actually. The British at the time still had a fairly large empire. We could have put them in India, amongst other places, as long as we gave them relatively unoccupied land then I'd have been happy. But as it stands, it was a damned foolish place to put them.

It wasn't an "invasion." There was some illegal immigration, but the vast majority of Jewish immigration was legal. Using extremist terms like "invasion" doesn't get you very far, when no such thing happened. Although, you've demonstrated my point quite well.

You are unwilling to excuse the suicide attacks on the Twin Towers in the United States, but you have no problem with excusing suicide attacks on Jewish women and children. This is the very definition of anti-Semitism.

And the holy book "having a role" in it doesn't change anything. The fact of the matter is that the land was legally granted to the Jewish people. If you have any respect for the Rule of Law, and you aren't just a sympathizer of Palestinian terrorists, you must recognize the fact that the formation of the Israeli state and the ownership of the land never belonged to any group of "Palestinians" but was first owned by the British and then transferred to the Jewish people. A group of Arabs rose up out of fear and xenophobia, and thus the "Palestinian" people were born. The legal ownership was never that of a "Palestinian" identity, which didn't exist, but that of a British territory and then that of a Jewish State.

Saying that Palestinian suicide bombings are "borne of desperation" is a way of justifying them. It attempts to shift the blame off the suicide bomber and onto his social situation. .


Well, you don't get countries with large modern armies doing it. Or many other "terrorist" groups. 40 years of being occupied in a harsh way and seeing the possibility of justice constantly denied may well do that to them. I like the way you try to shift the blame for the occupation from the occupied to the occupier too.....

They got it because it was legally granted to them by the owner of the land, Britain. This was a British territory, the British Mandate of Palestine..

Britain didn't grant them the West Bank, or Arab East Jerusalem...they took that in 1967 and have refused to budge since. And previously you said it (land within Israel proper) was bought. Are you confused on this issue?

And the "legality", let alone morality of arbitrary decisions by a colonial power without reference to the native population is indeed questionable, I might add.

omg nodinia, i was supporting ur arguement and then u rebut against me, nice of u to attack ur allies.

however, gypsies were in the holocaust, the following is from wikipedia

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims

Roma, Sinti, and Manush ('Gypsies')

Proportional to their population, the death toll of Romanies (Roma, Sinti, and Manush) in the Holocaust was the worst of any group of victims. Hitler's campaign of genocide against the Romani population of Europe involved a particularly bizarre application of Nazi "racial hygiene". Although, despite discriminatory measures, some Romani groups, including some of the Sinti and Lalleri of Germany, were spared deportation and death, the remaining Romani groups suffered much like the Jews. Between a quarter and a half of the Romani population was killed, upwards of 220,000 people.[10] In Eastern Europe, Roma were deported to the Jewish ghettoes, shot by SS Einsatzgruppen in their villages, and deported and gassed in Auschwitz and Treblinka.



Romanies are gypsies, so yes, there were gypsies killed in the holocaust

Well, you don't get countries with large modern armies doing it. Or many other "terrorist" groups. 40 years of being occupied in a harsh way and seeing the possibility of justice constantly denied may well do that to them. I like the way you try to shift the blame for the occupation from the occupied to the occupier too....

Yes you do. The Japanese did it in WW2. The Tamil Tigers. They do it against US troops in Iraq. This isn't a phenomena that is restricted only to a "poor, oppressed peoples" fighting out. Thus, the whole "40 years of being occupied" claim is easily refuted.

Plus, you're still excusing intentional attacks against civilians. These, in general, aren't suicide attacks against military targets. These are intentional attacks against non-military targets. That doesn't help the Palestinian people to achieve a goal in any way. What it does help is the Islamic extremist to believe that they are going to heaven because they murdered Jews - exactly as it states in the charter of most groups that carry out suicide bombings, like Hamas.

Britain didn't grant them the West Bank, or Arab East Jerusalem...they took that in 1967 and have refused to budge since. And previously you said it (land within Israel proper) was bought. Are you confused on this issue?

And the "legality", let alone morality of arbitrary decisions by a colonial power without reference to the native population is indeed questionable, I might add.

Thats incorrect. Britain granted the entire land to the Jordan river to be the Jewish State. That encompasses the whole of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip. However, that land simply was not chosen (as was rightfully granted to the Jews) to be part of the State when Israel declared its independence. Then it was later taken.

And the legality isn't in question any more than the legality of the way the land in the United State of America was taken from Native Americans. In fact, the way the United States oppressed Native Americans trumps virtually anything we can find in Israel. Yet, we don't see anyone complaining abou that, do we?

Instead, we see attacks on Israel alone while ignoring the fact that they are not substandard (anti-Semitism) and excusing terrorist attacks on Jews (anti-Semitism).

It wasn't an "invasion." There was some illegal immigration, but the vast majority of Jewish immigration was legal. Using extremist terms like "invasion" doesn't get you very far, when no such thing happened. Although, you've demonstrated my point quite well.[QUOTE]

If the land belonged to the British, then it blatentely was an invasion. The British Isles, as you may know, isn't actually all that close to the Middle East. You certainly couldn't walk there from Scarborough.Oh and illegal immigration is not an invasion in my opinion. I'd prefer to have open borders everywhere in the world, because people are people, let them go anywhere.

The land actually belonged to the various Arab peoples in the area. The Palestinians were one group of them.

[QUOTE]You are unwilling to excuse the suicide attacks on the Twin Towers in the United States, but you have no problem with excusing suicide attacks on Jewish women and children. This is the very definition of anti-Semitism.

Yes, thanks for utterly avoiding what I said. The Twin Towers was a fairly random attack at the USA. That's quite bad (although nothing like as bad as the midless retribution on the countries who weren't in any way responsible, but that's another topic entirely).

On the other hand, the Isrealis have wronged the Palestinians a number of times. How would you feel if your land was suddenly given to people that you were never on friendly terms with, and you had no say about it?

You'd be pretty pissed off, right?

Especially if those people were then donated vast amounts of military equipment so that they could beat the crap out of your army and take what they wanted. Even more so if they then build a huge fucking wall around land that was really yours, and even refused to get off your sovereign land, right?

And to make it worse, governments, which are allies to those people, that talk fucking rubbish about "Freedom and democracy" whilst they oo-rah! their way into any nation they like to get oil completely ignore your own democratically elected government and withdraw their aid, so that your government collapses, which also leaves the people in poverty.

Is that not enough to make you fight back?

And I don't care if they're "Women and children". How's that any worse than attacking men?

And the holy book "having a role" in it doesn't change anything. The fact of the matter is that the land was legally granted to the Jewish people. If you have any respect for the Rule of Law, and you aren't just a sympathizer of Palestinian terrorists, you must recognize the fact that the formation of the Israeli state and the ownership of the land never belonged to any group of "Palestinians" but was first owned by the British and then transferred to the Jewish people. A group of Arabs rose up out of fear and xenophobia, and thus the "Palestinian" people were born. The legal ownership was never that of a "Palestinian" identity, which didn't exist, but that of a British territory and then that of a Jewish State.

*sighs* Alright, let's put this another way. Who actually lived on the land? The Palestinians.

Just because the British owned India, did that make all Indians British? No.

Just because the British owned Palestine, did that make all Palestinians British? No.

And for fuck's sake, it was not "first owned by the British", it was owned by the Palestinians and always will be. Imperialism doesn't magically remove the history and culture of a place.

And I refuse to obey the Rule of Law if it creates shitty situations for the native people, whilst the minority have a great time of it. If that's what will happen, the anarchy all of the way.

[QUOTE=Tropical Sands]It wasn't an "invasion." There was some illegal immigration, but the vast majority of Jewish immigration was legal. Using extremist terms like "invasion" doesn't get you very far, when no such thing happened. Although, you've demonstrated my point quite well.[QUOTE]

If the land belonged to the British, then it blatentely was an invasion. The British Isles, as you may know, isn't actually all that close to the Middle East. You certainly couldn't walk there from Scarborough.Oh and illegal immigration is not an invasion in my opinion. I'd prefer to have open borders everywhere in the world, because people are people, let them go anywhere.

The land actually belonged to the various Arab peoples in the area. The Palestinians were one group of them.



Yes, thanks for utterly avoiding what I said. The Twin Towers was a fairly random attack at the USA. That's quite bad (although nothing like as bad as the midless retribution on the countries who weren't in any way responsible, but that's another topic entirely).

On the other hand, the Isrealis have wronged the Palestinians a number of times. How would you feel if your land was suddenly given to people that you were never on friendly terms with, and you had no say about it?

You'd be pretty pissed off, right?

Especially if those people were then donated vast amounts of military equipment so that they could beat the crap out of your army and take what they wanted. Even more so if they then build a huge fucking wall around land that was really yours, and even refused to get off your sovereign land, right?

And to make it worse, governments, which are allies to those people, that talk fucking rubbish about "Freedom and democracy" whilst they oo-rah! their way into any nation they like to get oil completely ignore your own democratically elected government and withdraw their aid, so that your government collapses, which also leaves the people in poverty.

Is that not enough to make you fight back?

And I don't care if they're "Women and children". How's that any worse than attacking men?



*sighs* Alright, let's put this another way. Who actually lived on the land? The Palestinians.

Just because the British owned India, did that make all Indians British? No.

Just because the British owned Palestine, did that make all Palestinians British? No.

And for fuck's sake, it was not "first owned by the British", it was owned by the Palestinians and always will be. Imperialism doesn't magically remove the history and culture of a place.

And I refuse to obey the Rule of Law if it creates shitty situations for the native people, whilst the minority have a great time of it. If that's what will happen, the anarchy all of the way.

Thank you Yootopia, you finally demonstrated that the land was principally still the arabs, and the british did not have the power to make that decision

Thank you Yootopia, you finally demonstrated that the land was principally still the arabs, and the british did not have the power to make that decision

No problem at all.

If the land belonged to the British, then it blatentely was an invasion. The British Isles, as you may know, isn't actually all that close to the Middle East. You certainly couldn't walk there from Scarborough.Oh and illegal immigration is not an invasion in my opinion. I'd prefer to have open borders everywhere in the world, because people are people, let them go anywhere.

The British supported the formation of a Jewish State. Like I said, it was a very small minority of Jews who immigrated illegaly. Jews moving to a British territory legally is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word, except maybe your own made-up definition.

The land actually belonged to the various Arab peoples in the area. The Palestinians were one group of them.

No, it belonged to the British. As someone pointed out in a previous post, all private property rights are actually granted by the government. The only entities that really own land are the states that control it, not private persons.

Yes, thanks for utterly avoiding what I said. The Twin Towers was a fairly random attack at the USA. That's quite bad (although nothing like as bad as the midless retribution on the countries who weren't in any way responsible, but that's another topic entirely).

On the other hand, the Isrealis have wronged the Palestinians a number of times. How would you feel if your land was suddenly given to people that you were never on friendly terms with, and you had no say about it?

There is no difference between an Arab attack on an Israeli civilian and an Arab attack on an US civilian. Like I stated before, the fact that you fail to draw a line between the two demonstrates that your anti-Zionism is actually in fact anti-Semitism.

Especially if those people were then donated vast amounts of military equipment so that they could beat the crap out of your army and take what they wanted. Even more so if they then build a huge fucking wall around land that was really yours, and even refused to get off your sovereign land, right?

There was no Palestinian state, and thus no sovreignity. You seem to just be making stuff up about "soverign land" now. A bunch of Arabs squatting on British land that was legally given to the Jews is hardly their "soverign land."

And I don't care if they're "Women and children". How's that any worse than attacking men?


I see. So you don't draw any distinction between civilian targets and the military. Thats a hallmark of terrorism.

And for fuck's sake, it was not "first owned by the British", it was owned by the Palestinians and always will be. Imperialism doesn't magically remove the history and culture of a place.

It was never owned by any group called the "Palestinians." It was owned by the Ottomans, who ceased to exist. From then, it was owned by the British, who transferred ownership to the Jews. Yes, it doesn't magically remove the history and culture. The culture changed when the Arabs left the land and Jews became the majority. Culture also doesnt change the fact that it legally belonged to the Jews, and never legally belonged to any group called "Palestinians."

And I refuse to obey the Rule of Law if it creates shitty situations for the native people, whilst the minority have a great time of it. If that's what will happen, the anarchy all of the way.

Well great, so you don't support Rule of Law, you support Palestinian attacks on Jewish civilian women and children, and you draw no distinction between military and civilian targets. Its easy to see why you support the Palestinians rather than the Israelis. You love chaos.

The British supported the formation of a Jewish State. Like I said, it was a very small minority of Jews who immigrated illegaly. Jews moving to a British territory legally is not an "invasion" by any definition of the word, except maybe your own made-up definition.

Read my post again. The British invaded that land and then gave it to some people. The people who previously lived on the land would have felt pretty violated whoever was on it.

No, it belonged to the British. As someone pointed out in a previous post, all private property rights are actually granted by the government. The only entities that really own land are the states that control it, not private persons.

No, it belonged to the Arabs who had lived there for years. If I beat the crap out of some people in an area, and then put my flag there, let's say in my street, do I own the land?

No. The native people to the area still do, and I rely on them totally.

There is no difference between an Arab attack on an Israeli civilian and an Arab attack on an US civilian. Like I stated before, the fact that you fail to draw a line between the two demonstrates that your anti-Zionism is actually in fact anti-Semitism.

How is it anti-Semitism? Please explain.

I am against the Isreali republic, I am not against Jews in any way, shape or form. And I did actually draw a line. Palestine and Isreal are at war, the USA and the Saudi Arabians are not.

The Twin Towers was malicious, anything that goes in in Isreal and Palestine is an act of war.

Do you understand that?

There was no Palestinian state, and thus no sovreignity. You seem to just be making stuff up about "soverign land" now. A bunch of Arabs squatting on British land that was legally given to the Jews is hardly their "soverign land."

Sovereignty doesn't come into something like this. The Palestinians have been oppressed by a number of people over the years, by various empires.

I see. So you don't draw any distinction between civilian targets and the military. Thats a hallmark of terrorism.

My dad's a consultant. But he is also a man. Does this make him a military target?

I am only sixteen and can barely call myself an adult, but if I stabbed an invader to death then I am still considered a civilian target by your logic.

It was never owned by any group called the "Palestinians." It was owned by the Ottomans, who ceased to exist. From then, it was owned by the British, who transferred ownership to the Jews. Yes, it doesn't magically remove the history and culture. The culture changed when the Arabs left the land and Jews became the majority. Culture also doesnt change the fact that it legally belonged to the Jews, and never legally belonged to any group called "Palestinians."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because the land was owned by the Ottomans does not make the people living there Ottoman. Just because the land was owned by the British does not make the people living there British. They're Jordanians living on the other side of the river, or they're Palestinians, whatever you want to call them.

Well great, so you don't support Rule of Law, you support Palestinian attacks on Jewish civilian women and children, and you draw no distinction between military and civilian targets. Its easy to see why you support the Palestinians rather than the Israelis. You love chaos.

I think this (http://piv.pivpiv.dk/) might actually sum up why you think that.

No, it belonged to the Arabs who had lived there for years. If I beat the crap out of some people in an area, and then put my flag there, let's say in my street, do I own the land?

On your street? No. The way the USA was formed, like it stole all the land from the Native Americans? Yes.

No. The native people to the area still do, and I rely on them totally.

So do the Native Americans still own all of the land in the United States too?

How is it anti-Semitism? Please explain.

I am against the Isreali republic, I am not against Jews in any way, shape or form. And I did actually draw a line. Palestine and Isreal are at war, the USA and the Saudi Arabians are not.

The Twin Towers was malicious, anything that goes in in Isreal and Palestine is an act of war.

No, Palestine and Israel are not at war. Only countries can be at war, and there is no country of Palestine. The Palestinian people are a rogue group. Furthermore, the groups that carry out attacks against Israelis are often officially condemned as terrorist attacks by the Palestinians in control of the PA at the time. They are seen as terrorists by the ruling parties on both sides, not as soldiers in a war.

Sovereignty doesn't come into something like this. The Palestinians have been oppressed by a number of people over the years, by various empires.

You were the one that brought up sovereignity, not me. You were the one that falsely stated they were a sovereign people, when they never were.

My dad's a consultant. But he is also a man. Does this make him a military target?

I am only sixteen and can barely call myself an adult, but if I stabbed an invader to death then I am still considered a civilian target by your logic.

There is no grey line between civilian and military. I'm pretty sure you realize that. Although, so far you have stated that you support the suicide attacks on Jewish civilians. Which is ironic, because the Palestinian government actually doesnt. Here are some excerpts from an article that Reuters just posted, from a suicide bombing that just happened in Tel Aviv today, emphasis mine:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-17T120832Z_01_L17734445_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-EXPLOSION.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13

A Palestinian suicide bomber killed at least five people at a sandwich stand in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv on Monday and wounded dozens more, medics said.

Both the Islamic Jihad militant group as well as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is linked to the Fatah movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, said: "I condemn this attack on behalf of President Abu Mazen, and I urge all Palestinian factions to observe a cessation of violence. Such attacks harm Palestinian interests."

A senior al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade leader in the occupied West Bank said the attack was to avenge Israeli raids in the Gaza Strip.

"This operation is in response to Israeli massacres against our people in Gaza," the militant said, referring to recent Israeli air strikes and artillery barrages against positions from where militants fire makeshift rockets into Israel

So, what have we learned? The PA government condemns the types of attacks you actually support, while the Palestinian terrorist groups carry them out.

Furthermore, these suicide bombers target innocent civilians - this time at a sandwich stand - in response to Israeli arir strikes against positions where militants fire rockets into Israel.

This is why the entire world recognizes one as a legitimate military and the other as a terrorist group. Israel attacks legitimate military targets, as we see from the article, whereas these Palestinian terrorist groups send suicide bombers in to blow up people eating sandwiches.

On your street? No. The way the USA was formed, like it stole all the land from the Native Americans? Yes.

So do the Native Americans still own all of the land in the United States too?

I've actually condemned the genocide of the Native Americans and indeed the taking of their land in previous topics.

And the Native Americans should really own all of the land, yeah.

No, Palestine and Israel are not at war. Only countries can be at war, and there is no country of Palestine. The Palestinian people are a rogue group. Furthermore, the groups that carry out attacks against Israelis are often officially condemned as terrorist attacks by the Palestinians in control of the PA at the time. They are seen as terrorists by the ruling parties on both sides, not as soldiers in a war.

You were the one that brought up sovereignity, not me. You were the one that falsely stated they were a sovereign people, when they never were.

You said this, and then talk about the Palestinian Authority later. Self-contradictory?

There is no grey line between civilian and military. I'm pretty sure you realize that.

Answer my bloody question. Is my father a military target simply because he's a man, even though he's never been in an army and never will be?

Am I a civilian even if I kill an invader, simply because, to all intents and purposes, I am a child?

What about my mother?

So far you have stated that you support the suicide attacks on Jewish civilians. Which is ironic, because the Palestinian government actually doesnt. Here are some excerpts from an article that Reuters just posted, from a suicide bombing that just happened in Tel Aviv today, emphasis mine:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-17T120832Z_01_L17734445_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-EXPLOSION.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13



So, what have we learned? The PA government condemns the types of attacks you actually support, while the Palestinian terrorist groups carry them out.

Furthermore, these suicide bombers target innocent civilians - this time at a sandwich stand - in response to Israeli arir strikes against positions where militants fire rockets into Israel.

This is why the entire world recognizes one as a legitimate military and the other as a terrorist group. Israel attacks legitimate military targets, as we see from the article, whereas these Palestinian terrorist groups send suicide bombers in to blow up people eating sandwiches.

I never said that I support these attacks, I said that they're totally understandable, actually.

The PA wants peace, with the Isreali withdrawl, but the Isrealis won't even talk to them. That's ridiculous, and it isn't helping either side. These attacks are because of Isreal's refusal to pull out, which it actually agreed to do.

You said this, and then talk about the Palestinian Authority later. Self-contradictory?

I guess you don't know what the PA is. Palestine is not a country, and the PA is not the government of Palestine. It is a semi-autonomous ruling body of the territories. It doesn't have the power to do things like declare war, nor does it have a country to go to war with.

Answer my bloody question. Is my father a military target simply because he's a man, even though he's never been in an army and never will be?

Am I a civilian even if I kill an invader, simply because, to all intents and purposes, I am a child?

What about my mother?

Simply because he's a man? No. However, any non-military person that acts out violently in any way against a military target or foreign nation can no longer be considered a civilian target. Thus, the Palestinian terrorists are not civilians. A child that attacks an invader with a knife? No, military target. The same thing about the mother applies to the situations above. Simply existing as a civilin does not make someone a military target - the actions that you partake in does.

I never said that I support these attacks, I said that they're totally understandable, actually.

The PA wants peace, with the Isreali withdrawl, but the Isrealis won't even talk to them. That's ridiculous, and it isn't helping either side. These attacks are because of Isreal's refusal to pull out, which it actually agreed to do.

Saying they are "understandable" is just an underhanded way of excusing them and supporting them. It is really just veiled anti-Semitism.

And the Israelis did talk to the PA in 2000. They offered to give them a state, but the PA refused and resorted back to terror. In fact, this was the official conclusion that was given by the advisor of Clinton who mediated it. The Israelis have been pulling out consistently, as well. They completely disengaged from the Gaza Strip and many parts of the West Bank. And terror attacks from those areas increased.

History would prove you wrong, I'm afraid. Israeli disengagement has resulted in an increase in terror, and Israeli offering them statehood and talking has resulted in the PA refusing statehood.

I guess you don't know what the PA is. Palestine is not a country, and the PA is not the government of Palestine. It is a semi-autonomous ruling body of the territories. It doesn't have the power to do things like declare war, nor does it have a country to go to war with.

So what would you call the state that Isreal is in at the moment?

Beseiged by terrorists and then attacking their land, ad infinitum?

Simply because he's a man? No. However, any non-military person that acts out violently in any way against a military target or foreign nation can no longer be considered a civilian target. Thus, the Palestinian terrorists are not civilians. A child that attacks an invader with a knife? No, military target. The same thing about the mother applies to the situations above. Simply existing as a civilin does not make someone a military target - the actions that you partake in does.

I think I'll just post this here, then :

And I don't care if they're "Women and children". How's that any worse than attacking men?

I see. So you don't draw any distinction between civilian targets and the military. Thats a hallmark of terrorism.

And that's taken in context.

Saying they are "understandable" is just an underhanded way of excusing them and supporting them. It is really just veiled anti-Semitism.

Please refer the website that I posted earlier.

I can understand why the USA would want oil. Does that mean I support the USA's actions in Iraq?

I can also understand the resistance movement in Iraq. Does that mean that I support it?

And the Israelis did talk to the PA in 2000. They offered to give them a state, but the PA refused and resorted back to terror. In fact, this was the official conclusion that was given by the advisor of Clinton who mediated it. The Israelis have been pulling out consistently, as well. They completely disengaged from the Gaza Strip and many parts of the West Bank. And terror attacks from those areas increased.

History would prove you wrong, I'm afraid. Israeli disengagement has resulted in an increase in terror, and Israeli offering them statehood and talking has resulted in the PA refusing statehood.

Yes, the Isrealis talked to them six years ago. That was before September 11th and the global political change that it brought. It was also before Ariel Sharon went out of power, and before Hamas got into power.

As Bob Dylan would have said if he'd written that song in the past, The times, they have a-changed.

Yes you do. The Japanese did it in WW2. The Tamil Tigers. They do it against US troops in Iraq. This isn't a phenomena that is restricted only to a "poor, oppressed peoples" fighting out. Thus, the whole "40 years of being occupied" claim is easily refuted.).

The Japanese did it out of desperation at the end of world war 2. The tamil tigers have no modern army but are an outgunned guerrilla force.


Plus, you're still excusing intentional attacks against civilians. These, in general, aren't suicide attacks against military targets. These are intentional attacks against non-military targets. That doesn't help the Palestinian people to achieve a goal in any way. What it does help is the Islamic extremist to believe that they are going to heaven because they murdered Jews - exactly as it states in the charter of most groups that carry out suicide bombings, like Hamas..).

I don't think it helps them either. Nor do I think it justifiable. I won't get on the high horse about it however, as thats crowded enough as it is.


Thats incorrect. Britain granted the entire land to the Jordan river to be the Jewish State. That encompasses the whole of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip. However, that land simply was not chosen (as was rightfully granted to the Jews) to be part of the State when Israel declared its independence. Then it was later taken...).

"Taken" in the brick through the window sense. And no, it was the UN that outlined the borders of what was to be the Jewish state. And the Area eventually recognised by the UN in 1948 is the one that has force of law. Theres no West Bank, Golan, Gaza or Arab East Jerusalen in it. I'm beginning to think you're making your argument up as you go along.


And the legality isn't in question any more than the legality of the way the land in the United State of America was taken from Native Americans. In fact, the way the United States oppressed Native Americans trumps virtually anything we can find in Israel. Yet, we don't see anyone complaining abou that, do we?...).

I think that the Japanese use of "scientific research" as an excuse to go whaling on the sly should be stopped. Thats not come up either. Neither has what I had for breakfast.


No, it belonged to the British. As someone pointed out in a previous post, all private property rights are actually granted by the government. The only entities that really own land are the states that control it, not private persons....).

Firstly the british were only mandated to govern the Area, secondly they would require court orders to seize the various lands, which they did not do. Thirdlly the final shape of Israel, and the final proposal before that, were put forward by the UN, not Britain.


A bunch of Arabs squatting on British land that was legally given to the Jews is hardly their "soverign land."....).

O dear...more fantasy.

And the Israelis did talk to the PA in 2000. They offered to give them a state, but the PA refused and resorted back to terror. In fact, this was the official conclusion that was given by the advisor of Clinton who mediated it. The Israelis have been pulling out consistently, as well. They completely disengaged from the Gaza Strip and many parts of the West Bank. And terror attacks from those areas increased.

Odd because others with Clinton said that the offer was something no Palestinian leader could have accepted and that it was merely an opening position. which Arafat rather stupidly refused to make a counter-offer to. And "many parts of the west bank"...what major settlements were disbanded in the West Bank?

Odd because others with Clinton said that the offer was something no Palestinian leader could have accepted and that it was merely an opening position. which Arafat rather stupidly refused to make a counter-offer to. And "many parts of the west bank"...what major settlements were disbanded in the West Bank?

This was not what the lead negotiator, Dennis Ross, stated in regards to Oslo (bold mine):


Think Again: Yasir Arafat
By Dennis B. Ross - July 2002
http://foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/ross.html

In 1974, Yasir Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), declared before the United Nations that he came “bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun.” Nearly 20 years later, the world still does not know if Arafat is a statesman dedicated to peaceful coexistence with Israel or a resistance leader dedicated to armed struggle. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict enters a tenuous new phase of peace negotiations, understanding Arafat’s true motives will be essential to fostering a lasting agreement.

“Arafat’s Goal Is a Lasting Peace With the State of Israel”

I doubt it. Throughout the Oslo peace process, everyone involved—Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Egyptians, Saudis, and other Arab leaders—shared the belief that Arafat wanted peace with Israel. It seemed logical. After all, Arafat had crossed the threshold and recognized Israel, incurring the wrath of secular and religious rejectionists. And he had authorized five limited or interim agreements with the Israelis. Although Arafat held out until the last possible minute and strived for the best deal, he eventually made the compromises necessary to reach those interim agreements.

Unfortunately, such short-term progress masked some disquieting signals about the Palestinian leader’s intentions. Every agreement he made was limited and contained nothing he regarded as irrevocable. He was not, in his eyes, required to surrender any claims. Worse, notwithstanding his commitment to renounce violence, he has never relinquished the terror card. Moreover, he is always quick to exaggerate his achievements, even while maintaining an ongoing sense of grievance. During the Oslo peace process, he never prepared his public for compromise. Instead, he led the Palestinians to believe the peace process would produce everything they ever wanted—and he implicitly suggested a return to armed struggle if negotiations fell short of those unattainable goals. Even in good times, Arafat spoke to Palestinian groups about how the struggle, the jihad, would lead them to Jerusalem. Too often his partners in the peace process dismissed this behavior as Arafat being caught up in rhetorical flourishes in front of his “party” faithful. I myself pressed him when his language went too far or provoked an angry Israeli response, but his stock answer was that he was just talking about the importance of struggling for rights through the negotiation process.

But from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give. He found it difficult to live without a cause, a struggle, a grievance, and a conflict to define him. Arafat never faced up to what he would have to do—even though we tried repeatedly to condition him. As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably.

Is there any sign that Arafat has changed and is ready to make historic decisions for peace? I see no indication of it. Even his sudden readiness to seize the mantle of reform is the result of intense pressure from Palestinians and the international community. He is maneuvering now to avoid real reform, not to implement it. And on peace, he does not appear ready to acknowledge the opportunity that existed with Clinton’s plan, nor does he seem willing to confront the myths of the Palestinian movement.

“Arafat Missed a Historic Opportunity When He Turned Down the Clinton Proposal”

Yes. It is true that Arafat did not “reject” the ideas the Clinton administration offered in December 2000. Instead, he pulled a classic Arafat: He did not say yes or no. He wanted it both ways. He wanted to keep talking as if the Clinton proposal was the opening gambit in a negotiation, but he knew otherwise. Arafat knew Clinton’s plan represented the culmination of the American effort. He also knew these ideas were offered as the best judgment of what each side could live with and that the proposal would be withdrawn if not accepted.

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

“The offer was never written” is a refrain uttered time and again by apologists for Chairman Arafat as a way of suggesting that no real offer existed and that therefore Arafat did not miss a historic opportunity. Nothing could be more ridiculous or misleading. President Clinton himself presented both sides with his proposal word by word. I stayed behind to be certain both sides had recorded each word accurately. Given Arafat’s negotiating style, Clinton was not about to formalize the proposal, making it easier for Arafat to use the final offer as just a jumping-off point for more ceaseless bargaining in the future.

However, it is worth pondering how Palestinians would have reacted to a public presentation of Clinton’s plan. Had Palestinians honestly known what Arafat was unwilling to accept, would they have supported violence against the Israelis, particularly given the suffering imposed on them? Would Arafat have remained the “only Palestinian” capable of making peace? Perhaps such domestic pressure would have convinced Arafat, the quintessential survivor, that the political costs of intransigence would be higher than the costs of making difficult concessions to Israel.

“Arab Leaders Stand Behind Arafat”

Reluctantly. I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private. Almost all Arab leaders have stories about how he has misled or betrayed them. Most simply wave their hands dismissively when examples of his betrayal of commitments are cited—almost as if they are saying, “We know, we know.” The Saudis, in particular, saw his alignment with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1991 as proof of his perfidy.

But no Arab leader is prepared to challenge him. All acknowledge him as the symbol of the Palestinian movement, and no one sees an alternative to him. But no one is prepared to go out on a limb for him, either.

Many suggest that in the absence of broad Arab support, Clinton’s proposal was too hard for Arafat to accept. Furthermore, some argue, since the United States failed to secure the support Arafat needed, it bears some responsibility for his inability to say yes. That argument is more myth than reality. First, if Clinton’s offer was so hard to accept, why has Arafat never honestly portrayed it? Why not say he was offered 97 percent, instead of Bantustans or cantons? Why not admit he would have had Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the state, instead of denying that?

Second, we did line up the support of five key Arab leaders for Clinton’s plan. On December 23, 2000, the same day that President Clinton presented his ideas to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, he called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, and Jordanian King Abdullah ii to convey the comprehensive proposal he had just presented to the parties. Shortly thereafter, he also transmitted the ideas to King Mohammed IV of Morocco and President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia. All these Arab leaders made clear they thought Clinton’s ideas were historic, and they pledged to press Arafat to accept the plan. However, when Arafat told Arab leaders he had questions, they backed off and assumed the position they had adopted throughout the Oslo peace process. They would support whatever Chairman Arafat accepted. They were not about to put themselves in a position in which Arafat might claim that President Mubarak or Crown Prince Abdullah or King Abdullah was trying to pressure him to surrender Palestinian rights.

Ambassador Dennis B. Ross is director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was the lead negotiator on the Middle East peace process in the first Bush and both Clinton administrations.


Odd, it semes that the lead negotiator during the Oslo accords disagrees with what you just claimed. He admits that the offer was perfectly acceptable, that five major Arab leaders accepted it, and that it granted the Palestinian people more than a fair order with a Palestinian State, and the right of return for Palestinians.

And the major settlements disbanded in the West Bank were those of Kadim, Ganim, Hamesh, and Sanur.

The Japanese did it out of desperation at the end of world war 2. The tamil tigers have no modern army but are an outgunned guerrilla force.

That they "did it out of desperation" doesn't really change the fact that modern armies have used suicide tactics against non-civilian targets, without being "terrorist" groups. This is just a non sequitur on your part.

And the Tamil Tigers are offically a terrorist group. Every time someone gives sympathy to terrorist groups by using terms such as "outgunned" (fallay of appeal to emotion) or "guerilla" (when they don't fit the definition), they are in fact supporting and legitimizing terror.

I think that the Japanese use of "scientific research" as an excuse to go whaling on the sly should be stopped. Thats not come up either. Neither has what I had for breakfast.

This statement is an example of the pseudo anti-Zionism that is in fact the new anti-Semitism. Here is an example from wikipedia on the new anti-Semitism that demonstrates my point, bold mine:

"In The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz describes a definition of anti-Semitism as "taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it. That is what Hitler and Stalin did, and that is what former Harvard University president A. Lawrence Lowell did in the 1920s when he tried to limit the number of Jews admitted to Harvard because 'Jews cheat.' When a distinguished alumnus objected on the grounds that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied, 'You're changing the subject. I'm talking about Jews.' So, too, when those who single out only the Jewish nation for criticism are asked why they don't criticize Israel's enemies, they respond, 'You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel."

The fact of it is, Israel is receiving more criticism and more harsh criticism than other nations that have far worse histories. The labeling of the IDF as a "terrorist" group while labeling the Tamil Tigers (who are in fact a recognized terrorist group) a poor old "outgunned guerilla" group demonstrates this too. Example again, same source, bold mine:

"The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic, the definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

* Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by
claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic
anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of
Israel."

This pseudo anti-Zionism has become an outlet for real anti-Semites and terrorist supporters to lash out at Israel while attempting to maintain a facade of legitimacy. The vast majority of the people on this forum who have claimed "it isn't anti-Semitic, but anti-Zionist" so far have demonstrated that their anti-Zionism is in fact the pseudo anti-Zionism that fits the criteria for the new anti-Semitism.

Obviously there are "extremists" on both sides.

The only difference is...while I may think these things and spread these ideas...I would never strap a bomb to myself and blow up a fast food stand filled with innocent people.

Thats the difference..."obviously".

And LOCATED IN A FUCKING 'RAB CESSPOOL ditto. Your talk of extremists with death wishes also ignores the fact that Suicide bombing is in the case of Palestinians, borne of desperation, rather than anything else. 40 years of occupation will do that to a people. And nobody has suggested that Israel cease to guard its 1967 borders.

Ok, lets try it this way.

My point was that Israel has to be militant and use force because it is located in a hostile location...called the middle east surrounded by Muslim countries who would like nothing more than for Israel to cease to exist...many of those countries also support people that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow up Israelis...just cuz.....

You call it borne of desperation....I call you an apologist for terrorism.

Fuck anyone who attacks the innocent.

Fuck people who arnt civlized enough to realize you cant just blow up another countries fast food places.

Is that better?

The only difference is...while I may think these things and spread these ideas...I would never strap a bomb to myself and blow up a fast food stand filled with innocent people.

Thats the difference..."obviously".
No, you would advocate the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Therefore, IMHO you are much worse than the bomber that blows up a few "innocent people". Hitler never strapped a bomb on himself either, but his ideology led to the death of millions of Jews.

Yay for Godwin!! Yet so appropriate for this response!!

No, you would advocate the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Therefore, IMHO you are much worse than the bomber that blows up a few "innocent people". Hitler never strapped a bomb on himself either, but his ideology led to the death of millions of Jews.

Yay for Godwin!! Yet so appropriate for this response!!

What are you talking about?

And if your reffering to that statement I made that you like to bring up....I said that Muslims MIGHT bring it upon themselves because they are pissing people off, even if the militant ones are the minority.

I never said I would slaughter millions of innocent people.

No, you would advocate the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Therefore, IMHO you are much worse than the bomber that blows up a few "innocent people". Hitler never strapped a bomb on himself either, but his ideology led to the death of millions of Jews.

Yay for Godwin!! Yet so appropriate for this response!!

Are you comparing Israel to Hitler and the Nazis? That is the very defintion of the new anti-Semitism, as we shall see (taken from the Wikipedia article, bold mine):

That attacks on Israel may serve as a cover for anti-Semitism has been accepted by official governmental bodies in Europe and the United States. For example, in 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), part of the Council of Europe, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as part of a general effort to track anti-Semitism. The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic, the definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

* Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

And...

Natan Sharansky has suggested that anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism can be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel if it fails the "3D" test. In Sharansky's words:[19]

* "The first D is the test of demonization. …Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz… can only be considered anti-Semitic…"
* "The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick. Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively… It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored. Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross."
* "The third D is the test of delegitimation. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism. While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland…"

It looks like you fit the definition of a new anti-Semite. Congrats! Aside from your Israel/Nazi anti-Semitic analogy, we see that you fit other criteria for the new anti-Semitism as well. Your reference to the "death and destruction of millions of innocent people" does not describe Israel at all. Israel has not killed millions of innocent people in its history. The United States has killed more people in the Iraq war than Israel has in its entire history. This fits the criteria listed above as the "double standard" and "having its actions blown out of preportion."

Meir Kahane would be so proud of this thread among many others.

Are you comparing Israel to Hitler and the Nazis? That is the very defintion of the new anti-Semitism, as we shall see (taken from the Wikipedia article, bold mine):
You are new here, I will go easy on you. Go back and read what I wrote, which was directed at Alantian. You are wayyyyyyyy off base. :p

It looks like you fit the definition of a new anti-Semite. Congrats! Aside from your Israel/Nazi anti-Semitic analogy, we see that you fit other criteria for the new anti-Semitism as well. Your reference to the "death and destruction of millions of innocent people" does not describe Israel at all. Israel has not killed millions of innocent people in its history. The United States has killed more people in the Iraq war than Israel has in its entire history. This fits the criteria listed above as the "double standard" and "having its actions blown out of preportion."
Me anti-Semitic? I am sorry but you have dialed the wrong number. :rolleyes:

You really should be careful slapping labels on people, especially when they don't apply.

You are new here, I will go easy on you. Go back and read what I wrote, which was directed at Alantian. You are wayyyyyyyy of base. :p


Me anti-Semitic? I am sorry but you have dialed the wrong number. :rolleyes:

You really should be careful slapping labels on people, especially when they don't apply.

Welcome to the rise of Neo-Kahanism, a blend of Classic Kahanism and McCarthyism where anyone who doesn't agree is automatically a Neo Nazi Anti-Semite! :D

What are you talking about?
Lets see now....what I am talking about. Try this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10381750&postcount=18

And if your reffering to that statement I made that you like to bring up....I said that Muslims MIGHT bring it upon themselves because they are pissing people off, even if the militant ones are the minority.
Or we could try this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10336523&postcount=1

Or this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10375973&postcount=72

I never said I would slaughter millions of innocent people.
Well when you want to take out the "innocents" it could easily number in the millions?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10376696&postcount=81

might just be enough for a war on all muslims, regardless if their extreamist or not
Bolding mine.

You are the one calling for a War on Islam:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467416

Welcome to the rise of Neo-Kahanism, a blend of Classic Kahanism and McCarthyism where anyone who doesn't agree is automatically a Neo Nazi Anti-Semite! :D
The witch hunt is on? I just had to laugh about my new label. :eek:

if, in order to exercise my legitamite right to critisise a country i have to be labelled an anti-semite, well then im an anti-semite, c if i care

Me anti-Semitic? I am sorry but you have dialed the wrong number. :rolleyes:

You really should be careful slapping labels on people, especially when they don't apply.

Saying "nuh uh" doesn't make it so. I listed the criteria for anti-Semitism desguised as anti-Zionism as defined by one of the most eminent human rights groups in Europe. And you fit it.

Honestly I don't think people realize that it is anti-Semitism. A lot of people aren't aware of their biases and prejudices. I'm sure lots of people think they are giving legitimate criticism of Israel, when in fact it is the pseudo anti-Zionism that is in fact anti-Semitism. However, it is anti-Semitism, because it fits the criteria for it.

if, in order to exercise my legitamite right to critisise a country i have to be labelled an anti-semite, well then im an anti-semite, c if i care

I'm glad you've finally admitted that you're an anti-Semite.

if, in order to exercise my legitamite right to critisise a country i have to be labelled an anti-semite, well then im an anti-semite, c if i care

Were your accusations rascist?

If so, then ANTI-SEMNITE!

We're you only critisizing their government? Then you are not an anti-semnite.

Welcome to the rise of Neo-Kahanism, a blend of Classic Kahanism and McCarthyism where anyone who doesn't agree is automatically a Neo Nazi Anti-Semite! :D

Strange, no one ever said anyone was a "Neo Nazi Anti-Semite" for not agreeing. Rather, I listed the criteria for anti-Semitism as defined by the EUMC and pointed out how various statements fit the criteria, and thus are anti-Semitic.

And no one has addressed the fact that those statements fit the criteria for anti-Semitism. Rather, we get non sequitur statements like "my legitimate right to criticize a country", "anyone who doesnt agree [whine]" and "you're new here, so I'll go easy on you."

Perhaps someone would like to address the fact that their statements fit the criteria for anti-Semitism as defined by the EUMC. In fact, I have a more extensive list of anti-Semitism published by the US State Dept. which encompasses the criteria in the EUMC plus some. The criteria I listed, and the accusations of anti-Semitism, are quite well founded. But no one has really addressed them. Surprise surprise.

Saying "nuh uh" doesn't make it so. I listed the criteria for anti-Semitism desguised as anti-Zionism as defined by one of the most eminent human rights groups in Europe. And you fit it.

Honestly I don't think people realize that it is anti-Semitism. A lot of people aren't aware of their biases and prejudices. I'm sure lots of people think they are giving legitimate criticism of Israel, when in fact it is the pseudo anti-Zionism that is in fact anti-Semitism. However, it is anti-Semitism, because it fits the criteria for it.
What I am aware of is that you are an idiot. I politely asked you to go back and read what I directed at Atlantian, and you come back with the same label.

I have over 7,000 posts here and I invite you to go through each and everyone of them. Until then, you can stick the label where the sun doesn't shine. :p

What I am aware of is that you are an idiot. I politely asked you to go back and read what I directed at Atlantian, and you come back with the same label.

I have over 7,000 posts here and I invite you to go through each and everyone of them. Until then, you can stick the label where the sun doesn't shine. :p

Your statement directed toward Atlantian was anti-Semitic. I did read it, quite clearly. Although, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you believe Israel does not have the right to exist?
Do you believe that Israel a racist state?
Do you believe that Israel is analogous to the Nazis, apartheid, racism, or terrorist groups; or that Israeli leaders are analogous to terrorist leaders, Hitler, Stalin, etc?

If you answered "yes" to any one of these questions, you are anti-Semitic according to the EUMC. If you answered "no", and you recognize that Israel has the right to exist, that it isn't a racist state, and that it is no way analogous to the Nazis, etc. nor are its leaders, then I'll gladly retract that you're anti-Semitic, and give you this apology now - I'm sorry.

I would also point out the "I have 7000 posts here" statement commits the fallacy of appeal to popularity. You could have a billion posts, but that doesn't validate your argument in any way.

Your statement directed toward Atlantian was anti-Semitic.
No it was not. Firstly, AI is an American, not an Israeli, and although he claims that he is Jewish, Keruvalia suggested that he is not in quite a convincing fashion.

I did read it, quite clearly.
Perhaps you read it clearly, but you certainly didn't understand it.

Although, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
No you are not and your first sentence proves that.

Do you believe Israel does not have the right to exist?
Do you believe that Israel a racist state?
Do you believe that Israel is analogous to the Nazis, apartheid, racism, or terrorist groups; or that Israeli leaders are analogous to terrorist leaders, Hitler, Stalin, etc?

If you answered "yes" to any one of these questions, you are anti-Semitic according to the EUMC. If you answered "no", and you recognize that Israel has the right to exist, that it isn't a racist state, and that it is no way analogous to the Nazis, etc. nor are its leaders, then I'll gladly retract that you're anti-Semitic, and give you this apology now - I'm sorry.
I'm sorry but I am not taking your silly test, but I will encourage you to go back and read what I wrote because it comes nowhere near what you describe above.

I would also point out the "I have 7000 posts here" statement commits the fallacy of appeal to popularity. You could have a billion posts, but that doesn't validate your argument in any way.
The only fallacies that I see here, is your refusal to do some research of my 7,000+ posts, and the silly label that you slapped on me.

I'm sorry but I am not taking your silly test, but I will encourage you to go back and read what I wrote because it comes nowhere near what you describe above.

I can't say I'm surprised. You most likely don't want to answer honestly and be proven an anti-Semite, and you don't wan't to be dishonest and lie about support for Israel.

The only fallacies that I see here, is your refusal to do some research of my 7,000+ posts, and the silly label that you slapped on me.

The term "fallacy" is one used in logic. Fallacies are logical principles. Logic is a science, as defined. Fallacies tend to be facts or at best solid theories. There is no "fallacy of refusal to do some research of my 7000+ posts." There is a fallacy of appeal to popularity, and dozens of variations (appeal to seniority, for example) - and you're committing one. Since all fallacies are illogical, by definition, and since you refuse to honestly answer the questions presented to you, perhaps you can just let me know when you want to have a serious discussion.

I can't say I'm surprised. You most likely don't want to answer honestly and be proven an anti-Semite, and you don't wan't to be dishonest and lie about support for Israel.
First off, I gave you a pass on your offensive insult. When you persisted, I suggested that you were an idiot, and now you are back seeking the gold medal?

The term "fallacy" is one used in logic. Fallacies are logical principles. Logic is a science, as defined. Fallacies tend to be facts or at best solid theories. There is no "fallacy of refusal to do some research of my 7000+ posts." There is a fallacy of appeal to popularity, and dozens of variations (appeal to seniority, for example) - and you're committing one. Since all fallacies are illogical, by definition, and since you refuse to honestly answer the questions presented to you, perhaps you can just let me know when you want to have a serious discussion.
Well since your argument lacks logic, the natural conclusion is that it is in fact a fallacy. I am certainly not "appealing to popularity". I was asking you to do some research of my posts. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You won't find anything that will support your false claim that I am anti-Semitic.

Well since your argument lacks logic, the natural conclusion is that it is in fact a fallacy. I am certainly not "appealing to popularity". I was asking you to do some research of my posts. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You won't find anything that will support your false claim that I am anti-Semitic.

I don't think you know what "logic" actually is. I think you just use the term like a lay person. So I wont point out anymore fallacies to you, since you don't get it.

And here is a post that supports my claim that you're anti-Semitic:

Originally Posted by Tropical Sands
Do you believe Israel does not have the right to exist?
Do you believe that Israel a racist state?
Do you believe that Israel is analogous to the Nazis, apartheid, racism, or terrorist groups; or that Israeli leaders are analogous to terrorist leaders, Hitler, Stalin, etc?

If you answered "yes" to any one of these questions, you are anti-Semitic according to the EUMC. If you answered "no", and you recognize that Israel has the right to exist, that it isn't a racist state, and that it is no way analogous to the Nazis, etc. nor are its leaders, then I'll gladly retract that you're anti-Semitic, and give you this apology now - I'm sorry.

I'm sorry but I am not taking your silly test, but I will encourage you to go back and read what I wrote because it comes nowhere near what you describe above.

Your refusal to simply answer a few questions about Israel, that would expose you as being anti-Semitic, supports quite clearly that you are indeed anti-Semitic and that you don't want it to come to the light. Of course, you could answer the questions and prove me wrong (or right), or you could just let your silence incriminate you.

I don't think you know what "logic" actually is. I think you just use the term like a lay person. So I wont point out anymore fallacies to you, since you don't get it.

And here is a post that supports my claim that you're anti-Semitic:

Your refusal to simply answer a few questions about Israel, that would expose you as being anti-Semitic, supports quite clearly that you are indeed anti-Semitic and that you don't want it to come to the light. Of course, you could answer the questions and prove me wrong (or right), or you could just let your silence incriminate you.
You are telling me that I don't know what logic is and yet you just made an illogical assumption, by suggesting that I am anti-Semitic just because I wouldn't take an illogical test.

I am not anti-Semetic period. If you don't believe me, that would be your problem and not mine. Perhaps in your ultimate wisdom, you will come to the logical conclusion that I am telling the truth.

You are telling me that I don't know what logic is and yet you just made an illogical assumption, by suggesting that I am anti-Semitic just because I wouldn't take an illogical test.

No, I'm saying you don't know what logic is because you've been misusing the term and you fail to recognize common fallacies, which are facts in the science of logic. Now, if you could point out something in the test or anything I said that violates logical principles, let me know. If not, then you demonstrate my point quite well that you don't really know what you're talking about when you use the term "logic." It isn't a subjective term, it is a science of reason with absolute formulas and principles that are quite well developed. Now go ahead and show me which ones I violated, since I showed you which one you violated.

I am not anti-Semetic period. If you don't believe me, that would be your problem and not mine. Perhaps in your ultimate wisdom, you will come to the logical conclusion that I am telling the truth.

It would seem from the way you responded to AI, vis the criteria listed for what defines pseudo anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, you are. Thus, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you some simple questions that could determine it.

Its a common MO of anti-Semites and racists of all types to promote their racist ideologies, and then turn around and claim "we're not racist." Hamas, for example, fits the criteria for anti-Semitism in its charter, but they too claim that they are not anti-Semitic.

Do you believe Israel does not have the right to exist?
yes

Do you believe that Israel a racist state?
yes

Do you believe that Israel is analogous to the Nazis, apartheid, racism, or terrorist groups; or that Israeli leaders are analogous to terrorist leaders, Hitler, Stalin, etc?
yes
If you answered "yes" to any one of these questions, you are anti-Semitic according to the EUMC.
Oh well Im an anti freakin semite. After reading much of this thread this seems to be the only response you, IDF, or AI can come up with. I still find so hard to believe how you can not understand how anger over Israel policy =/= anti-semitism

every1, its time to cut out the bullshit here.

being labelled an anti-semite or references to the holocaust are thinly veiled alibis for israel to push extreme militaristic policies in the middle east.

every1, its time to cut out the bullshit here.

being labelled an anti-semite or references to the holocaust are thinly veiled alibis for israel to push extreme militaristic policies in the middle east.

Exactly.

"We don't like it being pointed out that we shouldn't really be here, so we'll shelter behind the holocaust, which was horrible".

Yes, the holocaust was horrible. But would I play any part in it? Never.

But do I support Isreal? No.

every1, its time to cut out the bullshit here.

being labelled an anti-semite or references to the holocaust are thinly veiled alibis for israel to push extreme militaristic policies in the middle east.

As opposed to the Militant Muslims pushing extreme policies in the Middle East and in Israel?

As opposed to the Militant Muslims pushing extreme policies in the Middle East and in Israel?

I'd rather the people who belonged there did it than the Isrealis.

I'd rather the people who belonged there did it than the Isrealis.

Even though Israel also belongs there?

Even though Israel also belongs there?

The people in Isreal have been there for sixty-odd years. The native Arabs have been there for thousands. I think they have a greater right to do what they want in the region.

And Isreal doesn't "belong" there at all. It's an artificially created region in an area where there was never enough farmland, and Isreal have taken most of it.

The people in Isreal have been there for sixty-odd years. The native Arabs have been there for thousands. I think they have a greater right to do what they want in the region.

This is not true.

And Isreal doesn't "belong" there at all. It's an artificially created region in an area where there was never enough farmland, and Isreal have taken most of it.

Oh go read the history of the region.

This is not true.



Oh go read the history of the region.

The history of the region is that the Palestianians lived there for however many years and then Britain said "I think the Jews need their own bit of land, let's put it right here". There were better places to put the Jews than Isreal.

The history of the region is that the Palestianians lived there for however many years and then Britain said "I think the Jews need their own bit of land, let's put it right here". There were better places to put the Jews than Isreal.

That's the modern history. I'm talking about ancient history.

It was a land inhabited by a number of people, predominately Arabs.

It was a land inhabited by a number of people, predominately Arabs.

Ah, this my friend, can be debated.

Ah, this my friend, can be debated.

As can anything.

As can anything.

Here I'll agree with you :)

Here I'll agree with you :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Do you actually have a point, or are you off on another crusade in the world of morals and philosophy?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Do you actually have a point, or are you off on another crusade in the world of morals and philosophy?

I could launch into a diatrib but really, it isn't worth it. Besides, this thread is about Iran.

No, I'm saying you don't know what logic is because you've been misusing the term and you fail to recognize common fallacies, which are facts in the science of logic. Now, if you could point out something in the test or anything I said that violates logical principles, let me know. If not, then you demonstrate my point quite well that you don't really know what you're talking about when you use the term "logic." It isn't a subjective term, it is a science of reason with absolute formulas and principles that are quite well developed. Now go ahead and show me which ones I violated, since I showed you which one you violated.

It would seem from the way you responded to AI, vis the criteria listed for what defines pseudo anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, you are. Thus, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you some simple questions that could determine it.

Its a common MO of anti-Semites and racists of all types to promote their racist ideologies, and then turn around and claim "we're not racist." Hamas, for example, fits the criteria for anti-Semitism in its charter, but they too claim that they are not anti-Semitic.
So far, all of your logic has failed you. You have made illogical assumptions based on faulty criteria that led you to falsely accuse me of being an anti-Semite. Even after I invited you to go back and re-read what I initially wrote, you came back still insisting that I was anti-Semetic. However, you graciously gave me the opportunity to "prove" that I wasn't anti-Semetic by taking part in a test as if this test would somehow magically "prove" that I was indeed anti-Semetic or not. Because I refused to take part in your flawed test, you made the illogical assumption that I indeed was anti-Semetic. You make matters worse by suggesting that I don't know what logic is, even though you have failed to use any in this whole discussion.

Your trollish behaviour, besides trying to piss me off, has led to a mini hijack of this thread. I suggest that in future debate, that you use a little more common sense before you go around slapping labels on people.

So far, all of your logic has failed you. You have made illogical assumptions based on faulty criteria that led you to falsely accuse me of being an anti-Semite. Even after I invited you to go back and re-read what I initially wrote, you came back still insisting that I was anti-Semetic. However, you graciously gave me the opportunity to "prove" that I wasn't anti-Semetic by taking part in a test as if this test would somehow magically "prove" that I was indeed anti-Semetic or not. Because I refused to take part in your flawed test, you made the illogical assumption that I indeed was anti-Semetic. You make matters worse by suggesting that I don't know what logic is, even though you have failed to use any in this whole discussion.

Your trollish behaviour, besides trying to piss me off, has led to a mini hijack of this thread. I suggest that in future debate, that you use a little more common sense before you go around slapping labels on people.

Sorry about hijacking the thread, everyone!

Sorry about hijacking the thread, everyone!

As the originator of this thread, you are forgiven. May peace be with you my friend.

That's the modern history. I'm talking about ancient history.
Ancient history is exactly that ancient history and should not be a deciding factor claims to land(although Israel supporters will say it does). As far as modern history goes(the one that counts) Arabs have had claim to that land, therefore it is theirs and the jews stole it.

Considering the original material, I don't think CanuckHeaven is anti-semitic but may have commited an ad hominem(I believe the original post was arguing about how since Atlantean advocated killing all muslims, his/her viewpoint shouldn't be listened too. Feel free to show me the original post though)

And Tropical Sands, I beileve you've gone crazy, considering you're accusing EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD of being anti-semitic, possibly including me.
And to point out the fallacy you're using? Many ad hominems, as even if someone is anti semitic, that doesn't mean you can ignore whatever they say on that grounds.

Really too bad, I support your side too.

EDIT:Reread one of your posts. To wit: CH was not talking about Israel in the Hitler reference. He/she was talking about Atlantean's proposal to kill all muslims. I advise you to take a break from this argument, really. You seem to have just ignored a rather crucial point there, and that's a rather large falacy.

EDIT2:Even more points:

Lets see now....what I am talking about. Try this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...0&postcount=18

Specifically, Atlantean agreed with this(Note:Original poster made it clear that this refers to all muslims, not only the terrorists and such) :Canada City]Why do people still defend these animals? They should be shot, just like all threatening animals. Animals don't have rights.

And prior to this, Atlantean said...
Fuck anyone who attacks the innocent.

There we go. Thorough proof that CH is not an anti-semite, and in fact, may have been correct in his/her statement that what atlantean agreed with is a whole lot worse then the palastinien(sic?) terrorists.

And arguing advice to CH: Don't ask him to go back to read your original post. Repost your post right there so he HAS to respond to it.

Lets see now....what I am talking about. Try this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10381750&postcount=18

I still stand by what [NS] Canada City said and agree with him to the fullest...also when he says they should be shot, it could be interpretated the didnt mean all Muslims, simply the ones that are included in the following, in [NS] Canada City's own words, "Burning down buildings, the protest signs in the UK, and palestines celebrating when the towers were hit."

But isnt that the problem with everything, interpretation?

Or we could try this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10336523&postcount=1

For this I was simply stating that a war is likely since the U.N had just officially found out that Iran was going after weapons....I still dont see whats wrong with that...:confused:

Or this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10375973&postcount=72

A simple joke...come on Canuck...this is below you...we both know that that didnt have any hidden meaning behind it....I dont support nuking anywhere...let alone a civilian area...I may be a die hard conservative, but I'm no monster.

Well when you want to take out the "innocents" it could easily number in the millions?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10376696&postcount=81

In this one I simply pointed out that even Muslims who arent extremists have problems with western society....and if they keep acting up, it may be enough for the public to retaliate against muslims...extremist or not....Because lets face it, the bad muslims are TOTALLY overshadowing the good ones in world view...regardless of percentages.

Bolding mine.

You are the one calling for a War on Islam:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467416

I'm not calling for anything...I still stand by my orginal post in that thread...

"Simply put, who believes we are, or will be soon, at war with Islam. Between tensions ammounting in Europe, an anti middle east feeling in America and the near explosion of geo political current events coming out of middle eastern countries, who beleives we, as the west, (America, Canada, Europe, Australia) are actually, or will be at war with Islam?

Obviously not all muslims are bad, not even most, but the fact remains that there ARE lots of problems going on with muslims today that the minority are GREATLY overshadowing the majority in terms of reputation. "

Ancient history is exactly that ancient history and should not be a deciding factor claims to land(although Israel supporters will say it does). As far as modern history goes(the one that counts) Arabs have had claim to that land, therefore it is theirs and the jews stole it.

:rolleyes: So naive.

Say, are you going to hijack the thread again? Just wondering.

No it was not. Firstly, AI is an American, not an Israeli, and although he claims that he is Jewish, Keruvalia suggested that he is not in quite a convincing fashion.

Yeah, I'm an American and I AM Jewish...regardless of what that muslims tells you.

But you dont have to be Israeli to be subjected to Anti-Semiticsm...you just have to be Jewish.

Anyway Tropical Sands your getting way carried away, just because Canuck supports the arabs over the Jews, doesnt mean hes anti semetic at all...I'm the one at odds with Canuck here and I dont beleive him to be anti semetic at all, just a big fat leftist:D

Tropical Sands, you might want to relax a little...while I agree with your position on Israel and your posts on the Israeli-Arab conflict...calling people that dont agree with us anti semetic, is just, well...stupid.

Anyway, Canuck...although I cant stand your siding with the arabs...I'm gonna put that aside for a second and tell you to things. One, I am Jewish. Two, and more importantly, your not anti semetic, dont worry.

Considering the original material, I don't think CanuckHeaven is anti-semitic but may have commited an ad hominem(I believe the original post was arguing about how since Atlantean advocated killing all muslims, his/her viewpoint shouldn't be listened too. Feel free to show me the original post though)

And Tropical Sands, I beileve you've gone crazy, considering you're accusing EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD of being anti-semitic, possibly including me.
And to point out the fallacy you're using? Many ad hominems, as even if someone is anti semitic, that doesn't mean you can ignore whatever they say on that grounds.

Really too bad, I support your side too.

EDIT:Reread one of your posts. To wit: CH was not talking about Israel in the Hitler reference. He/she was talking about Atlantean's proposal to kill all muslims. I advise you to take a break from this argument, really. You seem to have just ignored a rather crucial point there, and that's a rather large falacy.

EDIT2:Even more points:



Specifically, Atlantean agreed with this(Note:Original poster made it clear that this refers to all muslims, not only the terrorists and such) :

And prior to this, Atlantean said...


There we go. Thorough proof that CH is not an anti-semite, and in fact, may have been correct in his/her statement that what atlantean agreed with is a whole lot worse then the palastinien(sic?) terrorists.

I noticed that alot of stuff here was directed at me...could you please rephrase it, I couldnt really understand what you were trying to get at?

Yeah, I'm an American and I AM Jewish...regardless of what that muslims tells you.

But you dont have to be Israeli to be subjected to Anti-Semiticsm...you just have to be Jewish.

Anyway Tropical Sands your getting way carried away, just because Canuck supports the arabs over the Jews, doesnt mean hes anti semetic at all...I'm the one at odds with Canuck here and I dont beleive him to be anti semetic at all, just a big fat leftist:D

Tropical Sands, you might want to relax a little...while I agree with your position on Israel and your posts on the Israeli-Arab conflict...calling people that dont agree with us anti semetic, is just, well...stupid.

Anyway, Canuck...although I cant stand your siding with the arabs...I'm gonna put that aside for a second and tell you to things. One, I am Jewish. Two, and more importantly, your not anti semetic, dont worry.

I'm also not anti-semitic, right?

That man needs an embassy in reality.

I'm also not anti-semitic, right?

I dont know...tell me the number of your posts that Tropical Sands viewed as Anti Semetic so I can look at them.

I dont know...tell me the number of your posts that Tropical Sands viewed as Anti Semetic so I can look at them.

Pretty much all of them, really.

Pretty much all of them, really.

Yeah, give me the numbers and I will read them..but I cant search all 16 pages for them...you must know where you posted, surley?

Yeah, give me the numbers and I will read them..but I cant search all 16 pages for them...you must know where you posted, surley?

From about 150 onwards, I think.

From about 150 onwards, I think.

Eh, your a hard case...your either, anti semetic, an arab lover, an arab, a extreme leftist, or simply uniformed...or some combination of those.

You agreed with the post of the guy who said, more or less, "Let's shoot all muslims!".
Thus Canuck's post comparing you with the Nazis for agreeing with that guy who said to kill millions of innocent people.
By the way, I think we've gone through at least two godwins in this thread.

Eh, your a hard case...your either, anti semetic, an arab lover, an arab, a extreme leftist, or simply uniformed...or some combination of those.

The left wing option is the nearest, I'm not particularly extreme.

Eh, your a hard case...your either, anti semetic, an arab lover, an arab, a extreme leftist, or simply uniformed...or some combination of those.
guess what I am, I wanna see what you say