NationStates Jolt Archive

i assume what you mean by echoes is terrorists and extra fun violence?
your from ireland, yes? you know what i mean.

if we are going to give them a holy land why not in russia? oh wait that been done before, they didnt like it. but its still there for them.

No one ever answered my question of where this land Russia offered them is, I'm still expecting it to be part of Siberia or Checnya

You have no idea about Irish history. The IRA supported Germany in WWII, only because they were against Britain. Eamonn de Valera cracked down on the IRA because of this. The Jews of Ireland were not expelled as you imply, they emigrated due to bad economic conditions and lack of other Jews. They mostly went to England, New York, and Israel.

i did not say expelled.

there is a small, but well established jewish community in Dublin. Gorias should go and talk to some of them before coming out with that sort of crap.

i've met 2 irish jews last year. bring it ip to a total of 3 jews i've found in dublin. 9 in total in whole life. i used to count black people but thats gone over 20 and getting hard to remember.

No one ever answered my question of where this land Russia offered them is, I'm still expecting it to be part of Siberia or Checnya

near china.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

looking for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

looking for this?

And why this is being questioned:

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.

And why this is being questioned:

its on my map at home so i believe its there.

its on my map at home so i believe its there.

Not saying it wasn't. After all only 1.22% of the area is made up of Jews (at least according to the article citing 2002 census) with nearly 90% ethnic Russians followed by the Ukrainians.

I'm not quite sure what's up with that region's flag... :D

I'm not quite sure what's up with that region's flag... :D

That flag does look familiar doesn't it?

Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority.
Actually... there are also many Israeli citizens (with full political rights) that aren't jews. In Nazi Germany only "aryans" had citizenship (no political rights, anyway, since it wasn't a democracy). Bit of a difference, don't you think so?


Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions.

Mixing up things, aren't you? While Israel EXPLOITS the Holocaust, the Third Reich MADE the Holocaust. They didn't use it.

Its a very close race but the Nazis haven't been around for 60 years and only lasted around 20. The regime of Israel is still around and has been for 60 years. Its close, but I say Israel takes this one. your thoughts?


While I don't like Israeli policies at all, I think that you need to think about the bloody numbers a bit.
Maybe no-one of your older relatives can recall what life was like under Nazi regime. My relatives used to tell me that - 20 years under Mussolini's regime, plus 3 years of Nazi occupation. I know from the TV and the media that living in the Gaza Strip sucks, but living under the Nazi boot was even worse.
Really.
6 millions jews, at least 12 millions non-combatant soviets, 1 million gypsies... and many, many more - and I'm not counting soldiers or partisans. Just people (civilians, non-combatants) whose lands were occupied by Nazis. And that in just 12 years.

My thoughts - and asking for excuse, but here's 1.00 in the morning and I still got loads of work to do - is that your hate for Israel (be it legitimate, or not, I don't care) leads you to plain trolling.

the israelis are no better than the terrorists. i personally would prefere then to talk things out but the israelis give them little option.
if you're a dude from a wee little state and a bigger is attacking you. if you think you could be dead in a few days or your family have been murdered by them, you act irrationally. the thought goes through thier head, "why die by thier hands, if i can chose my own dead and take some of my enemies with me?"

The diffrence is the enemies are NEVER civilians. Civilians are not legimate intentional targets. Killing people who are not directly involved in the conflict is inexcusable.

If they want to legitamately attack the Isralies, attack the Isralie military, do not attack innocent civilians.

If they want to legitamately attack the Isralies, attack the Isralie military, do not attack innocent civilians.

oh i agree. governments get more worried if you are actually attacking them.

No they just don't. There is no such thing as a 'historical claim'. As I said many times before: Jews had their lives, and possessions, their families, their land elsewhere. Then out of the blue they expected Arabs, who lived in Palestine since ancient times, to just go away and leave everything to the Jews. It seems you are incapable of an Arab perspective. And you only look at them collectively, you don't see the individuals and their desperate efforts to just keep their little lives going. You are an anti-Arabist and thus an anti-Semite, if you demand the to accept the unjustifiable partition and giving aways of their homeland, of the soil their families have tilled and which supported their lives for centuries.

1. They did not expect them to just up and leave. The partition devided the land into areas in which the Jews were majority and areas where the Arabs were majority

2. The Jews had been living in the region for thousands of years. Like it or not you cannot simply deny their ancestral claim to the area. The first Arabs to the region also were from a very long time ago, but not as long as the Jews. They first came from the Arab conquests in the seventh century AD. There is no proof beyond rhetoric that modern Arabs of the region are descended from the Cannanites.

3. Is it better for them to have the state or for people to die? They should just make peace and be happy with the west bank and Gaza. It is all they will get seeing as how they were offered more before and did not accept it. To offer more now suggests that the situation will be resolved better for the Palestianins by terror than by negoatiation.

i dont see how people like you are so blind. if you fire a missile into a residential area, not near, your are bound to cilivilians. its a pansey way of fighting. everytime i read about israels "reactions" there are more civilians dead than thier "targets".

Guess what. Terrorists dont wear uniforms. Terroists dont have bases far away from civilian centres. Terrorists hide in civilian centres so that they can create civilian casulties should the enemy come looking for them, thus discrediting the enemy with the international community.

Yeah, losses that aren't your own are easily justified. Put the question is who is the aggressor and who is the defender. The aggressor is the Jewish state, and Arabs try to defend or rather to regain what they have lost due to foreign powers' policies.

No they arnt. The Palesitans are the agressors. Had they accepted the decision in 1948 they would have had a state far far bigger than anything they could ever get now. The Jews accepted it because it gave them something. The Palestianins didnt accept it because it didnt give them everything.

European Jews are the invaders. They are the aggressors. The Arabs are those who defend themselves. You won't change the facts with whatever you say.

Defend themselves FROM WHAT?

The original Isralie state had NO INTENTION of anything war like. They didnt want to kill anyone. They even publicly denonced the Dar Yassin incident. They just wanted to live in peace in their own country. They wanted a country of their own because for thousands of years they have had none and thus for thousands of years they have been persecuted. They were forced from their origianl home a long time ago and it is fitting that it is to there they should return. They just wanted to live alongside the Arabs, they didn't want to fight anyone. They even offered the Arabs who left the region post the 1948 war citizenship provided they renounce viloence. The war was started by the Arab nations, who attacked CIVILIAN centres. That was a war of extermination. Not retailation. They wanted all the Jews dead. If they had simply intended to retaliate they would have attacked the miliary centres, centres which the Isralies had delibrately placed far from the civilian areas. But they struck Tel Aviv instead. Thus demonstrating their genocidal intent. They lost that war. And they keep trying to fight back and they keep loosing. They should accept peace. If they had accpeted peace some years ago (as the Isralies had asked) Israel would be much smaller now and there would be many fewer dead. But it would seem that many Arabs want a state and dont care how much blood is spilt to paint the lines.

I do obviously understand the current situation better than you do. Jews came and took and expected the Arabs to accept their mere desire.
The current situation on the ground in the time the Jews began ever more insistingly claiming land is all that counts. After the end of the Ottoman Empire only 10% or so of the population in the region was Jewish, so to give them or even promise them more than they already had clearly violated the Arabs' entitlement of self-determination as a people finally free of foreign rule. All you want to see is the continued foreign rule over the area. Turk, Brits, Jews. There is no reason to accept that. Ever.
The Zionist claim on Palestine is baseless.

Jews legally immigrated to land so they are hardly "foreign". Many Palestinians immigrated there as well in the decades before '48 as well. Before the British mandate the population in Palestine/Israel was very small. In the end the Jews were a large enough minority to demand a say in the affairs of the area. The Great Arab Revolt however proved that the two sides could not get along so rightly the land was divided into a Jewish and an Arab state. I seem to have to keep repeating myself on this point. The Palestinians HAD a state! They threw it away! And again, you can not use history to back up Palestinian claims to the land and ignore Jewish history. Your arguemnent simply falls apart.

I hardly think that Israel can do no wrong, the country has plenty of faults but I really have a hard time understanding how you think that your argument justifies the current tactics of Palestinian militants. What they are doing is not going to work anyway, even ignoring the horrific results of their attacks.

your new here so i'm not going to flame you.
russia made a state for the jews. they rejected it. america is now thier homeland. other little shitty religions dont get a homeland, why should they?

Read history

Jews are not primaryly a religion. There is a religious belief attached to them but they are a race also.

The Jews as a race for thousands of years had a state in the region that is now disputed. It was however invaded and re invaded and resettled by the jews and then reoccupied etc to the point where the Jews floated around Euorpe and other parts of the world. However in all the rest of the of the world they encountered hostility, the inquisition, pogroms etc and this was ultimately manifested in the Holocaust. In 1948 it was agreed that the Jews could no longer be 'guests' in other peoples countries. Wherever they did that they were ghetoised, persecuted etc. They needed a home of their own. The only fitting place is that of the place where once they left. And its not as if it was completely devoid of Jews. Since the anchient times Jews have always lived there and since the early 20th/late 19th century more and more were going there, settling their, buying land and building communities there. No one was really worried about it. The land then was largly unoccupied, owned by Syrian and Egyptian absentee landlords who were quite happy for the Jews to buy it. As were later the debt-ridden Bedoin pesents, who were also very happy to sell what they saw as useless land to the Jews. The Jews then built communities, farms and homes there. And in 1948 it was a thirving de facto state. It wasnt offically a state, but in 1948 given the situation, it was thought apropriate that the Jews should return to their homeland. The Jews didnt want a war, they didnt want to fight Arabs. They just wanted to live in peace. The original partion gave Israel a smaller area of the land than they had now, but they accepted it because it gave them something. The Arabs rejected it because it didnt give them everything. So the Arabs launched an attack on the Isralie civilian centres, intending to fight a war of extermination against the Jews. It was a war of extermination as oppsed to an actual normal conflict because had it been a normal conflict they would have targeted Isralie millitary instalations. But they didnt, they bombed Tel Aviv. And so Israel won that war and they got more land. They have consistantly asked for peace and been ment with more war and have won more wars and thus gained more land. All Israel wants is peace, and has proven so by offering land time and time again. But it seems that many of the Arabs want a state more than they value the lives of those who will die to get it.

That was still not the Arabs' responsibility.

Despite the fact that the Arab states supported the Holocaust and sent soldiers to make up SS death squads.

You're just repeating the same old BS again. Zionism is a form of racism. There's even a UN resolution stating so. And the desire for a Jewish state in a foreign land that in its creation would require the already present population to just disappear because they are not Jewish, is clearly racist. And as I said many times before, they could have desired their damn state elsewhere. Some place where they'd have no-one to remove first. There was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the UN partition plan. Why would they have? And they weren't even asked what they wanted.
If you like the Jews so much, why don't you let them into your home?

The land ISNT FORIEGN to the Jews. IT IS THEIR HOMELAND. They have had a state there for thousands of years before the various invasions that forced them out. After having lived in persecution and suffering for so long, guess what. They wanted a home of their own so they wouldnt have to be persecuted anymore. And guess what. THEY WANTED IT IN THEIR HOME. They didnt want to go somewhere else because that land would be forigen to them, it would have no meaning for them. It would be like resettling the kurdish population in the Amazon basin. Ludicrous. And guess what, for years they had been building homes in that region LEGITMATELY. They had been buying land off absentee landlords and making communities and farms for themselves. They had a de facto state by 1948, they just needed offical aproval. And had they got it then, it would have been even better. The palestians would have got a bigger state, way bigger than what they have now, and many thousands of people would not have died.

Jews legally immigrated to land so they are hardly "foreign". Many Palestinians immigrated there as well in the decades before '48 as well. Before the British mandate the population in Palestine/Israel was very small. Your arguemnent simply falls apart.

I hardly think that Israel can do no wrong, the country has plenty of faults but I really have a hard time understanding how you think that your argument justifies the current tactics of Palestinian militants. What they are doing is not going to work anyway, even ignoring the horrific results of their attacks.

to have legal immigration you would need a government to accept immigration, It's really questionable if Britain had the right to process immigration for a country that was not theirs. It would be like the USA processing Chinese immigration into Mexico without bothering to ask the Mexicans if it was ok.

I used to be concerned with the tactics of the militants. But now it's apparent Israel has no intention of ever leaving the west bank and creating has created a permanent apartheid system to exploit cheap labour of the Palestinians. I can no longer fault the Palestinian militias methods; desperate conditions breed extreme reactions. Horrific as they are they are no worse than what they suffer at the hands of the Israeli's.

Now what? The Jews did not just desire a state? They did not just want to escape persecution? They just wanted Palestine?
So there is in fact even less reason for Palestinians to share their already tiny land with foreigners.
Admit it, you only want to see Arabs under oppression, that's all.

The Arabs arnt under opression in Israel. Actually they rather like it. Arabs when interviewd about life in Israel prefer it mainly because they have got used to speeking their minds. They are allowed to oppose Isralie policy freely. If you opposed the government in an Arab state your liable to be shot.

Read history

Jews are not primaryly a religion. There is a religious belief attached to them but they are a race also.

they are not a race. tribal yes, a collection of ethnic groups sharing a common religion as well, but a Race, no.

your information is flawed.
the jews returned aroubd 1870. arabs where there at the same time as the jews. then became a christian territory. then arab in around 660ad. christians have more of a claim than jews if you want to go by possion that long ago.

The Jewish state first existed more than 3000 years ago. Under a tribal monarcy confederation.

they are not a race. tribal yes, a collection of ethnic groups sharing a common religion as well, but a Race, no.

Well I think now the individaual 12 tribes are so intermingled as to become a single race, but yes I take the point.

The Arabs arnt under opression in Israel. Actually they rather like it. Arabs when interviewd about life in Israel prefer it mainly because they have got used to speeking their minds. They are allowed to oppose Isralie policy freely. If you opposed the government in an Arab state your liable to be shot.they'll say anything in front of a camera rather than risk being exiled.

I could counter any interview you have seen with that others that describe the loathing for the Israelis, 2nd class citizens in their own country. The ones I've seen they don't want to have their faces shown, what would be the reason for that?

they'll say anything in front of a camera rather than risk being exiled.

I could counter any interview you have seen with that others that describe the loathing for the Israelis, 2nd class citizens in their own country. The ones I've seen they don't want to have their faces shown, what would be the reason for that?

Institutional racism in Israel is something that can be challenged and changes can be made. No such changes will occur in an Arab state. Of course things arnt perfect, mainly because people see the Arabs blowing up civilian centres in Israel and reflect it on the Arabs in Israel who are peaceful. Obviously thats wrong. But in Israel, being a democracy, you can complain about that. You are entitled to object and be heard. The same isnt true of the Arab states.

to have legal immigration you would need a government to accept immigration, It's really questionable if Britain had the right to process immigration for a country that was not theirs. It would be like the USA processing Chinese immigration into Mexico without bothering to ask the Mexicans if it was ok.

I used to be concerned with the tactics of the militants. But now it's apparent Israel has no intention of ever leaving the west bank and creating has created a permanent apartheid system to exploit cheap labour of the Palestinians. I can no longer fault the Palestinian militias methods; desperate conditions breed extreme reactions. Horrific as they are they are no worse than what they suffer at the hands of the Israeli's.

They conqured the territory from the Ottoman Empire, they had administration over it, to me that gives them every right. Besides, the Jewish historical claim is enough for me to justify their presence.

And I don't care what excuses the militants come up with. I agree that the conservative elements are in control of Israeli government and the idea of a Greater Israel is in effect. They need to dismantle most of their West Bank settlements I agree. However that does not give those terrorists the right to blow up civilians. They are simply making it harder for the moderates in Israel to ever get anything done with helping the Palestinians in their desperate situation. Anyway you look at it, I see nothing positive you can claim about their methods.

The fact is here, the threat to Israel is insignificant, but is perceived to be great for justification. The fact is Israel has the largest and most advanced military in the entire region, if every Palestinian picked up a rifle today and marched into Israel they would be no match for the IDF. Israel say they live in fear yet it is them who have created the fear, it has become an endless cycle of violence, Israel has created the perception that they live under fear, an endless victimisation of themselves.

An advanced millitary does little in Asymetrical warfare. This was proved by America's intervention in Vietnam.

The Isralies do live in fear. Of suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Both aimed at their civilian centres.

They conqured the territory from the Ottoman Empire, they had administration over it, to me that gives them every right. Besides, the Jewish historical claim is enough for me to justify their presence.

And I don't care what excuses the militants come up with. I agree that the conservative elements are in control of Israeli government and the idea of a Greater Israel is in effect. They need to dismantle most of their West Bank settlements I agree. However that does not give those terrorists the right to blow up civilians. They are simply making it harder for the moderates in Israel to ever get anything done with helping the Palestinians in their desperate situation. Anyway you look at it, I see nothing positive you can claim about their methods.

a sensible reply-we don't agree but still sensible.

part I don't agree with at all, historical claim is just wrong, my ancestors lived in Northern Germany do you I think I viable claim to some nice commercial land in Hamburg or maybe a farm? The Germans may object when my tribe of 30million(world-wide) decide to come home.

People can blame the militants all they want but 40yrs of occupation and dialog got them no where, they see more and more of their land being annexed everyday. They've been left no other choice but to fight by any means they can.

Tell me again: why wasn't Pennsylvania divided in two parts to give one to Jews?

Maybe because

- There has never been a historical Jewish state in North America, but the historical Israelie state began its life more than 3000 years ago
- The Americans did not support the Holocaust, but the Arab states sent soldiers to be part of SS-Death squads
- There was no defacto Jewish community state in Pensylvania, but in disputed region Jews had been buying land and settling for many years

a sensible reply-we don't agree but still sensible.

part I don't agree with at all, historical claim is just wrong, my ancestors lived in Northern Germany do you I think I viable claim to some nice commercial land in Hamburg or maybe a farm? The Germans may object when my tribe of 30million(world-wide) decide to come home.

You can go back to Germany if you wish and make a home for youself there. However your family has not, I suspect, been a minority national group for over 1900 years, and has not been subject to persecution everywhere it went and has not got the same kind of ancestral connection to Germany as the Jews do to Israel


People can blame the militants all they want but 40yrs of occupation and dialog got them no where, they see more and more of their land being annexed everyday. They've been left no other choice but to fight by any means they can.

Any means does not justify killing civilians. Civilians are people not involved in the conflict. They are innocent. If you claim they are not, then the Israleies must be able to claim the same of the palestiansins and thus they can legitimately commit genocide against them. Obvioulsy they cant so you wont

"You're just repeating the same old BS again. Zionism is a form of racism. There's even a UN resolution stating so"

it was repealed.

UN General Assembly Resolution 4686

DECIDES to revoke the determination contained in its
Resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.

with a vote of 111 to 25

just to get off on a tangent on who was worse Nazi or Israeli's..... the Japanese were the worst, death camps, human experimentation, brutal military occupations....Japanese don't like to discuss it, the Chinese do since they suffered the worst of it but the world doesn't care because they're orientals....

You can go back to Germany if you wish and make a home for youself there. However your family has not, I suspect, been a minority national group for over 1900 years, and has not been subject to persecution everywhere it went and has not got the same kind of ancestral connection to Germany as the Jews do to Israel

Any means does not justify killing civilians. Civilians are people not involved in the conflict. They are innocent. If you claim they are not, then the Israleies must be able to claim the same of the palestiansins and thus they can legitimately commit genocide against them. Obvioulsy they cant so you wont

actually we were a minority group, under the domination of one foreign king after another....and no we don't want to go back to Germany even though they'll have us...and yes we were persecuted being of Protestant sect more than a few were barbecued over the centuries.

and as I posted earlier I don't and neither do the Palestinian militias consider Israelis as civilians, everyone in Israel 18-45 are military(with exceptions) any civilians killed are collateral damage, similar to when Israeli Apaches fire a missile into a civilian home to target a militia member.

a sensible reply-we don't agree but still sensible.

part I don't agree with at all, historical claim is just wrong, my ancestors lived in Northern Germany do you I think I viable claim to some nice commercial land in Hamburg or maybe a farm? The Germans may object when my tribe of 30million(world-wide) decide to come home.

People can blame the militants all they want but 40yrs of occupation and dialog got them no where, they see more and more of their land being annexed everyday. They've been left no other choice but to fight by any means they can.

Previous posters have argued historical claims for the Palestinians and their presence, Jewish historical claims are just as strong.

It has only been since the building of settlements in the West Bank that the trouble started. It wasn't a problem in the aftermath of the war in '67. It was hardly perfect but the relations between the Palestinians and Israelis was peaceful until the late '80s. The Greater Israel dream of the conservatives in Israel was the start of the problem but it is not only their fault. Previous attempts of peace have been effected by radical elements on both sides.

Previous posters have argued historical claims for the Palestinians and their presence, Jewish historical claims are just as strong.

It has only been since the building of settlements in the West Bank that the trouble started. It wasn't a problem in the aftermath of the war in '67. It was hardly perfect but the relations between the Palestinians and Israelis was peaceful until the late '80s. The Greater Israel dream of the conservatives in Israel was the start of the problem but it is not only their fault. Previous attempts of peace have been effected by radical elements on both sides. hey I can agree with that!

I still say and a some Palestinians agree with me that the solution is not a two state solution, it's a secular one state. I think it can work, if Black and white S Africans can resolve their differences so can Palestinians and Israeli's.

@Socialist Pyrates:

I don't think you understand.

The Japanese were nothing in comparison to the Nazis.

The Nazis burned hundreds of Jews alive, and at a time. The would shovel the burning fat ontop of the dying bodies to make them burn better.

They would encourage rampant raping in concentration camps and ghettos.

They would perform such experiments as injecting animal sperm into Jewish women.

They would starve them.

They would gas them, and then make their fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers clean out their bodies from the chambers.

In the Ghettos the merely spectated as angry Nazi-supporting Germans rushed into the ghettos, and murdered, beat, and raped.

They would ship Jews off to the concentration camps in cattle cars, when the cars could only hold around 4 or 5 cows, they would shove in200 Jews for 5 hour long rides and the likes.

In the end, they ended up killing six million Jews, along with another 5 million homosexuals, Gypsies, and other minorities.

And unlike the Palestinians, the Jews did nothing to harm the Nazis.

They were a mere scapegoat for the losses following Versailles and WWI

hey I can agree with that!

I still say and a some Palestinians agree with me that the solution is not a two state solution, it's a secular one state. I think it can work, if Black and white S Africans can resolve their differences so can Palestinians and Israeli's.

We've seen Yugoslavia destroyed as a result of that. The one state solutuion isnt a good idea.

We've seen Yugoslavia destroyed as a result of that. The one state solutuion isnt a good idea.

not the quite same-Yugoslavia, separated into ethnic states which was their choice...the problem in Yugoslavia was the Serbs of Bosnia objected to sharing the state with the Bosnian Muslims, the muslims had no problem with it. My neighbour was a Bosnian muslim whose family was ethnical cleansed, he could never understand how his friends and neighbours suddenly turned against each other. The problem there has to be blamed mainly on the Serbs and their quest for a greater Serbia.

Slovakia and the Czech republic also voted to seperate and have two states, that was their choice.
In Belgium two separate ethnic groups choose to remain together, that was their choice.

In Palestine Israel if they want two seperate states I can't see it working as Israel will refuse to give up control of the West Bank, without total control of their land the Palestinian state won't be viable, a one state solution is the only option left.

they are not a race. tribal yes, a collection of ethnic groups sharing a common religion as well, but a Race, no.

Tell that to the Germans.

European Jews are the invaders. They are the aggressors. The Arabs are those who defend themselves. You won't change the facts with whatever you say.

guys theres no point arguing with this person. He/she will be unwilling to change his opinion no matter how often he's proven wrong.

Everything is the jews fault.
the jews are european invaders.
thus it is europe/white peoples fault.
ergo
middle-east would be a utopian society if it was not for whitey.

It's not as if they are going to realise most of the crap that's happening there is their fault or anything. never.....

I have to try to penetrate the fog. Especially if they actually believe that except for the Holocaust the history of the Jews has been a happy one.

FOG???

more like a concrete wall....

It is not the Palestinians land. Simple as that. And it became the Palestinians problem when they decided to turn violent instead of finally accepting a country for themselves.



funny thing is, most of the landed arab palestinians did not own the land prior to the UN partition. Most were the equivalent of serf. They might have owned the olive trees on the land but not the land itself.
So what claim many have to the land now is questionable...

This should have been taken into account at the time. Why would the middle-east have the same land-ownership system as europe?

No they arnt. The Palesitans are the agressors. Had they accepted the decision in 1948 they would have had a state far far bigger than anything they could ever get now. The Jews accepted it because it gave them something. The Palestianins didnt accept it because it didnt give them everything.


No, they rejected it because they would have given a large percentage of land to people who only owned 7%.

Read history

. The land then was largly unoccupied, owned by Syrian and Egyptian absentee landlords who were quite happy for the Jews to buy it. As were later the debt-ridden Bedoin pesents, who were also very happy to sell what they saw as useless land to the Jews. The Jews then built communities, farms and homes there.


Total bollocks. What is it about the figure of 7% that makes it so hard to get thrtough to people? And no, the majority of the land was not owned by absentee landlords, nor was it useless. Either present figures to the contrary or be shush.

Total bollocks. What is it about the figure of 7% that makes it so hard to get thrtough to people? And no, the majority of the land was not owned by absentee landlords, nor was it useless. Either present figures to the contrary or be shush.

you are quite right the land was not uninhabited. But the people that lived on the land were not the owners of the land. They worked it, owned the olive trees. They were the equivalent of serfs/peasants.

just found an interesting bit of information when i was looking up info on 1948.

its a wiki link, but the info is sourced well.
LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands)

I especially liked this bit at the end:

Of the nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees, approximately 600,000 were absorbed by Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas. Today, almost half of Israel's Jewish citizens are the original refugees and their descendants, mostly Sephardi, Mizrahi, and Temani Jews. A major political issue among Israelis is the perceived conflict between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. This issue appears to be diminishing over time, as intermarriage between Western and Eastern Jews increases and the various groups integrate their communities with each other.

These refugees were forced to abandon virtually all of their property, especially as they fled from the most hostile countries: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were temporarily settled in the numerous tent cities called Maabarot (barracks) in Hebrew. Their population was gradually absorbed and integrated into the Israeli society, a substantial logistical achievement, without help from the United Nations' various refugee organizations. The Maabarot existed until 1958.

So nearly half the jewish population of israel today is Arab!
and before someone starts shouting at me, or saying YOUR IGNORANT, or BS or whatever other insightful replies..

Sephardi has come to include Jews of Arabic and Persian backgrounds who have no historical connection to Spain except their use of the Sephardic liturgy. For religious purposes, Jews of these communities are considered to be "Sephardim", meaning not "Spanish Jews" but "Jews of the Spanish rite".

Mizrahi Jews, or Mizrahim (מזרחי "Easterner", Standard Hebrew Mizraḥi, Tiberian Hebrew Mizrāḥî; plural מזרחים "Easterners", Standard Hebrew Mizraḥim, Tiberian Hebrew Mizrāḥîm) sometimes also called Edot HaMizrah (Congregations of the East) are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East. Included in the Mizrahi category are Jews from the Arab world, as well as other communities from other Muslim countries, including the Georgian Jews, Persian Jews, Bukharan Jews, Syrian Jews, Mountain Jews, Yemenite Jews, Indian Jews, Berber Jews and Kurdish Jews.

Temani Jews (Hebrew: תֵּימָנִים, Standard Temanim Tiberian Têmānîm; singular תֵּימָנִי, Standard Temani Tiberian Têmānî) are those Jews who live, or whose recent ancestors lived, in Yemen (תֵּימָן, Standard Teman Tiberian Têmān; "far south"), on the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula.

another wiki link... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee)

and for a little bit of copy & paste :) :

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Arab governments claimed that their great concern was for the fellow Arab refugees and that Israel stood in the way of helping the refugees. Critics argue the Arab governments could easily have provided the refugees with new homes, just as Israel resettled Jewish immigrants and refugees from foreign countries. It was not done, nor did Arab states provide funds to improve the conditions in refugee camps.[28] Many find the lack of Arab effort to relieve the refugee crisis as a way of using the Palestinians as political pawns, and/or to promote anti-Israel sentiment.[29]

In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating:

"Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957)."

The Arab League issued instructions barring the Arab states from granting citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland". [30]

In 1958, former director of UNRWA Ralph Galloway declared angrily while in Jordan[31]:

The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.

King Hussein of Jordan said in 1960[10]:

Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. . . . They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.

Syrian Prime Minister, Khalid al-Azm, wrote in his 1972 memoirs:

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ....

Jordan is the only Arab country which historically gave citizenship rights to Palestinian refugees.

During Jordan's and Egypt's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, respectively, no attempt was made to create a Palestinian state.

Jordan

After the 1967 Six-Day War, during which Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, Palestinian Arabs living there continued to have the right to apply for Jordanian passports and live in Jordan. Palestinian refugees actually living in Jordan were considered full Jordanian citizens as well. In July 1988, King Hussein of Jordan announced the severing of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank. In practice, what this meant was that any Palestinian living on Jordanian soil would remain to be considered Jordanian. However, any person living in the West Bank would have no right to Jordanian citizenship.

Jordan still issues passports to Palestinians in the West Bank, but they are for travel purposes only and do not constitute an attestation of citizenship. Palestinians in the West Bank who had regular Jordanian passports were issued these temporary ones upon expiration of their old ones, and entry into Jordan by Palestinians is time-limited and considered for tourism purposes only. Any Jordanian citizen who is found carrying a Palestinian passport (of the sort issued by the Palestinian Authority and registered by Israel for validity) has his/her Jordanian citizenship revoked by Jordanian border agents.

More recently, Jordan has restricted entry of Palestinians from the West Bank into its territory, fearing that many Palestinians would try to take up temporary residence in Jordan during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This has caused many hardships for Palestinians, especially since 2001 when Israel discontinued permission for Palestinians to travel through its Ben Gurion International Airport, and traveling to Jordan to fly out of Amman became the only outlet for West Bank Palestinians to travel.

Information from the Jordanian censuses which distinguishes between Palestinians and pre-1948 Arab-Israeli War Jordanians is not publicly available, and it is widely believed that Palestinians in Jordan (domiciled in Jordan and considered citizens) constitute the majority of the kingdom's population. However, in a 2002 television interview on a US network, King Abdullah II of Jordan claimed that "Jordanians of Palestinian Origin" are only 40-45% of the Jordanian population, and that an independent survey would be conducted to settle the matter.[32]

Saudi Arabia

An estimated 500,000 Palestinians are living in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as of December 2004. They are not allowed to hold or even apply for Saudi citizenship, as the new law passed by Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers in October 2004 ( which entitles expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship, with priority being given to holders of degrees in various scientific fields ) has one glaring exception: Palestinians will not be allowed to benefit from the new law because of Arab League instructions barring the Arab states from granting them citizenship in order "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland".

Lebanon

Lebanon barred Palestinian Arabs from 73 job categories including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. They are not allowed to own property. Unlike other foreigners in Lebanon, they are denied access to the Lebanese healthcare system. The Lebanese government refused to grant them work permits or permission to own land. The number of restrictions have been mounting since 1990.[33] In June 2005, however, the government of Lebanon removed some work restrictions from a few Lebanese-born Palestinians, enabling them to apply for work permits and work in the private sector. [34]

Kuwait

After the Gulf War of 1990-1991, Kuwait and other Gulf Arab monarchies expelled more than 400,000 Palestinian refugees[35]) after the PLO allied itself with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait).

Egypt

During Egypt's occupation of the Gaza Strip, Egypt denied the Gaza Strip's residents citizenship rights and did not allow them to move to Egypt or anywhere outside of the Strip. From 1949-1967, The Gaza Strip was used by Egypt to launch 9,000 attacks on Israel from terrorist cells set up in refugee camps. Despite this, there had not been a rebellion, intifada, or jihad waged against Egypt. When the Palestine Liberation Organization was established in 1964, they had been for the most part controlled by the Egyptian government. Their goal for all intents and purposes was the destruction of the State of Israel through armed struggle, and their original charter did not mention the idea of a Palestinian state. Subsequent Israeli rule of the Gaza Strip after 1967 provided more economic assistance to the Palestinians than Egypt did. Arab refugees were moved from camps into homes.[36] Despite this, residents were hostile to non-Arab rule and continued to build up tensions. The First Intifada originated in Gaza in 1987. Israel has since transferred control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Egypt today abides by the instructions of the Arab League concerning Palestinians.

you are quite right the land was not uninhabited. But the people that lived on the land were not the owners of the land. They worked it, owned the olive trees. They were the equivalent of serfs/peasants.

Nope. In Dunums/Acres.

Arab Owned
3,491,012

Jewish owned
431,282

"Public"/Jointly leased land.
546,289

FOG???

more like a concrete wall....

Fog then a concrete wall?

Just out of curiosity, is anyone still arguing Israel is worse than the Nazis?

Nope. In Dunums/Acres.

Arab Owned
3,491,012

Jewish owned
431,282

"Public"/Jointly leased land.
546,289

Source please?

Nope. In Dunums/Acres.

Arab Owned
3,491,012

Jewish owned
431,282

"Public"/Jointly leased land.
546,289

never said it was not arab owned land. Just that most of the people who were living on it were not the owners but serfs/peasants.

If you can supply information otherwise i would be interested to read it..

Fog then a concrete wall?

about trying to get through to certain posters on this thread.

we're not trying to penetrate a fog, but dig through concrete...

Originally Posted by Utracia View Post
I have to try to penetrate the fog. Especially if they actually believe that except for the Holocaust the history of the Jews has been a happy one.

You can't compare Izrael and the nazis but that doesnt justify israel's crimes against the palestinian people. They occupied there land and instead of living in peace with the palestinians they suppress them with the military supported by USA. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict but one side has the support from USA and the other side has no other means than to blow themselves up among people. I think its disgusting to blow yourself up among people and I detest those who do it but Izrael uses the military to suppress the palestinians and they have taken far more lives, somehow that seems to be moore accepted in the world.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone still arguing Israel is worse than the Nazis?

thankfully not.

but if you want to throw anything in go for it!

and as I posted earlier I don't and neither do the Palestinian militias consider Israelis as civilians, everyone in Israel 18-45 are military(with exceptions) any civilians killed are collateral damage, similar to when Israeli Apaches fire a missile into a civilian home to target a militia member.

Perhaps you could explain how a suicide bomb in a night club is attacking a military instalation. Palestian rockets being fired into civilian areas intentionally are not the same as the Israelies attacking terrorists hiding within civilain sectors for this simple reason. When the Isralies hit civilians they have missed. When the Palestians do, they've hit

You can't compare Izrael and the nazis but that doesnt justify israel's crimes against the palestinian people. They occupied there land and instead of living in peace with the palestinians they suppress them with the military supported by USA. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict but one side has the support from USA and the other side has no other means than to blow themselves up among people. I think its disgusting to blow yourself up among people and I detest those who do it but Izrael uses the military to suppress the palestinians and they have taken far more lives, somehow that seems to be moore accepted in the world.

i know i know. Polish bands should not be allowed to do things like that. But what do you expect when they play reggae music. They're evil i tell you. EVIL!!!!!

You can't compare Izrael and the nazis but that doesnt justify israel's crimes against the palestinian people. They occupied there land and instead of living in peace with the palestinians they suppress them with the military supported by USA. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict but one side has the support from USA and the other side has no other means than to blow themselves up among people. I think its disgusting to blow yourself up among people and I detest those who do it but Izrael uses the military to suppress the palestinians and they have taken far more lives, somehow that seems to be moore accepted in the world.

And yet, there were many peace offers to the Palestinians. Numerous cease-fires as well that was violated by one side or the other. Suicide attacks does not bring peace but retaliation. It is high time that the Palestinian people and the arab world realize that.

Perhaps you could explain how a suicide bomb in a night club is attacking a military instalation. Palestian rockets being fired into civilian areas intentionally are not the same as the Israelies attacking terrorists hiding within civilain sectors for this simple reason. When the Isralies hit civilians they have missed. When the Palestians do, they've hit

well in theory all israelis have to do military service. so chances are some people in the night club are conscripts or veterans.

whereas on the palestinian side, there are not many conscripts or veterans. Why? ask any veteran suicide bomber and they'll tell you....

Perhaps you could explain how a suicide bomb in a night club is attacking a military instalation. Palestian rockets being fired into civilian areas intentionally are not the same as the Israelies attacking terrorists hiding within civilain sectors for this simple reason. When the Isralies hit civilians they have missed. When the Palestians do, they've hit

Perhaps you could explain how shooting down UN posts while they were wathing over the situation in Libanon can be called "attacking terrorists"?

They occupied there land and instead of living in peace with the palestinians.

Nope

Israel are the ones who offer the peace deals, and its the Palestianins who lanched the infidata. The occupation is a result of an illegal blocade by Egypt and an attack by all the other Arab states. Every time the Arab states have attacked, the Israleis have won, and thus they keep expanding. The Isralies originally offered peace in 1948, and had the Palestinains accepted it, it would have ment a much smaller Israel than exists now. But they didnt accept it and thus they will now get a far smaller portion of land.


they suppress them with the military supported by USA.

In 1948 the US declared an arms embargo on the region for fear its weapons would fall into the wrong hands. Israel has survived fine many times without US support.


There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict but one side has the support from USA and the other side has no other means than to blow themselves up among people.

Attacking civilians intentionally is not a legitimate form of warfare. If it is, then Israel has the right to exterminate the Palestian population.


I think its disgusting to blow yourself up among people and I detest those who do it but Izrael uses the military to suppress the palestinians and they have taken far more lives, somehow that seems to be moore accepted in the world.

Less lives would be lost if the Palestians accepted the Isralie hospitals offer. The Isralie hospitals are fiercely non-political and have offered to help those injured in any atack. But the Palestians have rejected this.

well in theory all israelis have to do military service. so chances are some people in the night club are conscripts or veterans.

whereas on the palestinian side, there are not many conscripts or veterans. Why? ask any veteran suicide bomber and they'll tell you....

A night club isn't a millitary instalation and those conscripts dont nessecarly want to be fighting. They fight because if the government doesnt make them then Israel will be gone.

Perhaps you could explain how shooting down UN posts while they were wathing over the situation in Libanon can be called "attacking terrorists"?

If rockets are being fired in and around there.....

A night club isn't a millitary instalation and those conscripts dont nessecarly want to be fighting. They fight because if the government doesnt make them then Israel will be gone.

as my post title said. not serious.

they do it, because its easier than a military target.
they do it to create fear.

why else?

And yet, there were many peace offers to the Palestinians. Numerous cease-fires as well that was violated by one side or the other. Suicide attacks does not bring peace but retaliation. It is high time that the Palestinian people and the arab world realize that.

It is high time that Izrael, and america for that matter, realize that using the military to supress a people isn't the best way to go if you wan't peace. One suicide bomb is nothing compared to the military that izrael posess. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict both somehow only the palestinians get the blame in western media. Ive seen loads of movies where izraeli soldiers shoot at innocent people and those tapes dont even get a fraction of the time in media as a palestinian bomb does.

It is high time that Izrael, and america for that matter, realize that using the military to supress a people isn't the best way to go if you wan't peace.

When the suicide bombings stop, the retaliation will stop. Simple.

One suicide bomb is nothing compared to the military that izrael posess. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict both somehow only the palestinians get the blame in western media.

Killing innocent civilians is enough to turn the western media against anyone.

Ive seen loads of movies where izraeli soldiers shoot at innocent people and those tapes dont even get a fraction of the time in media as a palestinian bomb does.

Here's a tip. Do not trust what you see in the movies.

It is high time that Izrael, and america for that matter, realize that using the military to supress a people isn't the best way to go if you wan't peace. One suicide bomb is nothing compared to the military that izrael posess. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict both somehow only the palestinians get the blame in western media. Ive seen loads of movies where izraeli soldiers shoot at innocent people and those tapes dont even get a fraction of the time in media as a palestinian bomb does.

please say israel not izrael.

Israel = nation in the middle-east

Izrael = polish reggae band.

unless you mean izrael. which in that case to be fair, their groupies are a bit on the strange side, but i would'nt classify them as lunatics whatever their taste in music. and they're bouncers don't shoot innocents only people that try to leave the concert early...

It is high time that Izrael, and america for that matter, realize that using the military to supress a people isn't the best way to go if you wan't peace. One suicide bomb is nothing compared to the military that izrael posess. There are lunatics on both sides of the conflict both somehow only the palestinians get the blame in western media. Ive seen loads of movies where izraeli soldiers shoot at innocent people and those tapes dont even get a fraction of the time in media as a palestinian bomb does.

link?

i assume in these videos you clearly see the soldiers coming out of a helicopter are clearly marked vehicle?

or let me guess. men with isreali uniforms shooting at people. oh and not showing the whole scene, just from when the "soldiers" start shooting...

When the suicide bombings stop, the retaliation will stop. Simple.


Killing innocent civilians is enough to turn the western media against anyone.



Here's a tip. Do not trust what you see in the movies.

Who will be first to stop, Izrael or Palestina? As I see it, this is an evil cycle which will never stop until the two people learn to live with eachother. Supporting a single side in this conflict is stupid and will never lead to peace as some might think. If you are not open to have a debate with both sides regardless of how evil you think they are, peace is as likelly to happend as I am to become the emperor of the world one day.

I lay more trust in movies recorded at the scene than reported on the news.

Who will be first to stop, Izrael or Palestina? As I see it, this is an evil cycle which will never stop until the two people learn to live with eachother. Supporting a single side in this conflict is stupid and will never lead to peace as some might think. If you are not open to have a debate with both sides regardless of how evil you think they are, peace is as likelly to happend as I am to become the emperor of the world one day.

I lay more trust in movies recorded at the scene than reported on the news.

by that same logic you must also believe that aliens have been coming to earth for 50 odd years and ubducting people. I mean we have videos taken by people showing the ufos flying around and such

Who will be first to stop, Israel or Palestine?

Israel has tried to stop it.

As I see it, this is an evil cycle which will never stop until the two people learn to live with eachother.

You have to change the culture in Palestine for that to occur.

Supporting a single side in this conflict is stupid and will never lead to peace as some might think.

And yet, nations have pushed for peace, INCLUDING the United States or have you forgotten about the Road Map to Peace?

If you are not open to have a debate with both sides regardless of how evil you think they are, peace is as likelly to happend as I am to become the emperor of the world one day.

And why should Israel talk with Hamas who is responsible for suicide bombings all over Israel?

I lay more trust in movies recorded at the scene than reported on the news.

And you know these were actual IDF soldiers how?

Soviestan hasn't posted in a while. Do you think he was that guy arrested for trying to buy hand grenades the other day?

And you know these were actual IDF soldiers how?

because the had big noses and as we all know all j00z have big noses!!!!

and the uniforms have a very obvious star of david on them!!!!

want to bet its something stupid like these 2 points?

For those who seem to belive that Israel is so eager to create peacy and democracy while palestinians are wild animals whose only goal is to kill as many israelis as possible. Very good site below with many useful and interesting facts. And if you dont think amnesty is a good enough source u r free to think so.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

"Human Rights Concerns
The human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories continues to deteriorate. Some 3,700 Palestinians – most of them unarmed and including over 600 children – have been killed by the Israeli army and settlers, and almost 1,000 Israelis – most of them civilians and including more than 100 children – have been killed by Palestinians since the start of the current uprising (Intifada) in September 2000. In addition, Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in The West Bank and Gaza Strip are subject to a wide range of human rights violations. "

In other words, both sides commit crimes against the human rights

If you actually bother to look up facts you will find loads of facts of israel aswell as palestinian crimes against human rights.

as my post title said. not serious.

they do it, because its easier than a military target.
they do it to create fear.

why else?

And that is wrong. It is amoral. Civilians are not ever legitimate intentional targets.

*snip*

Ok now tell us something we all do not know.

Ok now tell us something we all do not know.

Israel isn's a great, loving democracy whose only goal is to create peace with the palestinians, they do commit crimes against human rights. Did you know that or should I find a hundred more sites to prove it for you?

snip

i don't think anyone here has claimed that innocents have'nt been killed by the israeli army.

It would be stupid to say otherwise.

this link give a bit of a breakdown on the casualties

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html

Israel isn's a great, loving democracy whose only goal is to create peace with the palestinians, they do commit crimes against human rights. Did you know that or should I find a hundred more sites to prove it for you?

And yet, how many peace offers have they offered the Palestinians? How many humanitarian offers have they offered to the Palestinians if they just stop blowing themselves up and killing innocent men, women and children?

How many of these have actually been taken by the Palestinians?

And that is wrong. It is amoral. Civilians are not ever legitimate intentional targets.

and you are saying this to me why? I never claimed it was moral, nor legitimate.

but you asked why?

answer: because its easier than military targets. and to cause fear/terror

i don't think anyone here has claimed that innocents have'nt been killed by the israeli army.

It would be stupid to say otherwise.

this link give a bit of a breakdown on the casualties

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html

No but some people seem to think that all innocent people killed by israel are killed by mistake while chasing terrorists. Some people seem to think that its only palestinians who commit crimes against human rights and kill civilians and taht boters me.

Good site btw.

No but some people seem to think that all innocent people killed by israel are killed by mistake while chasing terrorists. Some people seem to think that its only palestinians who commit crimes against human rights and kill civilians and taht boters me.


Civilian death moniters isn't indicatvie of human rights abuses. Civilains die when the terrorists hide amoung civilains and the Isralies have to search for them. The death toll is like that because the terrorists do not wear a badge saying "I am a terrorist". If you'd like to give some specific examples then thats a little diffrent

Source please?

Jpeg of original map
http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

which is from

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282113/thehomeofalle-20


http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/maps/hist_owners.html

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#_note-6

@Socialist Pyrates:

I don't think you understand.

The Japanese were nothing in comparison to the Nazis.

The Nazis burned hundreds of Jews alive, and at a time. The would shovel the burning fat ontop of the dying bodies to make them burn better.

They would encourage rampant raping in concentration camps and ghettos.

They would perform such experiments as injecting animal sperm into Jewish women.

They would starve them.

They would gas them, and then make their fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers clean out their bodies from the chambers.

In the Ghettos the merely spectated as angry Nazi-supporting Germans rushed into the ghettos, and murdered, beat, and raped.

They would ship Jews off to the concentration camps in cattle cars, when the cars could only hold around 4 or 5 cows, they would shove in200 Jews for 5 hour long rides and the likes.

In the end, they ended up killing six million Jews, along with another 5 million homosexuals, Gypsies, and other minorities.

And unlike the Palestinians, the Jews did nothing to harm the Nazis.

They were a mere scapegoat for the losses following Versailles and WWI

what a delude post, it proved my point that people don't see Asians in this case Chinese lives as valuable as whites/jews....everything that the Nazi's did to jews the Japanese did to the Chinese and were far more brutal in how they did it ....estimates for Chinese civilian deaths range from a conservative 10million to 37million....and the chinese weren't the only people to suffer japanese occupation.....what is more sad is you may be actually jealous that someone suffered more than the Jews.....

And yet, how many peace offers have they offered the Palestinians? How many humanitarian offers have they offered to the Palestinians if they just stop blowing themselves up and killing innocent men, women and children?

How many of these have actually been taken by the Palestinians?

When have they offered to withdraw and dismantle all the settlements?

And yet, how many peace offers have they offered the Palestinians? How many humanitarian offers have they offered to the Palestinians if they just stop blowing themselves up and killing innocent men, women and children?

How many of these have actually been taken by the Palestinians?

You very well that those offers are unacceptable and they are meant to be. Israel has no intention of returning the west bank or making any offer that is acceptable. A fair peace solution would mean returning Palestinian land or giving Palestinians equal status. Israel long ago accepted manageable civilian losses as worth the price of a Greater Israel.

You very well that those offers are unacceptable and they are meant to be. Israel has no intention of returning the west bank or making any offer that is acceptable. A fair peace solution would mean returning Palestinian land or giving Palestinians equal status. Israel long ago accepted manageable civilian losses as worth the price of a Greater Israel.

Explain the Gaza withdrawl and the 2000 proposals then?

Israel was prepared to give up then. To give up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.

When I see Palestinians herded into gas chambers in an Israeli death camp, then I'll consider the comparison valid.

Whoever compares the Israelis with the nazis does not deserve respect. I do not pitty the Palestinians. Well, except for the individuals that dont feel hatred towards other races and religions, and try their best to get themselves educated. I pitty only good hearted characters. Otherwise, I couldn"t care less about people who chant death to Israel, death to Americans...etc. And men who downgrade their own women. Then go tie a bomb to themselves (and their wives), to blow up a few civilians who were minding their own business. I have no respect for cowards, or any person with a hateful envious character (it is not just in the Middle-East, I see it all over the world). Intellectually and morally they live in the 10th century. There are few who moved on, and are good. (For example my friend (from Palestine) is getting his masters in computer science, and soon will start his Ph.D.) But the average are lacking education, and good role models.
For those of you who pitty the Palestinians; you can make some sacrifices and try to help them adapt to the modern world, and not post anti-Israeli topics, especially comparing them with nazis.

Explain the Gaza withdrawl and the 2000 proposals then?

Israel was prepared to give up then. To give up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.


Nope. Go look at a map of the proposal for Arab East Jerusalem. Nor was all of the West Bank included.

Explain the Gaza withdrawl and the 2000 proposals then?
Israel was prepared to give up then. To give up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.In other words, you have no idea at all what was "offered". The proposal was just laughable. I suppose even Barak knew that it wasn't for real.
And since the Gaza pullout over 20000 more new Jewish settlers have moved to the West Bank.

Explain the Gaza withdrawl and the 2000 proposals then?

Israel was prepared to give up then. To give up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.

ahhh the 2000 agreement:rolleyes: Consolidation into 3 cantons under Israeli control(airspace,borders,water belong to Israel), cantons virtually separated from each other, a small enclave in east Jerusalem, and Gaza. It left the population in a giant prison and annexed large portions of the West Bank, and made a viable state impossible. A Bantustan as it was termed in Apartheid terms of S Africa, a captive market for expensive Israeli goods and a cheap labour to prop up an artificial Israeli economy. For the Palestinians it would have been legalizing the current situation.

Please don't try BS me with crap about Israel giving up anything, you can't be generous giving up what is not your to begin with.

In other words, you have no idea at all what was "offered". The proposal was just laughable. I suppose even Barak knew that it wasn't for real.The Israeli plan is to offer terms they know in advance are not acceptable so they can claim the high ground and point to the Palestinians as uncompromising and once again avoid having to give up anything.

The Israeli plan is to offer terms they know in advance are not acceptable so they can claim the high ground and point to the Palestinians as uncompromising and once again avoid having to give up anything.

And I guess the PLO's demand of having complete autonomy over both the Temple mount/ Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall didn't play a part in it, no not at all.

I guess 90% of the WB, 100% of the GS plus parts of Isreali territory weren't enough for those calling for all or nothing.

Nope. Go look at a map of the proposal for Arab East Jerusalem. Nor was all of the West Bank included.

I'm sorry, not all of the West Bank, just 95%

And yes, East Jerusalem was broken down because previous larger offers have been rejected.

The Israeli plan is to offer terms they know in advance are not acceptable so they can claim the high ground and point to the Palestinians as uncompromising and once again avoid having to give up anything.

That plan has a flaw. Israel has no control over what the Palestinans propose. The PA didnt make a counter offer, they just flat out refused. IF the offer had been unreasonale but the PA had been willing to negotiate, why did they not make a couter offer that could have been negotated upon.

And I guess the PLO's demand of having complete autonomy over both the Temple mount/ Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall didn't play a part in it, no not at all.

I guess 90% of the WB, 100% of the GS plus parts of Isreali territory weren't enough for those calling for all or nothing. how generous,...all or nothing, in reality it adds up to perpetual feudalism....no people on earth would accept those terms.....but then many Israeli's do consider Palestinians animals and not people so it's not surprising.....

how generous,...all or nothing, in reality it adds up to perpetual feudalism....no people on earth would accept those terms.....but then many Israeli's do consider Palestinians animals and not people so it's not surprising.....

In 1948 the Jews were happy because it gave them something. The Arabs were unhappy because it didnt give them everything. Now in realtity in that situation who is more reasonable?

In 2000 the Jews made an offer. It may have been unreasonable (I dont think that is the case at all) but if it was, the Palestians should not have responded to it with viloence, but instead with more negotiations. Becuase they responded with viloence Israel is justified in claiming the moral highground since they were the only ones even willing to negotiate. Even if the proposal was unreasonable, the PA could have made a counter proposal and negotiated. By reverting to viloence, it demonstrates that the PA are not interested in negotiation and thus they will get less land the next time there is an offer. To give more land would suggest terrorism is a better way to get what you want than negotiaton, which shouldnt be the case.

how generous,...all or nothing, in reality it adds up to perpetual feudalism....no people on earth would accept those terms.....but then many Israeli's do consider Palestinians animals and not people so it's not surprising.....

and many Palestinians consider Isreali's animals so justifying blowing up busses is not surprising either.

Completely ignoring the whole Mount/Wall aspect as well. How convienient.

Goes both ways.

Whoever compares the Israelis with the nazis does not deserve respect. I do not pitty the Palestinians. Well, except for the individuals that dont feel hatred towards other races and religions, and try their best to get themselves educated. I pitty only good hearted characters. Otherwise, I couldn"t care less about people who chant death to Israel, death to Americans...etc. And men who downgrade their own women. Then go tie a bomb to themselves (and their wives), to blow up a few civilians who were minding their own business. I have no respect for cowards, or any person with a hateful envious character (it is not just in the Middle-East, I see it all over the world). Intellectually and morally they live in the 10th century. There are few who moved on, and are good. (For example my friend (from Palestine) is getting his masters in computer science, and soon will start his Ph.D.) But the average are lacking education, and good role models.
For those of you who pitty the Palestinians; you can make some sacrifices and try to help them adapt to the modern world, and not post anti-Israeli topics, especially comparing them with nazis.

below is a list of attacks by Israeli militants back in 1939 listed in an Arab-Jewish paper of the time The Bulletin-so bombing civilians is not unique to Palestinians. And I would argue an Apache firing a missile into a family home in the dead of night because there is a suspected militant inside would be a terrorist act. I recall my parents telling me of a Jewish family who lived on our street in Europe, a German Stuka bombed the house with the entire family in it, they said it was because an illegal radio was in the house and the father was a resistance fighter. As fate would have it the man survived the war (minus his nose) but his entire family perished in the bombing.

From the Bulletin 1939?
Dec 7th-bomb in Arab market-Haifa
Dec 11th-Bombed Arab buses in Haifa and Jerusalem
Dec 12ht-bombings and shooting in Haifa and other nearby towns killing many
Dec 13th-Bombed Arab houses killing 16 wounding 67
Dec 15th-attacks on arab buses , Arab pedestrians

below is a list of attacks by Israeli militants back in 1939 listed in an Arab-Jewish paper of the time The Bulletin-so bombing civilians is not unique to Palestinians. And I would argue an Apache firing a missile into a family home in the dead of night because there is a suspected militant inside would be a terrorist act. I recall my parents telling me of a Jewish family who lived on our street in Europe, a German Stuka bombed the house with the entire family in it, they said it was because an illegal radio was in the house and the father was a resistance fighter. As fate would have it the man survived the war (minus his nose) but his entire family perished in the bombing.

From the Bulletin 1939?
Dec 7th-bomb in Arab market-Haifa
Dec 11th-Bombed Arab buses in Haifa and Jerusalem
Dec 12ht-bombings and shooting in Haifa and other nearby towns killing many
Dec 13th-Bombed Arab houses killing 16 wounding 67
Dec 15th-attacks on arab buses , Arab pedestrians

So that justifies the attacks now and for the last 40 years? "eye for an eye" and all that?

Hitler told people it was against race, but it was against banks and debt. The only people running the banks were the Jews... and that's how he played it off.

40yrs of occupation, how patient do you expect them to be before they explode.....my parents and brothers and sisters lived in occupied europe for 6 yrs, my mother has never gotten over it and still breaks down when she thinks about it, I don't think she could comprehend 40yrs of oppression, curfews, ID checks, guns pointed at your head, family menbers dragged off by military police, innocent neighbours murdered, beatings, homes with entire families blown up......which makes it all so hard for me to understand here is a people who suffered horribly under the nazi's and they have no problem doing the same to another people(not all however, I know of a number of Jews who are deeply troubled by Israels behaviour)

I'm going to sound like a total dick here, but I seriously started cracking up when I read that part.

I'm a terrible person, aren't I?

I'm going to sound like a total dick here, but I seriously started cracking up when I read that part.

I'm a terrible person, aren't I?
I did too. :(

In 1948 the Jews were happy because it gave them something. The Arabs were unhappy because it didnt give them everything. Now in realtity in that situation who is more reasonable?

In 2000 the Jews made an offer. It may have been unreasonable (I dont think that is the case at all) but if it was, the Palestians should not have responded to it with viloence, but instead with more negotiations. Becuase they responded with viloence Israel is justified in claiming the moral highground since they were the only ones even willing to negotiate. Even if the proposal was unreasonable, the PA could have made a counter proposal and negotiated. By reverting to viloence, it demonstrates that the PA are not interested in negotiation and thus they will get less land the next time there is an offer. To give more land would suggest terrorism is a better way to get what you want than negotiaton, which shouldnt be the case.

You don't think the offer was unreasonable, I don't know where you live but reverse the situation, imagine your country living under those conditions. the world community didn't accept it when South Africa tried to impose it on the Black population of SA. How can you honestly expect the Palestinians to submit to it.

How do a people give a counter proposal to feudalism? there is no starting point.

and should they have resorted to violence? well the terms were insulting so no doubt they were very pissed who wouldn't be? then there was a very deliberate act to inflame the situation, Sharon's well timed visit Harem al-Sharif.....first Israel insults them with a offer they know isn't acceptable then Sharon makes his infamous visit...and the Palestinians look unreasonable once again.....

So that justifies the attacks now and for the last 40 years? "eye for an eye" and all that?

:rolleyes: you're not stupid you exactly what point I was trying to make.......

You don't think the offer was unreasonable, I don't know where you live but reverse the situation, imagine your country living under those conditions. the world community didn't accept it when South Africa tried to impose it on the Black population of SA. How can you honestly expect the Palestinians to submit to it.

How do a people give a counter proposal to feudalism? there is no starting point.

and should they have resorted to violence? well the terms were insulting so no doubt they were very pissed who wouldn't be? then there was a very deliberate act to inflame the situation, Sharon's well timed visit Harem al-Sharif.....first Israel insults them with a offer they know isn't acceptable then Sharon makes his infamous visit...and the Palestinians look unreasonable once again.....



You may think they were insulting, they weren't insulting back at the Oslo accords which split the Palestinian Gov't and lead to more violence, the PLO refused to even negotiate in 2000 and demanded complete control over the Jewish holy sites.

Your constant use of "feudalism" is a nice little buzz-word that really means nothing.

:rolleyes: you're not stupid you exactly what point I was trying to make.......

Right. You were trying to point fingers at the Jews as the ones who "started" it to justify all the blooshed now.

Right. You were trying to point fingers at the Jews as the ones who "started" it to justify all the blooshed now.

i say they started it, but at no point did i say i supported palestinian violence. the terrorists are only a minority. most of palestine shouldnt be blame for thier actions. israel still doesnt have a right to bomb them. they should at least use snipers. but peace talks are a better idea. it has been know to work.

Right. You were trying to point fingers at the Jews as the ones who "started" it to justify all the blooshed now. .....my point was to the poster was that one side is equal to the other as far as waging a war of terror....I could have picked more recent incidents but I liked the older one because it mentioned Bus bombing and market bombing, I thought those were new and uniquely Palestinian militant tactics, I was surprised to see they were done much earlier by Jewish extremists.......

You don't think the offer was unreasonable, I don't know where you live but reverse the situation, imagine your country living under those conditions. the world community didn't accept it when South Africa tried to impose it on the Black population of SA. How can you honestly expect the Palestinians to submit to it.

How do a people give a counter proposal to feudalism? there is no starting point.

Its not Feudalism. Stop claiming it is untill you can demonstrate it. What it was was two states. One in the parts of West Bank and Gaza under Arab rule, one in the remainder of disputed region under Israelie rule. If you think thats too small, then take a look for a moment at WHY its that small. The Palestinians didnt accept the state they had in 1948, which was bigger. They didnt accept it in 1967, 1973 etc and thus every time a major offensive is launched against the Isralies, they loose more land. They have only themselves to blame.


and should they have resorted to violence? well the terms were insulting so no doubt they were very pissed who wouldn't be? then there was a very deliberate act to inflame the situation, Sharon's well timed visit Harem al-Sharif.....first Israel insults them with a offer they know isn't acceptable then Sharon makes his infamous visit...and the Palestinians look unreasonable once again.....

Clearly you have never been told as an adolescent to grow up and rise above it. Taking your postion for a moment and think about it. The Palestians resorting to vilonece is against their own intersts. What it does is prove the Isralies point to the rest of the world, that the PA is not a mature political entity and is savage and unwilling to negotiate. If the Palestinans don't want to look savage then they should engage the same way the rest of the world does when it wants to behave in an unsavage manner, through negotations. To do anything else is to just spill more blood pointlessly. Think about it, what will the vilonce on their part achive. Israel is here and it isnt going away. Denying that fact will only bring more bloodshed. Wouldnt it be far better to accept peace now and quit while your at least in the running. It would have been far better for them to have accepted peace 60 years ago when it was most advatageous for them to do so. Ever since every single engagement has cost more than its won. The Palestians are fighting a war that they cannot win. They cannot erradicate Israel, and to keep trying is just going to make it worse. If they accept peace now then the fighting will stop, which is what the everyday Palestinain wants.

Explain the Gaza withdrawl and the 2000 proposals then?

Israel was prepared to give up then. To give up the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.

They believe that it was unacceptable because Israel would still exist and it would be seen as "selling out".

and many Palestinians consider Isreali's animals so justifying blowing up busses is not surprising either.

Completely ignoring the whole Mount/Wall aspect as well. How convienient.

Goes both ways.

They do not understand that Kecibukia. These people do not understand how Mid East Politics seem to work. With the Palestinians, it is all or nothing while Israel is willing to negotiate up to a point. No wonder we can't seem to get a viable peace in the region.

I did too. :(

Make that three.

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7721175094317563101&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7713806100545252588&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7877448318398031780&q=zionist

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6088292911453714565&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6335598397615094716&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6653589479985828069&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1459333618055768933&q=zionist

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3590409597305565092&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5594316445785297631&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1598533094200160862&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=654178281151939378&q=holocaust+revisionism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5481228186457114164&q=zionist

http://www.ihr.org/main/audio.shtml

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3913278874048571867&q=zionist

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5373014625600388831&q=holocaust+revisionism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6519655078961670837&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8785876923462708738&q=zionist

http://www.ihr.org/main/booksonline.shtml

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5467701992662742210&q=holocaust+revisionism

http://www.ihr.org/journal/jhrarticles.shtml

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2442894130608359223&q=holocaust+revisionism

http://www.jewwatch.com

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6657600254881054584&q=the+other+israel

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8667011121551944391&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3952392965470686986&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2509097356440836525&q=zionist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=868682127226997276&q=zionist

http://www.jewwatch.com



:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

snip

what your actually expecting someone to look at all these links? come on.

I did look at the "jew watch" links.
Seems very objective, no bias whatsoever. I mean terms like "Jewish Zionist Thugs" are official terms i believe...

below is a list of attacks by Israeli militants back in 1939 listed in an Arab-Jewish paper of the time The Bulletin-so bombing civilians is not unique to Palestinians. And I would argue an Apache firing a missile into a family home in the dead of night because there is a suspected militant inside would be a terrorist act. I recall my parents telling me of a Jewish family who lived on our street in Europe, a German Stuka bombed the house with the entire family in it, they said it was because an illegal radio was in the house and the father was a resistance fighter. As fate would have it the man survived the war (minus his nose) but his entire family perished in the bombing.

From the Bulletin 1939?
Dec 7th-bomb in Arab market-Haifa
Dec 11th-Bombed Arab buses in Haifa and Jerusalem
Dec 12ht-bombings and shooting in Haifa and other nearby towns killing many
Dec 13th-Bombed Arab houses killing 16 wounding 67
Dec 15th-attacks on arab buses , Arab pedestrians

Interesting to know where you got this information. You should always a link to back up your "facts".

...You could also read this. Shows summarized records of pre-1947 Arab-Jewish conflict.
Click here. (http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/conflicts.asp)

Anyways, what you're writing, doesn't justify the Palestinians to commit terrorist acts against civilians. If Palestinians were of better character, they would simply revolt by targetting soldiers (which is easier for Palestinians, because Israeli soldiers wear military uniforms) without chantting racist hate slogans and death wishes to the rest of the world, of which, the Israelis don't do.

In 1948 the Jews were happy because it gave them something. The Arabs were unhappy because it didnt give them everything. Now in realtity in that situation who is more reasonable?

In 2000 the Jews made an offer. It may have been unreasonable (I dont think that is the case at all) but if it was, the Palestians should not have responded to it with viloence, but instead with more negotiations. Becuase they responded with viloence Israel is justified in claiming the moral highground since they were the only ones even willing to negotiate. Even if the proposal was unreasonable, the PA could have made a counter proposal and negotiated. By reverting to viloence, it demonstrates that the PA are not interested in negotiation and thus they will get less land the next time there is an offer. To give more land would suggest terrorism is a better way to get what you want than negotiaton, which shouldnt be the case.

This ignores the later discussions with Barak, and also misses a vital point. Israel has no right to any of the occupied area whatsoever. In many ways negotiating with Israel over the territories is like neotiating with a burglar to get ones own property back.

[ Snipping of nazi bollocksology:

Thanks for adding nothing.

Its not Feudalism. Stop claiming it is untill you can demonstrate it. What it was was two states. One in the parts of West Bank and Gaza under Arab rule, one in the remainder of disputed region under Israelie rule. If you think thats too small, then take a look for a moment at WHY its that small. The Palestinians didnt accept the state they had in 1948, which was bigger. They didnt accept it in 1967, 1973 etc and thus every time a major offensive is launched against the Isralies, they loose more land. They have only themselves to blame.
.

The Palestinians did not attack in 1967 or 1973. Nor were they they main aggressors in 1948, for that matter.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a338/Singaporean_Liberal/sighrepeatimage.jpg

The Palestinians did not attack in 1967 or 1973. Nor were they they main aggressors in 1948, for that matter.

They didnt exactly stop the attacks either.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a338/Singaporean_Liberal/sighrepeatimage.jpg


I thought of that very thing on page 1.....

They didnt exactly stop the attacks either.

THEN THEY'RE GUILTY!!!!!HANG THEM ALL...

How the fuck would they? Why would they? Particularily given the "if you did you're guilty, if you didn't your guilty" attitude that persons such as yourself display..

THEN THEY'RE GUILTY!!!!!HANG THEM ALL...

How the fuck would they? Why would they?

They manage to fight against the Isralies asymetircally now, why didnt they against the Arab states then.

They would do it if they were civilised and actually wanted to live in peace with their neighbourgs, as opposed to wanting them exterminated

The Palestinians did not attack in 1967 or 1973. Nor were they they main aggressors in 1948, for that matter.

your right they were not the main agressors.
But they did take part. Under one of there muftis (can't remember which) there were 2 palestinian armies i beleive made up of palestinian irregulars.
One of the palestinian muftis also played an important role in getting the arab league to invade israel aswell.

your right they were not the main agressors.
But they did take part. Under one of there muftis (can't remember which) there were 2 palestinian armies i beleive made up of palestinian irregulars.
One of the palestinian muftis also played an important role in getting the arab league to invade israel aswell.

Outside of those that actually invaded Israel, what other arab league nations invaded Israel?

Outside of those that actually invaded Israel, what other arab league nations invaded Israel?

huh? not sure i understand...

of the arab league members that did invade, all the ones border israel palestine. syria, iraq, jordan (or was it still transjordan??), egypt.
these are the countries that invaded, although saudi arabia & yemen supplied troops to egypt (or syria, not sure...)

there was also an arab league volunteer army. not very big though.
and the palestinian irregulars that i mentioned on a previous post.

So all the founder members of the Arab league were involved in the attack. although yemen and saudi arabia did not actually invade.

does that cover what you were asking?

They manage to fight against the Isralies asymetircally now, why didnt they against the Arab states then.

Well for one thing they werent the ones they believed were pushing them out of their homes....


They would do it if they were civilised and actually wanted to live in peace with their neighbourgs, as opposed to wanting them exterminated

And when all else fails, resort to the rhetoric of outrageous allegations......

Unbelievable ...:rolleyes:

Unbelievable ...:rolleyes:

No, that is "U F B"

No, that is "U F B"

U F B ?

No, that is "U F B"

un-fucking-believable?

un-fucking-believable?

Amazing. You can be taught!

Amazing. You can be taught!

err... why is that amazing exactly?

more deduction than learning ability...

Well for one thing they werent the ones they believed were pushing them out of their homes....

Right, so they did let the Arab states attack, which makes them implicitly guilty.


And when all else fails, resort to the rhetoric of outrageous allegations.

If it was just a normal conflict and the Arab states were behaving in a civilised fashion, the only places they would have attacked would have been Israelie millitary targets, targets that had been intentionally built far as possible away from civilian centres to avoid civilan casulties. But they didn't. They bombed Tel Aviv, Israels largest CIVILAIN centre. If that isnt a war of extermination, tell me what is.

Thanks for adding nothing.

So, anyone that questions the jews is a Nazi, eh? Your ignorace speaks for itself.

If you'd taken the time to look at the links, you'd realize that there are a lot of jewish sources. That's right, there are revisionist films made by jews there. Are they nazi's too?

:rolleyes:

http://www.halturnershow.com

ISRAELIS vs ARABS
WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?
By: Hal Turner

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

North Bergen, NJ USA -- For years, we in America have supported Israel both financially and militarily because we perceived they were the innocent victims of hostile and violent neighbors. The US media has, for years, provided extensive coverage of every incident involving Arab-against-Israeli violence. From shootings, to car bombs to suicide bombers, we in America have seen it all. Or have we?

Why would rational human beings, given a choice, choose to attack their neighbors rather than live together in peace? More pertinent, why would a rational human being choose to blow himself up rather than live? The Israelis, the US media and our politicians would have us believe that the Arabs are simply not rational. They routinely tell us that Arabs are "religious fanatics" who "hate freedom" or "hate our way of life" to quote George W. Bush. These arguments are fallacious and intellectually bankrupt.

The reason for Arab against Israeli violence is simple: The Israelis have been systematically repressing and brutalizing hundreds of thousands of Arabs on a scale unparalleled since World War 2. I have the proof.

Below are photographs of the victims of Israeli violence. They depict brutal, violent death, horrific personal injury and devastation of property which is simply unfathomable. ALL of it was perpetrated by Israelis against Arabs. ALL of the victims are civilians.

As you view these pictures ask yourself this question: What would YOU or YOUR LOVED ONES do in retaliation for these things?

DANGER: SEVENTY-SEVEN GRAPHIC PICTURES OF BRUTAL VIOLENCE, DEATH AND INJURY.

NOT FOR VIEWING BY CHILDREN OR PERSONS WITH WEAK HEARTS!

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.halturnershow.com/ "

So, anyone that questions the jews is a Nazi, eh? Your ignorace speaks for itself.

If you'd taken the time to look at the links, you'd realize that there are a lot of jewish sources. That's right, there are revisionist films made by jews there. Are they nazi's too?

:rolleyes:

you mean like "jew watch" which refers to israelis as jewish zionist thugs.
at least their not biased....

So, anyone that questions the jews is a Nazi, eh? Your ignorace speaks for itself.

If you'd taken the time to look at the links, you'd realize that there are a lot of jewish sources. That's right, there are revisionist films made by jews there. Are they nazi's too?

:rolleyes:

"jewwatch" is run in association with David Duke. He was, as far as I know, a person of some notoriety in the KKK. The KKK are not a valid source of information on non-white people, catholics and (yes) Jews.

The Palestinians did not attack in 1967 or 1973. Nor were they they main aggressors in 1948, for that matter.

I'd consider them to be the main aggressor in 1948. Other Arab nations armies may have invaded but they were so inept that they were virtually worthless given their bad leadership and training. The residents who rebelled were more effective then the invaders were. I would consider that to mean that they were the "main" aggressors in '48.

I'd consider them to be the main aggressor in 1948. Other Arab nations armies may have invaded but they were so inept that they were virtually worthless given their bad leadership and training. The residents who rebelled were more effective then the invaders were. I would consider that to mean that they were the "main" aggressors in '48.

Part of the problem (its been said) is how inept Palestinian resistance was...They'd been disarmed 10 years earlier, and the various leaders exiled, shot or hung....

Part of the problem (its been said) is how inept Palestinian resistance was...They'd been disarmed 10 years earlier, and the various leaders exiled, shot or hung....

I would say they still did better then the invading armies. I know that the invaders were defeated easily but I believe that the Palestinian guerillas did better in fighting the Jews. I don't know the minute details of the 1948 war but I am pretty certain of this.

I would say they still did better then the invading armies. I know that the invaders were defeated easily but I believe that the Palestinian guerillas did better in fighting the Jews. I don't know the minute details of the 1948 war but I am pretty certain of this.

You may be right, however I was under the distinct impression it was a lackluster, fairly limp effort...I'll take a goo, as I might have the Arab forces and Palestinians confussed in my aging dilapidated brain.

Stoleded from Wikipedia. It's not really perfect but not totally untrue:p



In 1947, following increasing levels of violence from groups such as Irgun and Lehi, uncontrollable immigration from Europe and general war-weariness, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. The Arab Higher Committee immediately ordered a violent three-day strike on Jewish civilians, attacking buildings, shops, and neighborhoods, and prompting counter-attacks organized by underground Jewish militias like the Lehi and Irgun. These attacks soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.

The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the Palestine Mandate. Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on May 11, 1949.

ollowing the State of Israel's establishment, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq joined the fighting and began the second phase of the 1948 Arab – Israeli War. From the north, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, were all but stopped relatively close to the borders. Jordanian forces, invading from the east, captured East Jerusalem and laid siege on the city's west. However, forces of the Haganah successfully stopped most invading forces, and Irgun forces halted Egyptian encroachment from the south. At the beginning of June, the UN declared a one-month ceasefire during which the Israel Defense Forces were officially formed. After numerous months of war, a ceasefire was declared in 1949 and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were instituted. Israel had gained an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan River. Jordan, for its part, held the large mountainous areas of Judea and Samaria, which became known as the West Bank. Egypt took control of a small strip of land along the coast, which became known as the Gaza Strip.

During and after the war, then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion set about establishing order by dismantling the Palmach and underground organizations like the Irgun and Lehi. Those two groups were classified as terror organizations after the murder of Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat.

Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus, which is referred to by many Palestinian groups and individuals as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm". Some Israeli historians suggest that the Palestinians fled because of orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return. Moreover, "Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel" were offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions" in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel; many, however, refused.

Estimates of the final refugee count range from 400,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000.[15] The continuing conflict between Israel and the Arab world resulted in a lasting displacement that persists to this day.

Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands).

"jewwatch" is run in association with David Duke. He was, as far as I know, a person of some notoriety in the KKK. The KKK are not a valid source of information on non-white people, catholics and (yes) Jews.

Frank Weltner, M.A. English & Certified Librarian Presents His Famous Scholarly Library of Factual Links Known Around the World.

www.jewwatch.com

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History. A Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, and Research. The Jew Watch Project's 123 Million Hits Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism.

Just because they have ties to a group who opposes zionism, does not mean that the opinions expressed on the website are not fact. Actually, I'd think that a source that wasn't opposed to them would not tell the truth, because it would have an obvious bias involved, more so than these brave and outspoken people of www.jewwatch.com

Frank Weltner, M.A. English & Certified Librarian Presents His Famous Scholarly Library of Factual Links Known Around the World.

www.jewwatch.com

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History. A Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, and Research. The Jew Watch Project's 123 Million Hits Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism.

Just because they have ties to a group who opposes zionism, does not mean that the opinions expressed on the website are not fact. Actually, I'd think that a source that wasn't opposed to them would not tell the truth, because it would have an obvious bias involved, more so than these brave and outspoken people of www.jewwatch.com


Are you that gun store owner in that Borat video?

Frank Weltner, M.A. English & Certified Librarian Presents His Famous Scholarly Library of Factual Links Known Around the World.

www.jewwatch.com

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History. A Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, and Research. The Jew Watch Project's 123 Million Hits Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism.

Just because they have ties to a group who opposes zionism, does not mean that the opinions expressed on the website are not fact. Actually, I'd think that a source that wasn't opposed to them would not tell the truth, because it would have an obvious bias involved, more so than these brave and outspoken people of www.jewwatch.com


It is amazing how ignorant people can be when they have anonymity.

Here's my latest on www.DavidDuke.com

Once again we have them cold! Thank God for the Internet so we instantly expose their lies and distortions!

Proof: the Media Lies About the Holocaust Conference in Tehran

Here is proof of the lies of the Zionist-influenced media.

It is being reported around the world that in my speech in Tehran that I stated that the “gas chambers did not exist.” You can read and even listen to my speech right here on www.davidduke.com.

I said no such thing! In fact I said specifically that I take no position on that issue but that I believe in freedom of speech and find it an outrage that men such as David Irving are in prison for simply voicing an intellectual, historical opinion. Listen to my speech yourself at www.davidduke.com!

The Zionist-influenced media has maintained that the purpose of the conference was to deny the Holocaust — when the actual,stated purpose was to provide free speech on this important historical issue and to protest against the suppression of free speech in some European countries. The record of the conference is clear. There were many speeches at the conference that maintained the mainstream Holocaust view.

In an act of blatant deception, the Zionist-influenced media has headlined that in the closing session Iran’s President called for “wiping Israel off the map,” suggesting that he advocated a genocide or destruction of the people of Israel. One more big lie. Any tape or transcript of his speech will show that he said support around the world for Zionism is dwindling and that the Zionist Regime will be replaced by a democratic state in the same fashion that the Soviet Regime was dissolved in Russia. He specifically advocated complete civil and political rights for all residents of the region, and specifically mentioned protection for the complete civil rights for Jews and Palestinians alike, and he repeatedly stressed that all peoples should love and respect one another and must disavow violence and war.

How the Zionist media lies! Thank God we have an Internet where people can immediately learn the truth. Ten years ago these lies could be stated with no fear of contradiction, now you can hear with your own ears the truth rather than the lies of a pro-Israel media.

The truth the Zionists are trying to create a catastrophic, murderous war with Iran so they are trying to stoke the fires of misunderstanding and hatred toward that country. Any fair-minded person who reads my actual words and the words of the academics at the conference and the words of the Iranian President can see for themselves that the Jewish-influenced media has made up colossal lies about this conference and its participants.

Tony Blair and George Bush has called the Holocaust Conference “disgraceful.” Why is it disgraceful to allow freedom of speech on historical issues? Isn’t the real disgrace that thousands of Europeans have been imprisoned for simply questioning small details of the historical period called the “Holocaust”?

Why is a conference dedicated to free speech condemned, yet putting people in prison in Europe for exercising free speech is praised.

Who are the real deniers of freedom? Aren’t they the Zionist puppets Bush and Blair and the Zionist controlled media that lie about this conference, my speech, the speech of the Iranian President and who support imprisonment of human beings for free speech.

David Duke, PhD
Former Member of the House of Representatives
www.davidduke.com


David Duke Interviewed On MSNBC December 12th, 2006

David Duke: The Conference is dedicated as its organizers said to Freedom of Speech and the fact is that in Europe there are men and women, sitting in prison, simply for uttering their opinion.
Watch David’s Powerful Interview Here (IE needed to view)
http://video.msn.com/v/us/dw.htm?m=us&p=truveo&g=e66c7367-2937-45eb-a17f-4cbd11e1f127


Here's another report about the conference that included some commentary from Dr. Duke from today's (Dec. 12/06) "The Situation" on CNN:

http://media.putfile.com/duke2

Also, here's the beginning of another biaed report that's also about the conference from CNN Live which runs during the afternoon:

http://media.putfile.com/duke-99-36

Here's some TV coverage of the conference in Iran.

The one from CNN's "The Situation," hosted by Wolf Blitzer, pays the most attention to Dr. Duke and not surprisingly isn't complimentary.

-From CNN's "The Situation."
http://media.putfile.com/duke-73

-From NBC
http://media.putfile.com/dukenbc

-From CTV (Canada)
http://media.putfile.com/confctv

Something we've all noticed within these and other reports is that they refer to the "denial that six millions Jews were killed." The implication is that the revisionists (who are of course always referred to as "deniers") deny that any Jews died. As we know, the revisionist perspective states that many Jews died but that the "six million" figure is inflated and that those who died did not perish in gas chambers courtesy of an extermination policy, but rather primarily through starvation and disease. This perspective doesn't come through at all when a reporter or news reader blurts "They deny the Holocaust and that 'six million' Jews died." It's unfortunate that they can't get it right even when covering a conference dealing with the subject in great detail.

So you believe this guy?

So you believe this guy?
Yes, because he actually provides facts with his claims. He backs himself up, unlike anyone who opposses his views.

Yes, because he actually provides facts with his claims. He backs himself up, unlike anyone who opposses his views.

So you deny that the holocaust occured then? The holocaust really happened. Millions of Jews and those that the Germans considered unpure or hated were executed.

So you deny that the holocaust occured then? The holocaust really happened. Millions of Jews and those that the Germans considered unpure or hated were executed.
Thank you for making my previous posts factual. You just called anyone who questions the details a denier. I did not deny the Holocaust.

Now, please provide PROOF with references that PROVES that there was a planned systematic execution of jews and "Germans considered unpure or hated"

:cool:

Now, please provide PROOF with references that PROVES that there was a planned systematic execution of jews and "Germans considered unpure or hated":cool:

Depends. What were concentration camps used for if not for extermination ?
That they existed is an easily verificable fact after all.

Thank you for making my previous posts factual. You just called anyone who questions the details a denier. I did not deny the Holocaust.

Now, please provide PROOF with references that PROVES that there was a planned systematic execution of jews and "Germans considered unpure or hated"

:cool:

http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/heydrich-sd.pdf


And more specifically,

http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm

Thank you for making my previous posts factual. You just called anyone who questions the details a denier. I did not deny the Holocaust.

Actually, no I did not. I asked do you deny the holocaust that occured and then I stated that it really occured and who died. I did not prove your posts factual. Now please answer my question. Do you deny the holocaust, yes or no?

Now, please provide PROOF with references that PROVES that there was a planned systematic execution of jews and "Germans considered unpure or hated"

Oh where to start.....after 1941 I guess would be a good start when Nazi killing squads were formed. Then came the camps where millions of Jews where deported to the extermination camps like Auschwitz (which were actually two camps, an extermination camp and a force labor camp). At these camps where gas chambers as well as a crematorium. At the gas chambers, they systematicly killed thousands of people a day (both Jews and those whom they did not like) and then put them inside the crematorium, followed by scattering their ashes all over the place.

All of this is a matter of public record.

:cool:

http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/heydrich-sd.pdf


And more specifically,

http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm

Oooh - Nova Vinlandia is really quiet after I post the literal orders to kill the Jews... I wonder why...

Oooh - Nova Vinlandia is really quiet after I post the literal orders to kill the Jews... I wonder why...

Because it shows that primary documents trump whatever holocaust deniers say.

Tony Blair and George Bush has called the Holocaust Conference “disgraceful.” Why is it disgraceful to allow freedom of speech on historical issues? Isn’t the real disgrace that thousands of Europeans have been imprisoned for simply questioning small details of the historical period called the “Holocaust”?

Why is a conference dedicated to free speech condemned, yet putting people in prison in Europe for exercising free speech is praised.

Freedom of speech does not extend to slander and libel. If it is historically demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the holocaust happened, to say that it did not is frankly slanderous.

The Holocaust is an irrefutable fact. As a survivor of several labor and concentration camps, and as one whose entire family, save my elder brother, was murdered by Nazi thugs, I sincerely wish it had not occurred. It is also irrefutable that I am still here - a reminder of those barbaric acts perpetrated not so long ago on the European Jews by an ostensibly civilized German nation. Law-abiding, ordinary citizens of the Third Reich turned fanatical, implementing their beloved Führer's agenda of murder and destruction. They became killers for him and we became the survivors of his madness. We were not expected to remain alive and give testimony to their crimes against humanity. Alas, it can not be denied that I survived this disaster: the most horrendous calamity of the twentieth century. I am here, alive. I represent the tragic truth. It is my belief that I was spared for this purpose. It is now my moral responsibility to bear witness for as long as I shall live, for I am the truth and will not be silenced by lies. To deny the truth, the awful facts of the Holocaust, is simply to lie.

The evidence, of course, is overwhelming. The countless photographs (most of them taken by Nazi SS and military personnel), testimonies of survivors, and Allied liberators as well as from Nazi documentation media and their war-time propaganda films all prove that this mass Judeocide took place. Yet, there are a number of people that claim it was all nothing more than a hoax. These deniers call themselves "revisionist historians." Their express purpose is to alter documented historical fact. In the process, they turn scholarship into mockery, transforming truth into a make-believe fantasy spawned from unmitigated cynicism. They use the resulting misinformation to spread their anti-Jewish beliefs to the general public. Moreover, their theories, derived from blatant fabrication of data, misquotations, and quotations used out of context, are presented under the deceptive mask of scholarship and are made available to the world by way of the Internet, radio, and television. Although only relatively few fringe groups, propagandists, and pseudo-scholars embrace Holocaust denial, their activity is increasing and the potential for their influence to grow is evident. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Holocaust survivors, historians, and those sincere chroniclers of the Holocaust to inform the world of the truth before the peoples around the world potentially fall prey, over time, to collective amnesia and adopt a romantic mythical view of the past events.

In Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Adolf Hitler expressed his belief that "the great masses of people...more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one" (p. 231); and that the simplest ideas "should be repeated thousands of times" so people will remember them (p. 185). Essentially, Holocaust denial is one big, bold, lie. In an attempt to legitimize the Nazi regime, revive National Socialism, forward their theory of a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy and, evidently, justify their virulent anti-Judaism, deniers repeat this lie over and over. They hide their aims under such legitimate-sounding organizations as the "Institute for Historical Review" and the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust." Some deniers have the audacity call themselves "scholars" or "historians." Whichever way they chose to identify themselves, their intentions have nothing to do with the preservation of history but with its distortion.

The deniers' basic belief is that the "myth" of the Holocaust is a way for "organized world Jewry" to gain sympathy and financial support for the Zionist cause and to render themselves immune from criticism. Furthermore, the deniers also claim that the Allies' atrocities during the Second World War were just as bad, if not worse than the Nazis' atrocities, and finally, that Hitler did not even want war and did not order the extermination of the Jews in Europe. These are main points of the deniers' "big lie."

Denying the fact that the Holocaust occurred makes about as much sense as claiming that the earth is flat. It was the meticulous Nazis themselves who produced a large portion of the documents now available to anyone who desires to peruse them. They all point to the deniers' hypocrisy and make it plain that their claim to a "Holocaust hoax" is an unmitigated farce. Furthermore, contrary to the deniers' assertions, Hitler was fully aware of and did, in fact, order the annihilation of the European Jews. The facts of the Holocaust are so well documented in serious scholarly accounts that denial of Hitler's responsibility for the murder of the Jews is too preposterous to require refutation and argument. Hitler explicitly stated his murderous intentions in some of his speeches, as in the following:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe...



In fact, most serious historians also believe that the extermination of the Jews was Hitler's most consistent policy, in whose execution he persisted relentlessly. Hitler's compulsive-obsessive attitude in regard to the Jews may even have cost him his war. I can attest to the fact as one of the frequently "resettled" victims, that the Jewish transports of slave laborers and those destined for extermination in Hitler's killing factories, were always given highest priority right of way on our journeys. This was done even at the expense of retarding the flow of vital transports of materiel and personnel to the Nazi front lines at a time when those were critically needed.

To this day, documents demanding the annihilation of the European Jews are being discovered in Russian archives. Hitler's intentions, as outlined in his various speeches, written orders, and his Mein Kampf, were obvious. His obsession with war was also plain. Hitler raved incessantly about a "Holy War," "preparing for war," and a "plan for the next war" (pp. 658-660). After reading Hitler's speeches and his book, it is impossible not to acknowledge his plans for Germany, for Europe, and the world. The deniers ignore these words or grossly misconstrue them in order to formulate their own fanciful fables.

Another tenet of the deniers' philosophy is that there is a moral equivalence between the wartime actions of the Allies, which may have resulted in civilian deaths, such as the bombing of Dresden, and atrocities committed by the Nazis. It is similar to the comparison a few make between a legal execution and a murder during a robbery. One of the most prominent American "revisionist" historians, Harry Elmer Barnes claimed that:

...the atrocities of the Allies in the same period were more numerous as to victims and were carried out for the most part by methods more brutal and painful than alleged extermination in gas ovens ...

Barnes failed to note the difference between war casualties and the mass murder of the millions of non-combatant people. The Jews of Europe never declared a fight against Hitler in his "Holy War," although he vowed to annihilate them. War between armed military entities is not genocide, therefore Nazi atrocities are not comparable to the war action of the Allies. It is inappropriate to even compare the two. The deniers and the revisionists ignore the obvious distinctions between war and murder, Nazi pagan barbarism and Allied necessity.

Another revisionist claim, an obvious result of anti-Judaism, makes the assertion that the Jews' primary concern regarding the Holocaust is the acquisition of money. According to the deniers, Jews use the "hoax" of the Holocaust in order to milk money from sympathizers for their homeland in Israel and to accomplish total domination of the financial world. For example, the infamous French "revisionist," Paul Rassinier declared that:

...the aim of the Zionists is the gold of Fort Knox. If the plan should succeed - and all that is needed is for the American branch of international Zionism to get its hand on Wall Street - the Israeli home-port of the Diaspora would become the command post of all the world's industry. Then at the very least, it could be said that the designation 'Chosen People' which the Jews claim for themselves, would assume its full significance.

This is pseudo-historical interpretation to ridiculous limits. Sparked by their innate hatred of Jews, deniers stereotype Jews as money-grabbers, dishonest businessmen, and avaricious bankers. Through this racist-revisionist theory, the deniers can not only write off the Holocaust as a "hoax"; they can use it as a means to justify their misinterpretation of Jewish intent. As a survivor of the Holocaust, I can not permit this injustice being wrought on the millions of innocent victims of Nazi assassins. Allowing this deception to flourish unabated would subject all those gentle, beloved people to suffer their deaths a thousandfold. Clearly, the deniers' currency is counterfeit; mine is legitimate tender.

Their theories are proof positive that Holocaust deniers must be either incredibly ignorant or utterly unrealistic. But if Holocaust denial is so absurd, why should we bother to research its aims? I believe that in order to separate fact from fiction, it is important to learn about the fiction as well as the facts. As a survivor of the Holocaust, I have experienced the factual consequences of that tragic event at great losses to myself and my family. When I confront the deniers' fictional interpretations of the Holocaust, I can distinguish between them accordingly. Needless to say, there is a large segment of the general public that does not have this advantage. This population will inevitably grow with ignorance, ingrained prejudice or plain naiveté. There will always exist people who will be susceptible to the propaganda generated by the deniers of the Holocaust.

Even in America, TV show and radio hosts, in their efforts to gain better ratings, try to convey "both sides of the story" by inviting both Holocaust survivors (or historians) and Holocaust deniers to explain themselves on their programs. The problem with this idea is that the Holocaust did happen. There is no "other side" to the issue. The very fact that the radio-TV host invites the denier to the show in order to debate the issues opposite a survivor or a bona-fide historian gives the deniers' revisionist beliefs undeserved legitimacy and publicity.

Moreover, Holocaust denial has filtered through in other ways to an unsuspecting public. For instance, syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan, who twice ran for president, has made references to the so-called Holocaust "Survivor Syndrome" and claimed that it was "physically impossible for the gas chambers at Treblinka to have functioned as a killing apparatus." Although Holocaust denial is an idea shared only by a few fringe groups, Jew-baiters, and propagandists, its theories have already taken root in American media and politics.

Historian Michael Sturmer asserts that "in a land without history, the future is controlled by those who determine the content of memory, who coin concepts and interpret the past." Such an assertion is especially applicable to the Holocaust. As we, the survivors, become scarce, there will be fewer sources of primary information about the Holocaust in the world. Furthermore, the essence of truth vested with the authority of the eyewitness, will no longer prevail. They will no longer be able to impress future generations with the horrors of Nazi genocide. It is hard to conceive whether or not the Holocaust denial movement could further its influence. However, it is up to the vigilance of authentic historians and serious scholars to prevent its spread by educating the general public on how to separate fact from fiction and valid historical interpretation from the "revisionist" propaganda. We hope that future generations of discerning individuals will realize that the deniers' diatribes are used not only to discredit the Holocaust victims, but also to tarnish the veracity of eyewitness accounts.

Moses Maimonides said it most succinctly in his brilliant treatise Guide of the Perplexed (xxxi, p. 41): "...A proposition which can be proved by evidence is not subject to dispute, denial or rejection; no one but the ignorant would contradict it, and such contradiction is called 'denial of demonstrated proof.' Facts are only doubted by those who ignore things fully proved."

Since primary documentation has been shown, I think Nova should apologise

Since primary documentation has been shown, I think Nova should apologise

Oh, please, like they ever do...

Prepare for more Neonazi claptrap and claims that this isn't sufficent proof or is all 'Zionest Lies'. The man believes David Duke, for crying out loud...I wouldn't expect rational debate from him...

Since primary documentation has been shown, I think Nova should apologise

He is a nazi, I don't think he is going to say sorry and part with his infinite ignorance which is truely encyclopedic

Thank you for making my previous posts factual. You just called anyone who questions the details a denier. I did not deny the Holocaust.

Now, please provide PROOF with references that PROVES that there was a planned systematic execution of jews and "Germans considered unpure or hated"

:cool:http://www.ghwk.de/
It has the protocol of the conference on said planned systematic execution in a bunch of languages.

i think in internet speak... that's called pwnt

http://www.ghwk.de/
It has the protocol of the conference on said planned systematic execution in a bunch of languages.
Pro-Zionist source, obviously Biased

It's too bad no one takes the time to look at the stuff I have posted, it refutes ALL of the counter posts.

:rolleyes:

Pro-Zionist source, obviously Biased

It's too bad no one takes the time to look at the stuff I have posted, it refutes ALL of the counter posts.

:rolleyes:

What a pitty then that primary documentation has been provided and thus you have been refuted. Or are you going to continually refute that.

Also, you will have do demonstrate precisely how it is biased before we'll listen to you. Bias, to be objectively making something flawed has to be demonstratable. For instance, if Claire was Fred's friend she could say

"Fred is a great guy"

Now obviously thats biased, because she's his friend. But in that case it doesnt really matter because the notion of 'great' is subjective anyway. However if she were to say

"Fred is great, he gave 15% of his earnings to charity last year, he's so saintly"

Then while the great part of the bias doesnt matter, we have to question the charity part as that is an objective statement. If we can see its untrue it is objectively biased, and thus objectively flawed.

If you want to call bias in an objective fashion, you have to prove that its objectively flawed

If you want to call bias in a subjective fashion, you have to prove that the statements made are of a subjective nature

Oooh - Nova Vinlandia is really quiet after I post the literal orders to kill the Jews... I wonder why...
No, I'm just not a geek like you seem to be, who spends all day on role playing forums
:rolleyes:

Besides, those orders that you claim were made, we claimed to be verbal orders.

There is NO COLD HARD FACTS supporting the 6 million number, and the fact that even some of the camps themselves have changed their signs to LOWER the numbers over the years is more supporting evidence.

Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't suffer. They don't argue the fact that Jews were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that there was a state policy to remove them as a "parasitic people" harmful to the country.

It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and often treated cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the "Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched oligarchies.

Revisionists do claim and argue that there was no state policy that called for the "mass extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted minorities. The Allies, independently and singly, interrogated 26,000 functionaries of the National Socialist regime immediately after Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of questions. Some people might have thought of lying for their own benefit by implicating others.

Not one German official reported knowing of such a program. They all said that the first time they heard about it was from the Allies after the war.

This really gets down to the nitty-gritty of where the story of the mass extermination came from - which is the Rudolf Hoess "confession."

The Rudolf Hoess Confession is an incredibly "incriminating" document. All evil stems from it. Here is the background story.

Rudolf Hoess, the former wartime commandant of Auschwitz "confessed" to the most incredible things during the Nuremberg Trials in this widely used and much-quoted "document." A good overview from a human interest story point of view of how that was accomplished is given in the Zundelsite Internet editorial: "Nuremberg: The Crime that Will Not Die" It is a summary worth reading.

Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere where they were made to stand trial for "war crimes." have "confessed" to brutalities under "duress" or inducements. Documents, testimony and confessions as well as affidavits presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere were frequently produced and signed after psychological and physical torture of its authors.

For proof of torture of captured Germans by the Allies, read Legions of Death, a book by Rupert Butler, an English writer, who gives a vivid description of how the wartime, one-time Concentration Camp Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was beaten mercilessly and drugged with alcohol for several days before he signed his famous "confession" admitting to two-and-a-half million of people gassed in gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Suffice it to say here that this so-called "confession" was written in English, and that Hoess did not speak or even understand English. (2Butler, Rupert, Legions of Death, Hamlyn Paperbacks, Great Britain, 1983, pp 10-12)

Julius Streicher, to name another German official who was savagely tortured by American interrogators to extract a "confession," reported that he was beaten so badly that he lost 40% of his hearing. He was kept naked in an unheated cell and was made to drink from the latrine. Guards forced his teeth open with a stick so as to spit in his mouth. ("Streicher Opens His Case,", London Times, April 27. 1946)

This information was later expunged from the Nuremberg Trial transcripts, with the consent of the president of the Tribunal and even the "defense" lawyer.

Yet another source is the Simpson van Rhoden Commission of Enquiry into the conduct of US interrogators during the Malmedy-Dachau trials. This commission reported mistreatment and tortures, including mock trials, the administering of fake confessions by equally fake "priests," beatings, hoodings etc. to get forced confessions out of prisoners. (The Progressive, written by Judge Edward L. Van Rhoden in February of 1949 entitled American Atrocities in Germany)

Here is a sample of how such "confessions" were routinely obtained:

"American investigators at the U.S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to obtain confessions:

Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal (ed. expl: if the victim implicated fellow prisoners to corroborate the Allied trial scenarios) . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair." (Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp 44-45)

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, referring to the Nuremberg trials and speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, had this to say, as quoted in a Viking Press hard cover, "Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law:"

"Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law.

This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." (Mason, Thomas, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus The Viking Press, page 746)

An accusation does not make a fact. A headline does not make a fact. A tortured prisoner making a "confession" cannot make his words a fact.

Here is another good example of a "well-documented" crime:

The Germans were accused at Nuremberg of having killed 15,000 Polish officers and members of the Polish elite at Katyn. Seven German military officers and soldiers were executed by the Soviets after a trial in which more than 4,000 (!) sworn affidavits and dozens of "experts" and "witnesses" were proffered by the Stalinist prosecutors.

In 1989, Soviet leader Gorbachev admitted publicly that the Stalin regime was responsible for these mass murders of the Poles. Not the Germans. America's ally - Joseph Stalin! - had ordered the killings!

So if Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, and Judge Thomas of the Toronto District Court took smug "Judicial Notice" of the Holocaust, they based it on "readily available" documentation tortured and coerced out of the victims of Allied torture masters.

What kind of "documented evidence" is that? It would not be permissible in any U.S. or Canadian Court.

In Nuremberg and in many subsequent trials against so-called "Nazi war crimes" these methods were routinely accepted and "acceptable" as a matter of policy and "the rules."

Pro-Zionist source, obviously Biased

It's too bad no one takes the time to look at the stuff I have posted, it refutes ALL of the counter posts.

:rolleyes:

so if it's a "Pro Zionist" source, it's obviously biased and shouldn't be considered? But if it's against Zionism, it's ok to use as a source?

Pro-Zionist source, obviously Biased

It's too bad no one takes the time to look at the stuff I have posted, it refutes ALL of the counter posts.

:rolleyes:

Prove that it is pro-zionist please.

Oh and you do realize that the .de at the end of the website is the abbreviation for GERMANY right?

Depends. What were concentration camps used for if not for extermination ?
That they existed is an easily verificable fact after all.

Concentration, obviously :rolleyes:

It is true that Hitler Germany wanted to remove the Jews from the German people's "sphere of influence." The country was at war - a war largely seen as having been instigated by international banking Jewry, and Jews were seen as a corroding influence, not only financially but also racially and culturally.

A common word then used was "parasites." (Know that, in America, a National Socialist is commonly referred to as "scum bag". . . If you want to know what modern persecution and demonization of unwanted people looks like, try this cartoon.) http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/zundel_r.gif

Hitler Germany was adamant in not wanting Jews to be part of Germany because they were held to be harmful to the fabric of an ethnically cohesive society as it was woven by Hitler. The Führer wanted Jews "out of his face." He was not fond of them.

But that is where the story stops. The Talmudic twists and gyrations some of these people still go through, when "relocation" and "evacuation" of Jews suddenly become code words for "extermination", is amazing.

All of it was covered in the Zündel Trials in the minutest detail and has been laid to rest forever in the transcripts of those trials, now permanent documents in the Canadian judicial law libraries! A little basic research would have gone a long way for Nizkor.

The Himmler Posen speech, to be even more specific, was the subject of lengthy analysis in the two Toronto Zündel trials. Minute detail can be gleaned in studying the testimony of German political scientist Udo Walendy and Dr. Robert Faurisson in the 1985 trial and in the testimony of Browning, Faurisson British historian David Irving and Mark Weber in the second, 1988, trial. (Again, the reference here is the Kulaszka book, Did Six Million Really Die?)

Time and again, the Holocaust Promotion Lobby counts on the naivet&eacute: of the reader who is not likely to check on the facts and fine-tune his thinking on what was meant by "evacuation" and "relocation."

Prove that it is pro-zionist please.

Oh and you do realize that the .de at the end of the website is the abbreviation for GERMANY right?
I dont understand what the website being hosted in Germany has to do with the fact that they are Pro-Zionist.

It's pro-zionist because they support Israel and Israeli interest, that is more than obvious.

Concentration, obviously :rolleyes:

It is true that Hitler Germany wanted to remove the Jews from the German people's "sphere of influence." The country was at war - a war largely seen as having been instigated by international banking Jewry,

And you actually believe that shit? That's just as bad as saying that the Arms manufacturers got us involved in the 1st World War just to make a profit.

The rest of your statement I'm just ignoring because it is not worth my time to give you the run down on the History of the Nazi Regime.

It's pro-zionist because they support Israel and Israeli interest, that is more than obvious.

Suporting Israel may make something biased, but that doesnt make the source any less reliable. For instance, I could state that the Yom Kippur war was an attack by the Arabs on the Jewish holiest day, also during Rammadan when Muslims claim if would be offensive if they were attacked, thus demonstrating a double standard. That is an anti-Arab statement, but it doesnt make it any less true.

I dont understand what the website being hosted in Germany has to do with the fact that they are Pro-Zionist.

It's pro-zionist because they support Israel and Israeli interest, that is more than obvious.

So anything that contradicts what you are saying is pro-zionist and yet you accused me of stifling what you are trying to say. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's only pro-zionist to you because it goes against everything that you believe. These are from the people involved dude. Therefor, its in their own words. I guess you are going to say that the people who wrote these were for the Jews? How pathetic can one person get?

so if it's a "Pro Zionist" source, it's obviously biased and shouldn't be considered? But if it's against Zionism, it's ok to use as a source?
Anyone who is pro-zion NEEDS the holocaust to support their occupation of Palestine, anti-zionists don't. So, in a nutshell, yes.

Anyone who is pro-zion NEEDS the holocaust to support their occupation of Palestine, anti-zionists don't. So, in a nutshell, yes.

Then I sure as hell hope you are not a History major beacuse if you are, you just failed the class.

So anything that contradicts what you are saying is pro-zionist and yet you accused me of stifling what you are trying to say. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's only pro-zionist to you because it goes against everything that you believe. These are from the people involved dude. Therefor, its in their own words. I guess you are going to say that the people who wrote these were for the Jews? How pathetic can one person get?

I never said that if you were not pro-zion you were anti-zion. That's twisting my words, "dude".

I like how you tell me what I am thinking, when all you know of me is a few posts I have made. Ignorance.

I never said that if you were not pro-zion you were anti-zion. That's twisting my words, "dude".

I like how you tell me what I am thinking, when all you know of me is a few posts I have made. Ignorance.

Judging by your posts, you are a holocaust denier. Someone who does not know what the facts are and one who fails to look at the evidence when presented because it is "biased" when, after looking at it, I can say that it is not biased as it was written by the upper eschelons of the Nazi Party.

How, exactly Nova, do you explain the Korherr Report

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/genocide/Korherr.html

Or

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/H%C3%B6fle_Telegram

Or

http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=himmlerreportdb3.jpg

Anyone who is pro-zion NEEDS the holocaust to support their occupation of Palestine, anti-zionists don't. So, in a nutshell, yes.

so the jews NEED the holocaust in their conflict w/ Palestine now? ... funny, i never hear them mention that's the reason for it.

and i'm still waiting on your answer to the question someone asked you if you are a holocaust denier or not....

so the jews NEED the holocaust in their conflict w/ Palestine now? ... funny, i never hear them mention that's the reason for it.

and i'm still waiting on your answer to the question someone asked you if you are a holocaust denier or not....
Read my posts and you'll see that I clearly said I was not. Pay attention.
:rolleyes:

I dont understand what the website being hosted in Germany has to do with the fact that they are Pro-Zionist.

It's pro-zionist because they support Israel and Israeli interest, that is more than obvious.

That doesn't mean everything posted on it is wrong however. Just like controversial things on nazi websites are not necessarily all wrong either.

That doesn't mean everything posted on it is wrong however. Just like controversial things on nazi websites are not necessarily all wrong either.
I never said it was wrong, I said it was biased. BIG difference.
:)

I never said it was wrong, I said it was biased. BIG difference.
:)

Apologies. Your post suggested to me that you dismissed that source without even looking at its contents because "it was biased". I will read more carefully and assume less.

How, exactly Nova, do you explain the Korherr Report

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/genocide/Korherr.html

Or

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/H%C3%B6fle_Telegram

Or

http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=himmlerreportdb3.jpg

I will need time to respond to this, I would like to read these essays first.

Apologies. Your post suggested to me that you dismissed that source without even looking at its contents because "it was biased". I will read more carefully and assume less.Like I stated before, I am all for free speech, and I openly accept all arguments presented.

and i'm still waiting on your answer to the question someone asked you if you are a holocaust denier or not....

That would be my question you are referring too

I can say that israel doesn't use the holocaust as an excuse for all they do, we use the "arabs want us dead" excuse

I will need time to respond to this, I would like to read these essays first.

Odd, considering any rational person could see what they are instantly. The Himmler report is just one of a number of documents consisting of numbers of Jews exterminated by the Nazis.

I can say that israel doesn't use the holocaust as an excuse for all they do, we use the "arabs want us dead" excuse

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.

Now they seek the systematic execution of all Arabs and Goym(what the call white people, which litterally means cow in Hebrew). It says so in the jewish holy books. I can post MANY references from the jewish talmud and torah that are VERY anti-white.

Odd, considering any rational person could see what they are instantly. The Himmler report is just one of a number of documents consisting of numbers of Jews exterminated by the Nazis.
I know what they are, I would like to read them over. Also, that image of Himmlers reprt you posted is a proven fake, and I will support that with evidence.

I know what they are, I would like to read them over. Also, that image of Himmlers reprt you posted is a proven fake, and I will support that with evidence.

Really, what evidence?

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/browning1.htm

Now they seek the systematic execution of all Arabs and Goym(what the call white people, which litterally means cow in Hebrew).

Calling bullshit on the systematic execution of all Arabs.

Oh and as to the Torah, please post something from there that is anti-white please!

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.

Now they seek the systematic execution of all Arabs and Goym(what the call white people, which litterally means cow in Hebrew). It says so in the jewish holy books. I can post MANY references from the jewish talmud and torah that are VERY anti-white.

My my, how little you know history, the zionists wanted israel before the holocaust.
Second, you know how we know the holocaust really happened? not because any pro-zionist said it happened, but cause the german were so metiociose about the records that in fact we got written documents thanks to german officers.
But I know I know, it's my pro-zionist jewish and israeli saying that... so why taking my seriously (even that I'm really a post-zionist, secular and not practicing jew)

Achtung! Jude!!! etc etc[/url]

The probliem isnt their anti-zionism, its their anti-semitism. They are nazi, racist scum.

I know what they are, I would like to read them over. Also, that image of Himmlers reprt you posted is a proven fake, and I will support that with evidence.

You haven't explained the letters I posted that Heydrich wrote, nor have you explained the Wannsee Conference, which is a proven fact with both physical evidence and human witnesses.

It's hardly likely that you'll be able to prove anything, since they have been proven to be real evidence that the Nazis planned and executed a plan to systematically exterminate the Jews (and others mentioned in the documents).

You haven't explained the letters I posted that Heydrich wrote, nor have you explained the Wannsee Conference, which is a proven fact with both physical evidence and human witnesses.

It's hardly likely that you'll be able to prove anything, since they have been proven to be real evidence that the Nazis planned and executed a plan to systematically exterminate the Jews (and others mentioned in the documents).

I would love to see his evidence that the Himmler report is a proven fake.

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.

Now they seek the systematic execution of all Arabs and Goym(what the call white people, which litterally means cow in Hebrew). It says so in the jewish holy books. I can post MANY references from the jewish talmud and torah that are VERY anti-white.

You're a troll.

I am fluent in Ivrit and can tell you without a doubt that Goyim means "Nations." Goy itself means nation and the "im" at the end pluralizes the word.

Now please go back to stormfront and never come back here.

People! Aren't you sick and tired of typing the word "bias", because in almost every post that I have read recently, that word shows up.
The Nazi party exterminated around 11 million people. About 6 million of them were Jews. That's a historical fact. . You should have learned that in school. If I'm not mistaken, some of you claim that the Germans didn't plan a mass execution of the Jews.

Gas chambers were used in the Nazi Third Reich during the 1930s and 1940s as part of the so-called "public euthanasia program" aimed at eliminating physically and intellectually disabled people, and later the mentally ill. At that time, the preferred gas was carbon monoxide, often provided by the exhaust gas of cars or trucks or army tanks.

Later, during the Holocaust, gas chambers were modified and enhanced to accept even larger groups as part of the Nazi policy of genocide against Jews, and others. In January or February, 1940, 250 Gypsy children from Brno in the Buchenwald concentration camp were used as guinea pigs for testing the Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide absorbed into various solid substrates)[2]. On September 3, 1941, 600 Soviet POWs were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp I; this was the first experiment with the gas at Auschwitz.

Carbon monoxide was also used in large purpose-built gas chambers. The gas was provided by petrol or diesel engines (detailed in the Gerstein Report). Nazi gas chambers in mobile vans and at least eight concentration camps (see also extermination camp) were used to kill several million people between 1941 and 1945. Some stationary gas chambers could kill 2,500 people at once. Numerous sources record the use of gas chambers in the Holocaust, including the direct testimony of Rudolf Höß, Commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

The gas chambers were dismantled when Russian troops got close, except at Majdanek. The gas chamber at Auschwitz I was rebuilt after the war as a memorial, but without a door in its doorway.

Source of quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber


As a whole the Germans had no idea that something of this nature was going on. I'm pretty sure if they knew, they would have revolted against Hitler. The ones who knew, were in the Nazi SS party, probably not all, but definately the elite members.
The Holocaust was a terrible thing. In most of Europe(EU) you can get a one year (or more) prison sentence, and heavy fines for denying the Holocaust (a historical fact).

I already expressed my point of view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For those of you who haven't read it, here you go:


Whoever compares the Israelis with the nazis does not deserve respect. I do not pitty the Palestinians. Well, except for the individuals that dont feel hatred towards other races and religions, and try their best to get themselves educated. I pitty only good hearted characters. Otherwise, I couldn"t care less about people who chant death to Israel, death to Americans...etc. And men who downgrade their own women. Then go tie a bomb to themselves (and their wives), to blow up a few civilians who were minding their own business. I have no respect for cowards, or any person with a hateful envious character (it is not just in the Middle-East, I see it all over the world). Intellectually and morally they live in the 10th century. There are few who moved on, and are good. (For example my friend (from Palestine) is getting his masters in computer science, and soon will start his Ph.D.) But the average are lacking education, and good role models.
For those of you who pitty the Palestinians; you can make some sacrifices and try to help them adapt to the modern world, and not post anti-Israeli topics, especially comparing them with nazis.
Previous quote posted by me (Durechis)

Pro-Zionist source, obviously Biased

It's too bad no one takes the time to look at the stuff I have posted, it refutes ALL of the counter posts.

:rolleyes:The Nazis were pro-Zionist? That's news to me...

The Nazis were pro-Zionist? That's news to me...

Amazing isn't it?

Amazing isn't it?It's funny how both I and EO came up with this source independently. I'd love to see his "evidence" that the protocol is fake. Then again, it'll take a lot to convince me, seeing as I've actually been to the Gedenkstätte Haus der Wannsee Konferenz and seen the real protocols myself.

It's funny how both I and EO came up with this source independently. I'd love to see his "evidence" that the protocol is fake. Then again, it'll take a lot to convince me, seeing as I've actually been to the Gedenkstätte Haus der Wannsee Konferenz and seen the real protocols myself.

I've been there, too, and the fun part is that I was just learning German at the time.

The document is easy enough to read.

I've also been to Dachau and Auschwitz, and read the diary of Pery Broad and a few other choice morsels.

It's funny how both I and EO came up with this source independently. I'd love to see his "evidence" that the protocol is fake. Then again, it'll take a lot to convince me, seeing as I've actually been to the Gedenkstätte Haus der Wannsee Konferenz and seen the real protocols myself.

I just believe that because my grandfather lost 5 of his siblings and both parents... but than again... it's all <sarcasm>propaganda</sarcasm>

I've been there, too, and the fun part is that I was just learning German at the time.

The document is easy enough to read.

I've also been to Dachau and Auschwitz, and read the diary of Pery Broad and a few other choice morsels.It's funny how he says it's bullshit. I mean, they even have the PDF files of the protocols (http://www.ghwk.de/deut/proto.htm), which surprisingly look exactly like other Nazi documents. Same format, same fancy spacing for important names.

It's funny how he says it's bullshit. I mean, they even have the PDF files of the protocols (http://www.ghwk.de/deut/proto.htm), which surprisingly look exactly like other Nazi documents. Same format, same fancy spacing for important names.

There are also letters Heydrich wrote that were gathered from other locations that specifically refer to the protocols and their goals.

I guess he wants to ignore it.

As someone once said

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech, thus everyone has the right to be right and the right to be wrong. In discussing this with you I am in no way questioning the validity of your right to be wrong, merely the wisdom in doing so.

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.

Now they seek the systematic execution of all Arabs and Goym(what the call white people, which litterally means cow in Hebrew).

Clearly, Jews are out to kill all White People.

So Jews should all be killed.

Is that what you're saying?

It says so in the jewish holy books. I can post MANY references from the jewish talmud and torah that are VERY anti-white.

And just because some ancient text MAY be racist doesn't justify YOU being racist. That is a logical fallacy.

Frankly, your 'references' all source from one point of origin - your bigotry, ignorance and hatred. Oh, and probably Stormfront, since you seem to suck Nazi testicles. Dis-missed.

And just because some ancient text MAY be racist doesn't justify YOU being racist. That is a logical fallacy.

The texts he is reffering too do not have anything remotely saying they are anti-white. My roommate is jewish.

Frankly, your 'references' all source from one point of origin - your bigotry, ignorance and hatred. Oh, and probably Stormfront, since you seem to suck Nazi testicles. Dis-missed.

lol.

People, stop feeding the troll. If you ignore him long enough, maybe he'll crawl back to stormfront and join his other neo-Nazi buddies.

People, stop feeding the troll. If you ignore him long enough, maybe he'll crawl back to stormfront and join his other neo-Nazi buddies.Heck no. I want to see if he can refute a protocol penned by Nazis.

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.But Zionism predates the Holocaust by at least 30 years.

Zionists used the holocaust in the beginning. There is no doubt in that.I use condoms for sex. That doesn't mean they're not real, though.

You're a troll.

I am fluent in Ivrit and can tell you without a doubt that Goyim means "Nations." Goy itself means nation and the "im" at the end pluralizes the word.

Now please go back to stormfront and never come back here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy esp. "Modern usage"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/goy

But Zionism predates the Holocaust by at least 30 years.

however it only really took off after people started feeling sorry for the jews after the so called holocuast.

How would you like it if Hitler killed YOU?:D

How would you like it if Hitler killed YOU?:D

Ratbert FTW.

however it only really took off after people started feeling sorry for the jews after the so called holocuast.

Please don't tell me you buy into this crap as well? That the holocaust is made up and all that other neonazi crap.

Ratbert FTW.

It just seemed all too apropriate

however it only really took off after people started feeling sorry for the jews after the so called holocuast.Holocaust. That's what the attempted extermination of Jews is called. Yes. But actually the numbers of Jews going to Palestine "took off" before the Holocaust. The ideologically motivated claim for a state predates the flight reaction to persecution by the National Socialists.

Please don't tell me you buy into this crap as well? That the holocaust is made up and all that other neonazi crap.

who do you think started this thread and said the jews were worse than the nazi's..... ?

and i just want to address Sovietstan's signature:
"And they (jews and Christians) say, 'none shall ever enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' These are wishful beliefs. Say, 'Bring forth your vivid proof if you are right.' The truth of the matter is, whosoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is a doer of good to others shall have his reward with his lord. They shall have nothing to fear and nothing to grieve at." (2:111-112)-The Holy Qur'an
so... what it says, is to say to a jew or christian: Show me unequivocal proof that none shall go to heaven except jews and christians, but in the same breath says that if you believe only in Allah, you will go to heaven? Where's the "vivid proof if you are right" of that?

www.davidduke.com
David Duke speaks in Tehran at the Holocaust Conference

There are many false reports about my speech in Tehran, here is the actual text of my speech on December 11, 2006 at the Holocaust Conference

Freedom of Speech and the Holocaust
Address by David Duke, PhD at the Holocaust Conference in Tehran, Iran

Former member of the House of Representatives
State of Louisiana, United States of America

www.davidduke.com email: dukeeuro@hotmail.com

Distinguished friends,

Thank you Dr. Mohammadi and all the distinguished scholars who are here at a conference that history shall one day deem as one of the most important of the 21st century

I and all the conference participants must be especially thankful to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has had the knowledge, the foresight and the courage to convene this conference to offer free speech for the world’s most repressed idea, Holocaust revisionism. We must remember that the main themes of this conference as stated by Iran’s President are the vital human right of freedom of speech and the condemnation of the shameful imprisonment of European scholars and academics who simply dare to state their opinions of historical events that occurred over 60 years ago.

This conference embraces the idea of free speech, thought, and conscience. The U.S. State Department, under thorough control of International Zionism, in a formal statement called this conference a quote, “disgrace.” The real disgrace is that free men are imprisoned and silenced in Europe and in other European-descended nations around the world. The disgrace is that no leaders of our own nations seem have the courage to defend free speech.

I also want to thank your President for inviting me, as controversial as I am, to be here. The Zionist-influenced media lies about me with the same enthusiasm as they lie about him.

He will be condemned for having me here, and I as a former American elected official will be condemned by the Zionist influenced press in America for coming here in peace and friendship to a nation that they hate: the nation of Iran.

But, we at this conference have decided that no longer will we let the Zionists dictate to us. They shall not dictate to us who will be our friends, who will be our enemies, nor will we permit them to dictate to us only their version of the past, and we will certainly not let them dictate our future!......

Finish reading @

www.davidduke.com

Holocaust. That's what the attempted extermination of Jews is called. Yes. But actually the numbers of Jews going to Palestine "took off" before the Holocaust. The ideologically motivated claim for a state predates the flight reaction to persecution by the National Socialists.

Actually UB, it may supprise you but the move to Palestine (the region, not the state, since there was no such thing) was brought upon not by ideology, but by more anti-semitism. Anti-semitism has been around a very long time, and in the early 20th and late 19th century in Europe there was a wave of anti-semetic vilonce, the Pogroms. The Jews fled in many directions, the UK, US and Southern Syria.

Actually UB, it may supprise you but the move to Palestine (the region, not the state, since there was no such thing) was brought upon not by ideology, but by more anti-semitism. Anti-semitism has been around a very long time, and in the early 20th and late 19th century in Europe there was a wave of anti-semetic vilonce, the Pogroms. The Jews fled in many directions, the UK, US and Southern Syria.What were the reasons for those pogroms?

What were the reasons for those pogroms?

I dont think you understand, how old are you?

Pogroms arnt some organised planned out attack. The are mobs going and killing people, no plan to them. They attacked the Jews because they were an easy target, being 'diffrent'. Myths about the Jews being swinderlers, child molesters, bolshivicks etc were strong around even then. Someone started one somewhere and they spread. Simple really

I dont think you understand, how old are you?

Pogroms arnt some organised planned out attack. The are mobs going and killing people, no plan to them. They attacked the Jews because they were an easy target, being 'diffrent'. Myths about the Jews being swinderlers, child molesters, bolshivicks etc were strong around even then. Someone started one somewhere and they spread. Simple really

I believe there's some evidence that many 19th Century Russian Pogroms were state-sponsored; Jews were easy to use as a scapegoat for the myriad of economic problems the Russian state had.

"Why is our economy run into the ground, and the Serfs are still oppressed?"
"Thew Jews, of course!"
"Ahhhh! Dirty filthy money-controlling Jews! Kill them!"
"Whew..."

What were the reasons for those pogroms?

Many reasons:

Easy scapegoating
Believing the Jews controlled the economy
Believing Jews believed in Satan
Believing that Jews wanted to rule the world and oppress anyone

Beleving the Jews [Insert idiotic belief here]...

I dont think you understand, how old are you?

Pogroms arnt some organised planned out attack. The are mobs going and killing people, no plan to them. They attacked the Jews because they were an easy target, being 'diffrent'. Myths about the Jews being swinderlers, child molesters, bolshivicks etc were strong around even then. Someone started one somewhere and they spread. Simple reallySo myths were the reason. How did those myths originate?

Many reasons:

Easy scapegoating
Believing the Jews controlled the economy
Believing Jews believed in Satan
Believing that Jews wanted to rule the world and oppress anyone

Beleving the Jews [Insert idiotic belief here]...Is it really that superficial? What makes you believe that?

So myths were the reason. How did those myths originate?

The myth about swindiling comes from long ago. Christians and Muslims in the medievil world couldnt lend money with interest so the Jews became many of the worlds most sucessful bankers, as a result a myth was perpetuated that they tricked people out of their money

The myth about bolshivism comes from the fact that Karl Marx was Jewish.

I'm not certian about the child molestation myth. I would guess it happened once and they tarred everyone with the same brush.

Is it really that superficial? What makes you believe that?

Mobs are generally made up of superficial people

Is it really that superficial? What makes you believe that?

Because it's far more credible than believing that the Jews actually did want to control the world/economy/hail satan...

Jews have always been an easy group to blame everything on and persecute to distract people from their problems; it's been like that since they were blamed for cruicying Jesus. Everything just fell in from there...

Because it's far more credible than believing that the Jews actually did want to control the world/economy/hail satan...

Jews have always been an easy group to blame everything on and persecute to distract people from their problems; it's been like that since they were blamed for cruicying Jesus. Everything just fell in from there...How and why? And what about the whole religious/ideological aspect?

Excessive C&P of Nazi shite

Can't write out the big words yourself?

Pogroms arnt some organised planned out attack. The are mobs going and killing people, no plan to them. They attacked the Jews because they were an easy target, being 'diffrent'. Myths about the Jews being swinderlers, child molesters, bolshivicks etc were strong around even then. Someone started one somewhere and they spread. Simple really

Exactly, Jews had to suffer such discrimination all throughout their history, I really wish people would stop trying to say that the Holocaust was all the Jews had to endure. Also be nice if idiots stop calling Zionism some racist conspiracy to allow Jews to accomplish some heinous plot. Really irritating.

I can't even believe this topic got created now. Must have been published a few decades early... :p

Ah, yes, Nazis were definitely worse.

How and why? And what about the whole religious/ideological aspect?

There are many reasons for this odd western phenomena known as anti-semitism. But one of those reasons can be anwsered with a rethorical question:

Given the choice either blame all your worries, problems and issues on yourself due to the result of your incompitence or the choice to blame it all on "the other guy", you'd be suprised how tempting it is to go for the latter...

and i just want to address Sovietstan's signature:

so... what it says, is to say to a jew or christian: Show me unequivocal proof that none shall go to heaven except jews and christians, but in the same breath says that if you believe only in Allah, you will go to heaven? Where's the "vivid proof if you are right" of that?
The Qur'an, history of the Prophet and Islam, mankind, the world around us are all proof of Allah and proof of the true path of Islam. The only ones who don't see this are blind.

Marx was a jew? interesting. I didn't know a jew created something that has been responsible for wide spread Godless, death, and human rights violations.

Communism at its heart, and the idea at Marx's heart, was not a bad one. The difficulty lies in its effective aplication. Its a utopian idea, one that as yet we cannot reach

If were going to play the 'Ideology has caused this' game, then I'll turn it on you, and say that Islam has caused rather similar things, intollerance in extreme (Jordan's policy that now Jews can own land, Iran and Saudi Arabia's policy against allowing public practise of non Islamic forms of worship in public, orders for execution of people who have converted from Islam to another faith etc), viloence (killing of nuns for a comment by the pope which he explicitly said was not his view). To say that an idea has killed and to blame the creator of the idea is something that can be riddled with flaws. So dont try it, unless your willing to put a great deal of evidence based argument linking them together

The Qur'an, history of the Prophet and Islam, mankind, the world around us are all proof of Allah and proof of the true path of Islam. The only ones who don't see this are blind.

Islam is the words of one man, on his own, in a cave where he claimed to have visions of God.

Christianity is the basis of over 40 men, over a period of over 2000 years, writing in many forms (Legal documents, poetry, personal accounts, proverbial wisdom, axiomatic statements, historical scripture etc) all predicting each others histories and getting them all correct.

If I want to know about God, I'd like to see what he did over a period of 2000 years as oppsed to 23, if I were given the choice.

The Qur'an, history of the Prophet and Islam, mankind, the world around us are all proof of Allah and proof of the true path of Islam. The only ones who don't see this are blind.Meh. Knowledge and proof are two separate things. Do not get them confused. It causes trouble.

*snip*

You can stop quoting from this biased website at anytime. No one believes a word he is saying save for those who do not believe in the holocaust or that it was exaggerated.

The Qur'an, history of the Prophet and Islam, mankind, the world around us are all proof of Allah and proof of the true path of Islam. The only ones who don't see this are blind.

The Bible, history proven by archeological evidence. The proof of God's existence is all around.All are proof of God and His son Jesus (who is recognized as a prophet in Islam but not the Son of God) is the path to Salvation. The only ones who don't see this are blind.

The Bible, history proven by archeological evidence. The proof of God's existence is all around.All are proof of God and His son Jesus (who is recognized as a prophet in Islam but not the Son of God) is the path to Salvation. The only ones who don't see this are blind.

God can not be more than one, to claim this can be case is wrong. Those who worship any before God will be punished.

See we could go around in circles all day, but at the end of the day faith is faith. I will still be a Muslim, and you a Christian.

God can not be more than one, to claim this can be case is wrong. Those who worship any before God will be punished.

See we could go around in circles all day, but at the end of the day faith is faith. I will still be a Muslim, and you a Christian.

For once, we can agree. I do recommend however that you actually learn more about the big 3 faiths before spouting hatred.

For once, we can agree. I do recommend however that you actually learn more about the big 3 faiths before spouting hatred.

I assume your talking about the three Abrahamic faiths as Judaism is not seen as one of the world's three major faiths.

And what sort of hatred are you talking about?

I assume your talking about the three Abrahamic faiths as Judaism is not seen as one of the world's three major faiths.

That's a bunch of BS for anyone with any knowledge of Religion knows that Judaism is among the Big 3. Remember we all come from the seed of Abraham.

And what sort of hatred are you talking about?

How about this thread for starters?