Attention: The Holocaust didn't happen

[Hawkeye]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

The United States, Israel and the European Commission -- along with individual European countries -- have condemned the remark.

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Last week, he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said: "The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons -- I think that's a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept."

"What the Iranian president has shown us today is that he is clearly outside the international consensus, he is clearly outside international norms and international legitimacy, and in so doing he has shown the Iranian government for what it is -- a rogue regime opposed to peace and stability and a threat to all its neighboring countries," Regev said.

In addition, Ahmadinejad spoke in Zahedan about Iran's nuclear program, maintaining it will insist on its right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"Those who themselves produce nuclear arms should not raise hue and cry against those who only want to gain access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," he said, according to a report from the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"Countries which have arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which can be used against other countries at their whim and those who supplied the Baathist regime with (chemical) weapons that killed thousands of innocent Iranians ... now go to all lengths to block Iran from gaining access to peaceful nuclear technology," he said.

"We are sure they have criminal intentions, and there was never any doubt that they were piling weapons of mass destruction to be used against less powerful nations," Ahmadinejad said, according to the IRNA report.

'Completely unacceptable'
In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said his government had summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires to make "unmistakably clear" its displeasure, The Associated Press said.

"I cannot hide the fact that this weighs on bilateral relations and on the chances for the negotiation process, the so-called nuclear dossier," Steinmeier said, referring to European talks with Iran on its nuclear program. (Full story)

The White House said the comments underlined the need for the international community to work together to "keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

"All responsible leaders in the international community recognize how outrageous such comments are," spokesman Scott McClellan said, Reuters reported.

In Brussels, European Commission spokeswoman Emma Udwin said such "completely unacceptable" comments would do nothing to restore confidence in Iran.

"We feel very strongly that Iran is damaging its own interests with these kind of remarks," she added.

The Spanish government said it "emphatically condemns" the remarks by the Iranian president.

"These statements from the highest levels of Iran, added to previous statements, do not contribute in any way to the peace process between Arabs and Israelis, nor to the stability of the Middle East region," the Spanish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Ahmadinejad's views contrast with those of his moderate predecessor Mohammad Khatami, who urged a dialogue among civilizations.

Some conservative allies in Iran have criticized the current president's remarks, AP reported, because they fear he is damaging the country's image.

Moderates have urged the ruling Islamic establishment to rein in the president. But Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supports Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's elimination, the news agency added.

Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad said the president could feel his speeches strengthen Iran diplomatically.

"There is a perception, based on past experience that only when Iran threatens and pushes does the West back off," he told Reuters.

[ff7+ff10 gurl 100]

So everything i learned in school didnt matter?
Argh!!!

[Raistlin]

I had a Holocaust survivor come to speak at my high school. I've also read <i>Night</i>, and I believe Weizel or however you spell his name is still alive. I'll be sure to let them know that what they experienced never actually happened.

[Winter Nights]

. . .



. . .



What?

[The Man]

yeah, seeing this headline on Google News elicited an immediate WTF from me.

[XxSephirothxX]

I wanna know where all the pictures came from, then.

[Winter Nights]

I wanna know where all the pictures came from, then.
Time-traveling Photoshop artists.

[TurkSlayer]

Right. And all those pictures of starving people were fake. Of course.:rolleyes2

[ff7+ff10 gurl 100]

Even i know that

[Yamaneko]

The irony of it all is that Hitler would most likely have "wiped out" the Muslims of the Middle East if he'd had a chance.

[fire_of_avalon]

The irony of it all is that Hitler would most likely have "wiped out" the Muslims of the Middle East if he'd had a chance.
Read my mind.

[DMKA]

The National Vanguard (http://www.nationalvanguard.org) has been telling everyone this for years.

[Cuchulainn]

The irony of it all is that Hitler would most likely have "wiped out" the Muslims of the Middle East if he'd had a chance.

Not true. He actually had an entire Muslem Waffen-SS Division & links with the Grand Mufti. Back then the Muslem People, especially in North Africa, called the German's their 'protectors' from the Imperialist British & even Germany's Allies, Italy.

Holocaust denial is nothing new. Revisionists are a scourge not uncommon to America & Europe also. Let's not limit this to Islam.

[Raistlin]

Not true. He actually had an entire Muslem Waffen-SS Division & links with the Grand Mufti. Back then the Muslem People, especially in North Africa, called the German's their 'protectors' from the Imperialist British & even Germany's Allies, Italy.
You think the Germans would've actually stuck to that if they'd taken over Europe? :p

[The Man]

Of course they wouldn't have. Just look at what Hitler did to Soviet Russia after forging an "alliance" with it. When you've taken all your tactics straight out of Machiavelli's book, alliances were made to be broken.

[Shlup]

No wonder Sohpie and Adel never want to talk about being in the Holocaust. Guess it was just too hard on them to keep up with the lie. Oh trauma!

[Madame Adequate]

Of course they wouldn't have. Just look at what Hitler did to Soviet Russia after forging an "alliance" with it. When you've taken all your tactics straight out of Machiavelli's book, alliances were made to be broken.

Had Hitler not been a lunatic, he might have actually learnt something from Machiavelli. As it was, he was so paranoid and convinced of the invulnerabilty of his armies that he sealed Germany's fate.

Incidentally, Mahmoud gave me a new EoFF theme, so I've no particular quarrel with him.

[The Man]

hitler was too coked up on methamphetamines to bother thinking of such a thing as discretion by that point.

[FutureEmperor]

Ok I disagree, and agree, first off I believe the holocaust happened and that it was a very terrible thing. (I acctually cant even comprehend how some people can to that to each other. It sickens me.)

But I have to say one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century was to give the displaced jews their own country in the middle east, not because of what it is. but because of where it is. They gave a land that is holy to many religions, to people of a certain religion.

I never saw the reason, for example, imagine giving Washington DC back to England and New York city back to the Nedtherlands, simply because history said that these areas once belonged to those countries. Many Americans would be up in arms at this, much of thier national pride is in these two cities, and yet they were taken away without their concent and given to another group of peoples who have no more claim to it than the US.

No western country wanted to give an inch of land to the Isrealis, and so they gave them land that wasn't theirs, and now all we have is bloodshed, if anything The area that is now Isreal should have been made neutral territory guarded by a multicultural defence force so that peoples from all religions and nationalities could visit it in peace. But No once again logic fails.

Oh and do i need to remind you that the Isreali armed forces have been known to attack Palestine and that Isreal does have a nuclear arsenal of its own. Not exactly the victim in this scenario if you ask me. Isreal also bombed a Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80's to prevent the Iraqis from potentially getting the Bomb.

Personally I think there may be some method in that guys inconcievable amount of madness. But seriously to say the holocaust never happend now thats just looney.

[nik0tine]

Facts don't happen.

[War Angel]

'Holocaust-disprovement' is nothing new. However, seeing it from the Muslim side is a bit new. Up until now, it was Neo-Nazis that made those crazy statements (which I'm not even going to address, it would be like trying to prove the sun is actually there), but seeing as the Arab Muslims alligned themselves with the Nazis in history already, this isn't too surprising.

This is meant to take grounds off the Jews' right to live, and do so where they live now, in their homeland. Futile efforts, I say... but seeing as military force failed time and again, 'moral' effort is all they have left. I wish them good luck, but I don't think it's going to cut it. :)


the Isreali armed forces have been known to attack Palestine and that Isreal does have a nuclear arsenal of its own. Not exactly the victim in this scenario if you ask me. Isreal also bombed a Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80's to prevent the Iraqis from potentially getting the Bomb.
Yeah, real ass-kickers, aren't they? :)

[DMKA]

Yeah, real ass-kickers, aren't they? :)
Considering that their people are still getting blown up on a daily basis, I'd say not really.

lol war

[Sasquatch]

But I have to say one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century was to give the displaced jews their own country in the middle east, not because of what it is. but because of where it is. They gave a land that is holy to many religions, to people of a certain religion.

The land was originally Jewish land, that the Muslims had invaded and displaced the elsewhere -- places throughout Europe, for example.


I never saw the reason, for example, imagine giving Washington DC back to England and New York city back to the Nedtherlands, simply because history said that these areas once belonged to those countries.

That's not a bad idea. Can we give away California, too?


if anything The area that is now Isreal should have been made neutral territory guarded by a multicultural defence force so that peoples from all religions and nationalities could visit it in peace.

You really think that would work? Muslims would allow Jews and Christians to be on their holy lands?


Oh and do i need to remind you that the Isreali armed forces have been known to attack Palestine and that Isreal does have a nuclear arsenal of its own. Not exactly the victim in this scenario if you ask me.

Do we need to remind you of the constant terrorist attacks Palestine (and the rest of the surrounding area) launches against Israeli civilians?


Isreal also bombed a Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80's to prevent the Iraqis from potentially getting the Bomb.

Yeah. Good stuff. That was the one France gave to them, bunch of idiots, and one of the pilots on that mission was the same Israeli that went down with the Columbia, I believe.

[War Angel]

Considering that their people are still getting blown up on a daily basis, I'd say not really.
Yes, but how magnificently they are doing it!


.... okay, that's enough. XD


one of the pilots on that mission was the same Israeli that went down with the Columbia, I believe.
Yes. Ilan Ramon was his name. I think he was the leader of the group of planes that led the attack on the reactor.

[nik0tine]

The land was originally Jewish land, that the Muslims had invaded and displaced the elsewhere -- places throughout Europe, for example.So what? Should we give half of the United States back to the natives? I think not.



That's not a bad idea. Can we give away California, too?lol.


You really think that would work? Muslims would allow Jews and Christians to be on their holy lands?lol.

[War Angel]

So what? Should we give half of the United States back to the natives? I think not.
But had the natives suddenly gained power and numbers, and re-claimed the land, would anyone speak against it? I should hope not.

[nik0tine]

But had the natives suddenly gained power and numbers, and re-claimed the land, would anyone speak against it? I should hope not.
Yeah, I would, because in order to take that land back they would have to kill a ridiculous amount of people.

[DMKA]

That's not a bad idea. Can we give away California, too?
Oh please do. Let us have our own country and you can have you're fields of trailer parks full of toothless people who don't know what a curb is.

[nik0tine]

Oh please do. Let us have our own country and you can have you're fields of trailer parks full of toothless people who don't know what a curb is.
But then who are we going to draft?

[DMKA]

But then who are we going to draft?
There's always the few people who can count to ten and know how to tie their drillboots in Houston.

[nik0tine]

Wait, it it Houston or Dallas that we don't like? :p

[ThroneofDravaris]

Xenomorphs don’t like Dallas either…


And that’s my net contribution to this topic.

[Rye]

I had a Holocaust survivor come to speak at my high school. I've also read <i>Night</i>, and I believe Weizel or however you spell his name is still alive. I'll be sure to let them know that what they experienced never actually happened.

Pretty much, except I had Ruth Sender who wrote The Cage come to my school. People who can deny it even happened are just ignorant and sad.

[Captain Maxx Power]

*adds to list of reasons to invade Iran* O look, now all we need is a severe financial deficit and we're viable for war.

[Levian]

We have this nazi organization in Norway also saying that Holocaust never happened, in fact they call it "Holocash", because they see it as a fraud from the jews' side to gain sympathy and money. www.vigrid.no but it's in Norwegian, so unless you're PiP, you probably won't understand it. :p

[Primus Inter Pares]

I'm always mentioned before I post in a thread :( and then I post right afterwards, I smell a conspiracy *looks at the first post* anotherone!

[Cuchulainn]

You think the Germans would've actually stuck to that if they'd taken over Europe? :p
I don't see why he woundn't have. You need to understand the mind of Hitler. You need to read the quagmire that was Mein Kampf to understand what was going on in his warped mind. His fight was against the Jewish 'plague' and Communism. Anything else was added after the fact by pressure from other NSDAP Government officials, ie the Homosexuals & Gypsies. Indeed many of Hitler's first Lieutenants were homosexual & with his full knowledge (Ernst Röhme & Heinze for example) and they were only victimised through pressure from other officials.

He didn't believe negro or arab peoples were 'aryan' but he didn't see them as a threat. He made, and kept, alliances with many non-aryan peoples, the magyars, slovaks, italians & Japanese. Hitler was a warped troubled man but his aims were not to destroy every race other than white. It was to destroy the Jewish influence in Europe & Communism.

We need to concentrate on facts & not presumptions. There is no evidence whatsoever that he wanted to erradicate islam. Indeed, there were negros living freely in Germany throughout the Nazi regime. They were not allowed to join the NSDAP but they were not rounded up like the Jews & other minorities. Infact I read not too long ago in the The Times an account from a African-German who lived there during the Regime & his only complaint was that he wasn't allowed to join the Hitlerjugend...surreal stuff.

My point is don't throw fire on an inferno. It's pointless. The world knows what an inherantly bad, murderous & corrupt regime the NSDAP-Germany was. We don't need to add fiction & presumptions to it. There's no need & it belies the true nature of what the regime stood for, why it happened & how we can stop it happening again.

[Itsunari 2000]

Holocaust denial or not, the man is a bloodthirsty zealot and needs to be removed unless you want thousands of dead Israelis on your conscience.

[ThroneofDravaris]

How would it be on our conscience?

[Shaun]

Is any of this stuff actually true? The Holocaust, a myth? No way.

[Jack]

Most Historians now argue that the Holocaust was a consequence of chance, being that they had so many Jews in camps. The war (WWII) had started and they had to get rid of them. Their are suggestions that mass immirgration was wanted to get them out of Europe (Which is what was stated all the time) Problem is, the war prevented this.
Heydrich formulated the Holocaust idea (with help from Himmler) and they presented Hitler it. All he did really was sign.

[Old Manus]

This comes to mind (http://www.freewebs.com/ihatethings/3rdworldcontriessuck.htm)

[Shaun]

This comes to mind (http://www.freewebs.com/ihatethings/3rdworldcontriessuck.htm)

XD! What a racist link! O.o'

[War Angel]

unless you want thousands of dead Israelis on your conscience.
Pfft, as if that doesn't happen already and as if somebody would give a damn. They ARE Jews, after all. :rolleyes2


Is any of this stuff actually true? The Holocaust, a myth? No way.
Dude. Seriously. I really thought there was no need to explain this. The Holocaust HAPPENED. It was very real, very terrible, and very recent. So recent that my own grandparents and my friends' grandparents remember it vividly. As if that's not enough, you've got that largest amount of evidence amassed on any genocide ever to back everything up. Does that help you reach a conclusion?

[FutureEmperor]

The land was originally Jewish land, that the Muslims had invaded and displaced the elsewhere -- places throughout Europe, for example.

Ok it was jewish land IN LIKE THE YEAR 100B.C. its like the italians claiming all of europe because of the roman empire, or the french claiming germany because of Napoleons france. These people were displaced there, its not like they were living there before the war.


That's not a bad idea. Can we give away California, too?

Personally from my view, California is the most sane state there is right now.


You really think that would work? Muslims would allow Jews and Christians to be on their holy lands?

Ok, before the crusades christian pilgrims often went to the holy land, after the crusades (which i remind you is the christians fault) then there was tension and you probably wouldnt want to go there. Now adays everything was fine until after WWII when Isreal was formed. personally i think it would work, only the radicals on BOTH sides would need a time out, Its a vicious cycle that could have been avoided with level headed thinking in the first place.


Do we need to remind you of the constant terrorist attacks Palestine (and the rest of the surrounding area) launches against Israeli civilians

There are only terrorist because of unjustice done to Palestine, I DO NOT CONDONE what these terrorist are doing but seriously once again if isreal was never formed, there would be no radical terrorist.


Yeah. Good stuff. That was the one France gave to them, bunch of idiots, and one of the pilots on that mission was the same Israeli that went down with the Columbia, I believe.

Personally id rather have another country with the bomb, (and im highly leftist.) the last thing i want is a country with out a useless weapon (when would any level headed or even radical person use an atomic weapon... NEVER) resentment and brooding over the inability to conduct its own affairs. Any ways the world would be alot more dangerous if there was only one super power with the bomb, even if it was the united states (probably more so as they have the delivery systems.)

The way i see it the US only wants to disallow Iran the bomb because it would make Iran that much more easy to invade. This is why north korea still hasnt been invaded (that and the global resentment felt after no WMD's were found after a war was started on that assumption alone.)

[War Angel]

Ok it was jewish land IN LIKE THE YEAR 100B.C.
Want me to connect you with people whose family have been in Israel from that time and never left?

Beside, that's not the point. The Jews wanted to come back, nobody was occupying ther land (physically, there was no-one in Israel but about 30,000 Arabs and 4,000 Jews, though it was under Turkish rule), and nothing stopped them. Much later on, war came about... and to make a long story short - the Jews won their home back. Nice for the Jews, not so nice for everyone who doesn't like the Jews. Frankly, I'm willing to live with that. :)


Now adays everything was fine until after WWII when Isreal was formed.
Yeah, real trouble-makers, those Jews are! Always causing mayhem, always the center of some bloody storm.


Its a vicious cycle that could have been avoided with level headed thinking in the first place.
Strange, your suggestion seems to be 'everything would be okay if Israel didn't exist'. Yes, I agree, everything WOULD be a lot easier for everyone else if Jews didn't exist... but they do, and suggesting that they didn't isn't really solving anything - except creating antagonism.


seriously once again if isreal was never formed, there would be no radical terrorist.
Sure. Let them just roll over and die, then. :)


The way i see it the US only wants to disallow Iran the bomb because it would make Iran that much more easy to invade.
Did it ever occur to you that a radical Muslim nation with aspirations to wipe out other countries, having nuclear weapons is quite a dangerous scenario? Also, please bear in mind that WMDs are hardly ever effective against fast and mobile invading forces. It's not a guarantee against an invasion - only against the use of other WMDs, by other nations.

[Sasquatch]

Ok it was jewish land IN LIKE THE YEAR 100B.C. its like the italians claiming all of europe because of the roman empire, or the french claiming germany because of Napoleons france. These people were displaced there, its not like they were living there before the war.Actually, many were. There are quite a few Jews who never left the area -- I'm sure War Angel would be able to tell you more about that. And there was no "alright, you have to leave so we can fit some Jews in", either. Nobody was pushed out of their land to form Israel. I could be wrong, but I believe even some Muslims are in Israel, though not the extremists that surround Israel praying to Allah that it would be pushed into the sea (which is a stated goal of many of the groups you're supporting).
Personally from my view, California is the most sane state there is right now.That says a lot. And nothing good.
Ok, before the crusades christian pilgrims often went to the holy land, after the crusades (which i remind you is the christians fault) then there was tension and you probably wouldnt want to go there.Was it this thread where I mentioned not to bring up the Crusades unless you know what you're talking about? Happens all the time. The Crusades were launched to reclaim land that was taken by the Muslims earlier. It would have only been an "invasion" if the land had always been Muslim...consider it a delayed counterattack.
Now adays everything was fine until after WWII when Isreal was formed.Not formed. Re-formed. Of course the Muslims there were happy when there was no organized Jewish country -- when they started having millions of Jews around them, that caused problems. Damn Jewish, right? What's next, did they cause WWII too?
personally i think it would work, only the radicals on BOTH sides would need a time out, Its a vicious cycle that could have been avoided with level headed thinking in the first place.Radicals on both sides? Tell me, how many Jews declare it their life goal to kill as many Muslims as possible? When was the last time a rabbi declared a jihad on Muslim "infidels"?
There are only terrorist because of unjustice done to Palestine, I DO NOT CONDONE what these terrorist are doing but seriously once again if isreal was never formed, there would be no radical terrorist.Damn those Jews, causing trouble again! How dare we give their homeland back to them after millions of them were slaughtered by one of the most brutal regimes in history, look at what we've done! If it weren't for the Jews being there, the Muslims wouldn't have any problem, right?
Personally id rather have another country with the bomb, (and im highly leftist.) the last thing i want is a country with out a useless weapon (when would any level headed or even radical person use an atomic weapon... NEVER) resentment and brooding over the inability to conduct its own affairs.A. Highly leftist? You don't say?
B. When conducting its own affairs means threatening millions upon millions of people with nuclear weapons, no, we won't let that happen.
C. Nuclear weapons would only be used if the user didn't think there would be a chance of counterattack. Now, whether that means wiping out the country entirely so they can't counterattack, or being in a sitation where they won't be able to find who to counterattack, it still means the same thing. We're not worried about Iran so much as we're worried about the well-established terrorist connections Iran has. A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons is a bad enough idea. A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons and the means, motive, and opportunity to provide terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons is a terrible idea.
Any ways the world would be alot more dangerous if there was only one super power with the bomb, even if it was the united states (probably more so as they have the delivery systems.)In theory, yes. You could also look at the idea that, well, first of all, that would never happen, and second of all, I'm sure if anything like that were to happen, the UN would finally get off its collective coward lazy ass and stop it. Let's hope something would motivate them, anyway.
The way i see it the US only wants to disallow Iran the bomb because it would make Iran that much more easy to invade. This is why north korea still hasnt been invaded (that and the global resentment felt after no WMD's were found after a war was started on that assumption alone.)

That assumption alone? Don't read the news much, do you? And nuclear weapons would mean MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), meaning if they used any on an invading force, it would be devastating, then we'd nuke the hell out of them. Not to mention (since War Angel already did) that a nuclear weapon wouldn't be extremely useful against an invading force, unless (possibly) it was still staging and not a declared invasion yet, in which case it would be a preemptive strike with nuclear weapons, which would turn most of the rest of the world against them.

[War Angel]

The Crusades were launched to reclaim land that was taken by the Muslims earlier.
The land wasn't Christian, either. The Crusades were an attempt to MAKE it Christian, and put it under Christian rule. Then again... the land sure as hell isn't Muslim, either. In-fact, I think I have a slight idea on who that place belongs to... :P

[Loony BoB]

Okay, this is just from a moderating point of view: Can people please be careful with suggestive/sarcastic comments as sometimes they look really bad and I don't know if they're serious or not. If it's something sarcastic that, when taken seriously, is a pretty bad thing to say... don't say it, regardless of the emoticons you put next to it. :) Or just blatantly let us know that it's sarcasm. :p Thanks.

And, uh, yeah. Saying the holocaust never happened is silly. I know my grandmother on my stepmum's side was right there in the Netherlands, helping Jews, while it was all giong down. I've had to do an interview with her about it, so yeah.

[The Jamie Star Scenario]

Wait, does that mean that Anne Frank is still alive? Oh dear, I bet she is pretty pissed that half the world has read her diary.

[Sasquatch]

The land wasn't Christian, either. The Crusades were an attempt to MAKE it Christian, and put it under Christian rule. Then again... the land sure as hell isn't Muslim, either. In-fact, I think I have a slight idea on who that place belongs to... :P

True. The land wasn't taken from Christians, mostly pagans and Jews, and (forcibly) converted to Islam. Either way, it's not something that the Christians just decided one day "hey, let's go kill people and take land in the name of God".

[Dignified Pauper]

I always knew that jews told elaborate stories

[FutureEmperor]

Ok let me set this straight i have nothing against jewish people, and i certainly dont support terrorist cells. But I do look at the points that terrorist make, just because thier radical, doesnt mean thier stupid (Although it ends up being the case 99% of the time.) And finally im not saying we should destroy the country of Isreal, but im just saying that things might of been better if isreal was formed somewhere else in the world.

First off.
Warangel: I am not talking about people here, but im talking about established countries, If there were jews in the holy land before Isreal, what makes you think there couldnt be jews living their in peace if the nation state of Isreal was never created. Also when i said 100B.C. i was talking about a jewish leader, not people. two significantly different concepts.

Im not saying the Jewish people are troublemakers, Im acctually blaming the allies who helped create the nation of Isreal. It was a case of giving somebodies elses land.

Once again i never said jews should not exist, but the nation of Isreal. theres A HUGE DIFFERENCE. My suggestion was simply dissolve the government of isreal and replace it with a psuedo Theocracy, with representatives from the three major religions from that area.

Ok maybe there still would be Radical terrorist, but im talking about what if Isreal was NEVER formed. for your own sake read the whole post.

Yes, that did occur to me, but did it also occur to you that attacking a significantly richer country with more nuclear weapons and powerful allies may be enough to blunt any attempt at a preemptive attack, and that any missle/bomber strike would be detected before a successful preempted attack could take place.

Now to Sasquatch:
Once again i never said that, i was talking about Jewish rule, although no one was pushed out of their land, there were people who were prevented from crossing the border, because the border was closed. This is very significant. And im saying that many jewish refugees who were fleeing communism, and thier homelands (afraid of the tyranny that had ruled the area) were sent to Isreal (probably due to thier own free will, but its still not like there was any choice, most countries didnt want these refugees after the war.)

Ok maybe California is not the most sane state, but it is very progressive, its acctually trying to do SOME good.

Acctually The holy land was (starting from 1AD) (roughly) Pagan (under the romans) Orthadox (under the byzantines) and Islamic (under the turkish).It was only christian for very short periods and even then it wasnt completely christian.

World War two was started with the Invasion of Poland, the state of the jews in Nazi Germany was unknown about or was ignored. :confused:, Any ways When was there a nation state of Isreal before the 1940's? before the 1000's, And had there been no Holocaust would there be a Nation state of Isreal today?

I was talking about radical right wing politicians in the west who believe bombing all the Islamic countries is a very good idea. And there are plenty of Isreali volunteers in thier armed forces which spend alot of time initiating preemptive strikes against mostly innocent targets. (Although the methods used by suicide bombers is by far worse, But either way KILLING IS WRONG)

Well think about it, did we do them a favour by surrounding them with resentful enemies? did we stop blood shed, or are we just purpetuating a cycle of genocide, Sure the jews were the ultimate victims, but now they are fighting for thier lives in hostile territory, and who put them their? wouldnt more lives of been spared if territory in a more hospitable country was given to them?

"A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons is a bad enough idea. A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons and the means, motive, and opportunity to provide terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons is a terrible idea." Now that sounds slightly racist you might want to watch what you say, whats the difference between a hostile Muslim country to us and A hostile christian country to them, look at the world from thier point of view. Those people are just people not crazies all you hear in the news today is propaganda, same as during the cold war with the "CRAZY COMMUNIST" who would start armageddon, But that never happened, you know why, those Crazy communist were not crazy after all.

Do you think the UN would be able to do something? The UN would be controlled by this super power, most other countries would be this superpowers pupets, and any opposition would be ruthlessly annihilated, and the crazy thing is, is that i could happen with out any body knowing.

And you havent thought the invading army idea through yet, If an invading agressor army attacked and was nuked, the families of those who were killed would be angry at both the invaders and at the defenders (at the defenders because they used the bomb to kill thier family, and at the invaders because they sent their family into this situation.) So then the Invading army has three options. A) If the Invading army then used its own nuclear weapons to destroy this defending nation, the Invading army would then be seen as an Aggresive force, and its leader could possibly be named a war criminal. The aggressor army has just eliminated all its allies, for what, bombing the crap out of another tiny nation, that they cant use due to the radiation, and the loss of life would be catastrophic. No Civil country would allow it. B) Continue the invasion with conventional weapons, allowing for greater loss of life, and dissention in the ranks (no soldier wants to even be near a nuclear blast, and nobody wants thier lives thrown away.) C) the Invading army admits defeat or decares truce and the region and the home front decend into chaos as protest, and activist come out.


So does this make sense now, are we clear? to sum up
1)I think Isreal should have been made in another area of the world
2)I believe that any type of killing is wrong
3)the middle east was distablized by the creation of Isreal
4)Nuclear arms are only a good deturent and anyone can see that even radicalist, as long as the radicalist have something worth having, if a radical has nothing left, then you give them no choice.
5)You cant base modern politics on 2000 year old history as history tends to be bended and once again its history and applies differently to todays world.
6)I hate organized religion because it just ends up leading to crap like this.

[War Angel]

im just saying that things might of been better if isreal was formed somewhere else in the world.
Why elsewhere in the world? Because some people don't like it? Then the Jews should give up their homeland, their dream for living there in their own state once more? Beside, what place IS there in this world that would 'accept' the Jews? None.


If there were jews in the holy land before Isreal, what makes you think there couldnt be jews living their in peace if the nation state of Isreal was never created.
1929, more than 400 Jews were butchered by neighbouring Arabs. Only 400, you might say... but that was about 1/12 of the entire population, back then. That's like 25 million Americans killed, right now. Jews CANNOT live in Israel, or anywhere else, without the support of their nation.


Im acctually blaming the allies who helped create the nation of Isreal.
Who exactly helped the re-erection of the State of Israel? No-one. Nobdoy fought for the Jews. People came from extermination and concentration camps, weighing a third of their preffered weight, were given rifles - and off to fight the War for Independence. I heard many of them died mere hours afterwards, while their rifles were still locked.


Once again i never said jews should not exist, but the nation of Isreal.
No State of Israel - no future for the Jews. How many country-less people do you know that live happily in this world? The Kurds, maybe? How about homeless tribes in Africa? Hell, the Jews were butchered by the millions befroe the re-forming of their nation in 1948! The Holocaust, you know, nasty business. No-body would DARE attempt genocide on a people with a country behind them - and those poor souls would always have somewhere to run off to. Jews had no-where to go after 1938.


It was a case of giving somebodies elses land.
Nobody freaking gave the land! People fought and died for it! More than six millions, in-fact. Five subsequent wars, countless terrorist acts, dozens of thousands dead.... nobody gave the land. It was hard-earned by blood and valour. Also, what do you mean by 'someone else's land'? Are you insinuating something, something that might shed light on your agenda, mm?


Isreali volunteers in thier armed forces which spend alot of time initiating preemptive strikes against mostly innocent targets.
Do tell me more of these rogue 'Israeli volunteers' who go about defying orders of the highest command, killing 'innocent targets'.


who put them their?
Some would say God did, I say the Jews did it themselves. But we're talking ancient history here.


3)the middle east was distablized by the creation of Isreal
I'd say that as the Crade of Humanity, the Middle East has always been very much distablised. The re-forming of Israel was, if anything, a democratic and stablising factor.


5)You cant base modern politics on 2000 year old history as history tends to be bended and once again its history and applies differently to todays world.
Don't try to bend it, then. Israel stands firm, with one of the most powerful armies in the world, and a the firmest determination you could find in human minds. That's really enough. Face it as a fact - Israel has always been there, and always will be, as long as there are Jews willing to live there and protect it.

[Sasquatch]

Once again i never said that, i was talking about Jewish rule, although no one was pushed out of their land, there were people who were prevented from crossing the border, because the border was closed. This is very significant.Was the border closed to everbody except who was initially placed there? I doubt it. It makes much more sense that the border was closed as a security measure after Israel started getting attacked.
Ok maybe California is not the most sane state, but it is very progressive, its acctually trying to do SOME good.Let me let you in on something. Change is not always progress. Just because they're trying to change things doesn't mean they're progressive -- the way they're going, it's quite the opposite, actually.
Acctually The holy land was (starting from 1AD) (roughly) Pagan (under the romans) Orthadox (under the byzantines) and Islamic (under the turkish).It was only christian for very short periods and even then it wasnt completely christian.Nobody said it was Christian. The point was that Islam forcefully took over.
World War two was started with the Invasion of Poland, the state of the jews in Nazi Germany was unknown about or was ignored. :confused:Some of both, but there was a reason it was ignored. Until Germany attacked another country, it was Germany's problem to deal with. Remember, there wasn't really any UN to step in and deal with it (like they would have anyway, hah), and the League of Nations really wasn't prepared to handle such an issue.
Any ways When was there a nation state of Isreal before the 1940's? before the 1000's, And had there been no Holocaust would there be a Nation state of Isreal today?
There would still be a Jewish section of Palestine, which was created after WWI, if my memory serves me correctly. In the early 1920s, "Palestine" was split into two parts, which would become Israel and Jordan. (War Angel, I'm sure you know more than I do about this, please correct me if I'm wrong.) ... ... ... You know what, nevermind, just look here for the history behind it (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html).
I was talking about radical right wing politicians in the west who believe bombing all the Islamic countries is a very good idea.Right, because we just carpet-bomb Islamic countries at random, right?
And there are plenty of Isreali volunteers in thier armed forces which spend alot of time initiating preemptive strikes against mostly innocent targets. (Although the methods used by suicide bombers is by far worse, But either way KILLING IS WRONG)Their presence alone initiates conflict, because the Muslims around there can't stand Jews having their own territory. And don't tell me you honestly believe, with no credible sources, that Israelis actually target innocent civilians in preemptive attacks? Please, please, tell me you're not serious. Or at least try to back up this outrageous claim. (And no, Al-Jezeera doesn't count as a credible source.)
Well think about it, did we do them a favour by surrounding them with resentful enemies? did we stop blood shed, or are we just purpetuating a cycle of genocideWas it our fault the surrounding Muslims won't accept their presence? Are you going to blame us (well, probably Britain, really) because of that? We didn't surround them with anything, we put them back in their homeland. Their enemies surrounded them by themselves.
Sure the jews were the ultimate victims, but now they are fighting for thier lives in hostile territory, and who put them their? wouldnt more lives of been spared if territory in a more hospitable country was given to them?Would they rather be somewhere other than their historical homeland and the area the majority of their religion centers around? It's where they belong, it's their homeland. They shouldn't be anywhere else, they should be able to live peacefully where they are.
"A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons is a bad enough idea. A hostile Muslim country with nuclear weapons and the means, motive, and opportunity to provide terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons is a terrible idea." Now that sounds slightly racist you might want to watch what you say, whats the difference between a hostile Muslim country to us and A hostile christian country to them, look at the world from thier point of view.I'm getting tired of these ignorant "racism" accusations. Tell me, when was the last time a non-Muslim country used WMDs? When was the last time a non-Muslim country supported terrorism? Killed hundreds of thousands, or hell even hundreds, of its own people? Used tactics of torture (torture, not abuse or mistreatment) for entertainment? Threatened to destroy another country? Threatened to wipe out every person of a certain ethnicity or religion? North Korea is the only one anywhere close to that. Face the facts, the Middle East is a problem, run mostly by extremist Muslim countries. As I've already said multiple times, truth is not racist. Name one Christian country, or any non-Muslim country apart from North Korea, that is as much of a threat to the world as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. etc.
Do you think the UN would be able to do something? The UN would be controlled by this super power, most other countries would be this superpowers pupets, and any opposition would be ruthlessly annihilated, and the crazy thing is, is that i could happen with out any body knowing.You've also been watching too many movies, haven't you? It wouldn't happen anyway, so you don't have to worry about it. Nobody is going to give up their nuclear weapons, especially if it ever comes down to just a few countries left with them and they're an even bigger bargaining chip.
And you havent thought the invading army idea through yet, If an invading agressor army attacked and was nuked, the families of those who were killed would be angry at both the invaders and at the defenders (at the defenders because they used the bomb to kill thier family, and at the invaders because they sent their family into this situation.)Only the ignorant familes. Not all families of soldiers are like Cindy Sheehan, you know.
So then the Invading army has three options. A) If the Invading army then used its own nuclear weapons to destroy this defending nation, the Invading army would then be seen as an Aggresive force, and its leader could possibly be named a war criminal. The aggressor army has just eliminated all its allies, for what, bombing the crap out of another tiny nation, that they cant use due to the radiation, and the loss of life would be catastrophic. No Civil country would allow it.It would be a counterattack to a nuclear strike anyway, so I'm sure most countries that mattered would at least understand. The initial nuclear attack would be much more devastating to world views than the counterattack would.
B) Continue the invasion with conventional weapons, allowing for greater loss of life, and dissention in the ranks (no soldier wants to even be near a nuclear blast, and nobody wants thier lives thrown away.)Nuclear weapons would probably just strengthen the resolve of the soldiers and the "invading" forces, resulting in them being more "careless" to protect innocent life.
C) the Invading army admits defeat or decares truce and the region and the home front decend into chaos as protest, and activist come out.Or, rather, more accurately, the rest of the civilized world descends on the country that used the nuclear weapon and beats the hell out of them, controlling them for centuries into the future, and supports the victim country.

It's well-known. Using a nuclear weapon is a no-no. Not only does it assure (especially against somebody like the United States) that you'll get your ass handed to you, to put it lightly, it also provides the entire world with a reason not to respect you. If India or Pakistan used nukes on each other, I'm sure America would be bombing everything that country has that has anything at all to do with nuclear technology, and I'm sure we wouldn't be alone in doing it.
1)I think Isreal should have been made in another area of the world
Israel was re-formed where Israel should have been, and used to be. It's the only logical spot for it.
2)I believe that any type of killing is wrongYet you argue for things that lead to killing, and support those who kill as often and as brutally as possible.
3)the middle east was distablized by the creation of IsrealThe Middle East was destabilized for centuries, the creation of Israel didn't do anything but give them something else to be mad about. Another excuse.
4)Nuclear arms are only a good deturent and anyone can see that even radicalist, as long as the radicalist have something worth having, if a radical has nothing left, then you give them no choice."then you give them no choice"? So what, it's our fault if somebody uses nuclear weapons on us now? Like I said before, no country in their right mind would use nukes, but an extremist country (such as Iran) might provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.
5)You cant base modern politics on 2000 year old history as history tends to be bended and once again its history and applies differently to todays world.That's right, forget all about history, it doesn't matter in today's world. [/sarcasm]
6)I hate organized religion because it just ends up leading to crap like this. That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is nothing wrong with general organized religion, it's the extremism that's the problem. And when the majority of an entire region is controlled by extremism, that's a big problem.

[Markus. D]

First The first flight to the moon.... now this -_-"

[FutureEmperor]

Ok i would like to say that i never accused any one of being racists, Im just telling you guys to watch your remarks, saying things like "muslim led countries cant be trusted" is racists, and can offened, im just warning you guys.

second of all, where do i support actions that will lead to killing? And if you do find one, tell me how it leads to killing. Killing is never a FING answer, i found that to be a very harsh personal attack

I never like argueing on forums as post tend to be read differently there tends to be alot of subtext that is lost simply due to tone of voice.


Why elsewhere in the world? Because some people don't like it? Then the Jews should give up their homeland, their dream for living there in their own state once more? Beside, what place IS there in this world that would 'accept' the Jews? None.

Why wouldnt the rest of the world accept them i dont see why every different religion or peoples cant live together, why does everyone need to be Xenophobic, why clutter the world with more nations, we should be trying to unite each other not fight each other, i FING hate the human condition.



1929, more than 400 Jews were butchered by neighbouring Arabs. Only 400, you might say... but that was about 1/12 of the entire population, back then. That's like 25 million Americans killed, right now. Jews CANNOT live in Israel, or anywhere else, without the support of their nation.

I would never say a thing like only 400, once again i personally felt that the comment "Only 400 you might say" was a stab at me. and you say anywhere else, although as i recall Jews have been able to live here with out being threatened to the same degree.



Who exactly helped the re-erection of the State of Israel? No-one. Nobdoy fought for the Jews. People came from extermination and concentration camps, weighing a third of their preffered weight, were given rifles - and off to fight the War for Independence. I heard many of them died mere hours afterwards, while their rifles were still locked.


Well since after WW1 it was british territory. And western countries have allied with Isreal on more than several occasions. And what was this "War of Independence" against?



No State of Israel - no future for the Jews. How many country-less people do you know that live happily in this world? The Kurds, maybe? How about homeless tribes in Africa? Hell, the Jews were butchered by the millions befroe the re-forming of their nation in 1948! The Holocaust, you know, nasty business. No-body would DARE attempt genocide on a people with a country behind them - and those poor souls would always have somewhere to run off to. Jews had no-where to go after 1938.

Why cant Jewish people live outside of a mainly Jewish state? Is the rest of the world that scared that they have to keep these people seperated from them? Is every one that unforgiving that they would cast a blind eye to those in need? Personally it doesnt matter if these people have thier own country but whether there are compasionate people there who can give them aid when needed. Personally i never got the whole idea behind Genocide, i cant comprehend it why would people kill because of a persons ethnic/religious background?



Nobody freaking gave the land! People fought and died for it! More than six millions, in-fact. Five subsequent wars, countless terrorist acts, dozens of thousands dead.... nobody gave the land. It was hard-earned by blood and valour. Also, what do you mean by 'someone else's land'? Are you insinuating something, something that might shed light on your agenda, mm?

Well that makes the whole concept of Isreal worse doesnt it, its a nation state that was born from blood, those people would have been spared if the rest of the world gave them a home, Anyways it was the british who split palestine up. Personally as much as i feel for those who gave thier blood, there are so many better solutions than fighting.



Do tell me more of these rogue 'Israeli volunteers' who go about defying orders of the highest command, killing 'innocent targets'.
They dont kill innocents but when you are fighting constantly people are caught in the cross fire. Im not saying it was on purpose, but its still the tragic death of an innocent bystander for no reason. War fucking sucks.



Some would say God did, I say the Jews did it themselves. But we're talking ancient history here.

God didnt Tell the Jews to live in one place, he didnt tell any one to live anywhere, If you bring god into the discussion then god made people and gave them the world to live, so let people LIVE in the world. when we seperate each other thats when the hate begins.




I'd say that as the Crade of Humanity, the Middle East has always been very much distablised. The re-forming of Israel was, if anything, a democratic and stablising factor.

Its the cradle of civilization, and how can you say the reforming of Isreal is a stablising factor when you have all these terrorist cells, and suicide bombings happening all the time.



Don't try to bend it, then. Israel stands firm, with one of the most powerful armies in the world, and a the firmest determination you could find in human minds. That's really enough. Face it as a fact - Israel has always been there, and always will be, as long as there are Jews willing to live there and protect it.

Why cant they just live there and share it, instead of hoarding it and defending it with tooth and nail. You cant have a Culturaly significant place such as the holy land and just give it to one group of people, its unfair no matter a the birth right of those people (And the past has shown us what birth right can do remember all those crazy kings and emperors, maybe se should try something other than its yours because your father had it.)




Was the border closed to everbody except who was initially placed there? I doubt it. It makes much more sense that the border was closed as a security measure after Israel started getting attacked.

it was closed for i think about 30 years.



Let me let you in on something. Change is not always progress. Just because they're trying to change things doesn't mean they're progressive -- the way they're going, it's quite the opposite, actually.

would you care to elaborate, as i thought that alternative fuels and greater rights and freedoms was progressive?




Nobody said it was Christian. The point was that Islam forcefully took over.
Some one mentioned that the crusades were a re-taking. anyways the holyland was persian as well i forgot to mention that, so the Islamic took it from the Persains whos religion at the time was Zoraster.



Some of both, but there was a reason it was ignored. Until Germany attacked another country, it was Germany's problem to deal with. Remember, there wasn't really any UN to step in and deal with it (like they would have anyway, hah), and the League of Nations really wasn't prepared to handle such an issue.

Thats sad millions slaughtered because of cowardice. its called initiative.



There would still be a Jewish section of Palestine, which was created after WWI, if my memory serves me correctly. In the early 1920s, "Palestine" was split into two parts, which would become Israel and Jordan. (War Angel, I'm sure you know more than I do about this, please correct me if I'm wrong.) ... ... ... You know what, nevermind, just look here for the history behind it.
Acctually that site just helped my argument more, why coulnt they have keeped the whole country palestine, instead of splitting it up, it was mentioned that both Muslims and Jews were living together. And most of the culturally significant areas are in Isreal...



Right, because we just carpet-bomb Islamic countries at random, right?
Im not saying you do that, but there are some people who think that thats the only way, there was chef at my work who wanted nothing except to "NUKE THE MOTHERFUCKERS SKY HIGH" needless to say that statement scared the /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif out of me. Those people are just like us, they are just people living thier own lives.




Their presence alone initiates conflict, because the Muslims around there can't stand Jews having their own territory. And don't tell me you honestly believe, with no credible sources, that Israelis actually target innocent civilians in preemptive attacks? Please, please, tell me you're not serious. Or at least try to back up this outrageous claim. (And no, Al-Jezeera doesn't count as a credible source.)

I never said they target innocent civilians, but that Innocent civilians become casualties in these times of hate, the muslims dont hate the jews they hate how they cant visit thier own holy sites. And there are no credible sources, CNN, BBC, AL-Jezeera, all of them are just glorified propaganda, and dont be a fool and put all your faith in any of these news sources.



Was it our fault the surrounding Muslims won't accept their presence? Are you going to blame us (well, probably Britain, really) because of that? We didn't surround them with anything, we put them back in their homeland. Their enemies surrounded them by themselves. You say that we put them back in thier homeland, but if thier homeland was occupied by someone else, and that putting the jews back into thier homeland caused a rift between that someone else and the jews, then wouldnt it be our fault. as it would of never of happened with out us?





Would they rather be somewhere other than their historical homeland and the area the majority of their religion centers around? It's where they belong, it's their homeland. They shouldn't be anywhere else, they should be able to live peacefully where they are. Maybe someplace where they dont have to fear death? thats always a good place to live. im pretty sure most Isreali's dont visit thier holy sites all the time, and that they usually make a once a year trip to these areas, so my question is why is it important that the Isrealis get the land in which thier holy sites are situated, but the Muslims cant get the lands on which thier holy sites are located. it seems pretty unfair to me.



I'm getting tired of these ignorant "racism" accusations. Tell me, when was the last time a non-Muslim country used WMDs? When was the last time a non-Muslim country supported terrorism? Killed hundreds of thousands, or hell even hundreds, of its own people? Used tactics of torture (torture, not abuse or mistreatment) for entertainment? Threatened to destroy another country? Threatened to wipe out every person of a certain ethnicity or religion? North Korea is the only one anywhere close to that. Face the facts, the Middle East is a problem, run mostly by extremist Muslim countries. As I've already said multiple times, truth is not racist. Name one Christian country, or any non-Muslim country apart from North Korea, that is as much of a threat to the world as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. etc. It wasnt an accusation, it was a warning to becareful of what you say. also as i recall no muslim country has used a WMD, infact the only MOABS used were used by the United States, and the only nuclear weapons used in anger were used by the United States, give me one example of a Muslim countries using WMDs. oh and timothy mcvay was a terrorist, and the United states funded Osama bin ladin so that he would fight against the USSR. The germans killed thousands of jews in WW2, and smoking kills millions yet its sanctioned all over the world. Also remember Abu Ghraib prison that looked like torture for entertainment to me. The US destroyed Iraq recently, and droped Millions of tons of munitions on a tiny little vietnam. North Korea hasnt invaded a country since the Korean war, and there isnt really any sources of active genocide in north korea. One non-muslim country that could be a threat to the whole world, how about... THE US, its invaded many countries on the emphasis of freedom, all these "radical countries" that we talk about end up doing nothing in the end, Only the US does anything, and it does alot. And how have these "Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen" countries threatened the world, they have a hard enough time keeping up with the world.



You've also been watching too many movies, haven't you? It wouldn't happen anyway, so you don't have to worry about it. Nobody is going to give up their nuclear weapons, especially if it ever comes down to just a few countries left with them and they're an even bigger bargaining chip.

What are you talking about it already happened a Sovereign country was invaded and its leader imprisoned (although he did deserve it) with no credible reason and with no reprecusions.



Only the ignorant familes. Not all families of soldiers are like Cindy Sheehan, you know. I bet you wouldnt say that if your son was nuked just so some political leader could leave his mark.




It would be a counterattack to a nuclear strike anyway, so I'm sure most countries that mattered would at least understand. The initial nuclear attack would be much more devastating to world views than the counterattack would.
I agree that the first nuclear attack would be more devastating, but a nuclear retaliation would kill thousands of innocents (the first nuclear attack being only against combat forces), This would be a warcrime at best.



Nuclear weapons would probably just strengthen the resolve of the soldiers and the "invading" forces, resulting in them being more "careless" to protect innocent life.
I fail to see how thier resolve would strengthen after learning that many of thier comrades are being indiscriminately killed with no way to defend themselves, only some of the people on the home front would have a greater fighting spirit.



Or, rather, more accurately, the rest of the civilized world descends on the country that used the nuclear weapon and beats the hell out of them, controlling them for centuries into the future, and supports the victim country.
The victim country? oh you mean the country that was invading a smaller less easily defended nation that had no other choice. And the rest of the "Civilized world" would be angry at the nation that used the Nuclear weapon, but what could it do? invade? but that was disasterous. bomb into submission? thats never worked.... what do you do?


It's well-known. Using a nuclear weapon is a no-no. Not only does it assure (especially against somebody like the United States) that you'll get your ass handed to you, to put it lightly, it also provides the entire world with a reason not to respect you. If India or Pakistan used nukes on each other, I'm sure America would be bombing everything that country has that has anything at all to do with nuclear technology, and I'm sure we wouldn't be alone in doing it. Yes i never said using nukes was a good idea, using Nuclear weapons is retarded.


Israel was re-formed where Israel should have been, and used to be. It's the only logical spot for it. I dont see why, unless logical means the place that pisses alot of people of and ends up in the deaths of hundreds.



Yet you argue for things that lead to killing, and support those who kill as often and as brutally as possible. Where have I argued for things that lead to killing? and i have said before i dont support terrorists, would you fucking read my disclaimer, why the fuck would i want anyone dead? sorry about that but seriously Ive done humanitarian work through out the world, i never wanted any one dead.




The Middle East was destabilized for centuries, the creation of Israel didn't do anything but give them something else to be mad about. Another excuse. So why give them that excuse, it just added more fuel to the fire. from the way things were going it seemed that the area was calming down, but then Isreal is formed and it all goes to pot again.



"then you give them no choice"? So what, it's our fault if somebody uses nuclear weapons on us now? Like I said before, no country in their right mind would use nukes, but an extremist country (such as Iran) might provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. Well if you give them a reason to use a nuclear weapon on you then yes, it is your fault, and terrorist wouldnt use a nuclear weapon as a weapon the would use it as a bargaining tool. Thats why they want the bomb. put the bomb in an undisclosed location and demand.



That's right, forget all about history, it doesn't matter in today's world. [/sarcasm] Im not saying to forget history, but to not apply it to todays world. Everything is different we have to adapt to changing circumstances.



That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is nothing wrong with general organized religion, it's the extremism that's the problem. And when the majority of an entire region is controlled by extremism, that's a big problem. I dont see why not as many religions end up fueling wars, Religion was probably formed as a way of making a general way people should act and whatnot. (dont kill people, and live a good life, as there are rewards). And thats fine and dandy, but with crusades, and jihads, and wars on islam. thats when organized religion goes wrong, and sadly thats pretty much a large part of religion, "we're right and your wrong."


and if i offend anyone because i feel that we should over come our overall stupidity as humans and should live in the world together as one, then fine im sorry. (for what i dont know, i just want people to not have to be worried about thier lives.)

and anyways this arguement is pointless as neither of us will relent in our views, but hopefully it would consolidate our own views so that we can find a greater sense of self. and personally i wish i could talk to guys inperson as it would be easier to get my points across. Damn you webforums.

i have really enjoyed this debate so far. :)

[War Angel]

Why wouldnt the rest of the world accept them i dont see why every different religion or peoples cant live together, why does everyone need to be Xenophobic, why clutter the world with more nations, we should be trying to unite each other not fight each other,
That would be nice. Jews, however, have been mistreated throughout their history outside their homeland, and recently have had genocide commited on them, which nearly wiped all of them out. They are not safe without a country of their own.


although as i recall Jews have been able to live here with out being threatened to the same degree.
They were always threatened to some degree, it's just that action rarely took place against them. Those Jews became apathetic, aloof... they've been through every empire in human histroy, from Babylon to Asyria, to Greece and Rome, the Ottomans and Britain. They didn't really expect their neighbours to attack them. But, with outside encouragement and help, they did.


And what was this "War of Independence" against?
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Arabs that broke in an all-out total war (that is, war for the annihiliation of one side) against Israel, mere hours after it had declared its independence. Israel won, by the way. :) They had like four old tanks and two 20mm cannons to fight with, and they dragged those across the country.


Why cant Jewish people live outside of a mainly Jewish state?
Because they tend to die by the millions, it seems. Nasty habit, I know, very unhealthy.


there are so many better solutions than fighting.
I agree. Israel tried those (and still does, hopelessly), but to no avail. Its enemies couldn't care less for subtle and non-forceful means.


They dont kill innocents but when you are fighting constantly people are caught in the cross fire. Im not saying it was on purpose, but its still the tragic death of an innocent bystander for no reason.
That's quite a different statement than 'Israelis initiate strikes purposely on innocents', now isn't it? And yes, you're right. Israel does its very best to avoid un-needed casualties, but the enemy doesn't exactly make it very easy. Strapping an 11 year-old kid with explosives... what are you going to do? He's going to die, either way. Or when a Palestinian combatant has children flock around him, acting as a human shield. So, Israeli troops are not allowed to shoot in those circumstances... but sometimes, when your life and\or your comrades' lives are in grave and immediate danger, you have to act.


how can you say the reforming of Isreal is a stablising factor when you have all these terrorist cells, and suicide bombings happening all the time.

Because Israel is a democratic, western nation. Yes, the neighbours don't like them very much... but then again, they don't like any kind of neighbours, do they? It's not like they've been nice to anyone lately. They've acted forcefully and violently against any cause they've found alien to them.


Why cant they just live there and share it,
That was the original idea. But guess who didn't approve of it? In 1947 in the UN, the 'two states for two people' declaration was held. Israelis rejoiced like they haven't in a looong time. The Arabs however didn't like it one bit. So, they started a war as soon as Israel declared its independence. Israel won, and took hold of much territory in the process. I'd say, serves them right.


You cant have a Culturaly significant place such as the holy land and just give it to one group of people,
Again, it wasn't given. The UN wanted to place both people in it, and the Jews very much agreed. The Arabs didn't. War ensued. The end... well, you know.


they hate how they cant visit thier own holy sites.
That's flat-out wrong. Israel is a democratic nation, and grants religious and cultural freedom to all its inhabitants and visitors. Further more, the Muslims have been given complete control over their holy site, the Al Aksa mosque, which has been built over the ruins of the great and ancient Jewish temple. There's one little wall left of that temple, were Jews come to pray, and get stones and molotov cocktails thrown at them, and in darker times shots were fired as well. Jews very much respect the Muslims' religious freedom.


the Muslims cant get the lands on which thier holy sites are located.
Once more, Muslims have complete dominion over the holy sites. It's the Jews have little to no access to their holy sites. Jews hold God as the holiest of holies, but still have a great sentimental, religious and historical link to the land and its sites. Parts of Jerusalem (most notably the site of the Great Temple), Jericho, Nablus, Hebron, Beit Lehem, all of which are inseperable parts of Jewish and Israeli heritage and history, and all of which are under total Arab Muslim control. Few Jews have come there and made it back alive and in one piece.


Maybe someplace where they dont have to fear death?
Heaven, maybe. There's no place on this earth were Jews can live peacefully, without the ultimate protection of the Jewish state of Israel. History has shown this.


I dont see why, unless logical means the place that pisses alot of people of and ends up in the deaths of hundreds.
I'd rather piss people off and be able to defend myself and the only home I've had and ever will have, than to piss peope off and die like Jews did in the Holocaust.


i have really enjoyed this debate so far.
I'm glad you have. You must understand, however, that it is highly emotional for me.

[-N-]

The irony of it all is that Hitler would most likely have "wiped out" the Muslims of the Middle East if he'd had a chance. I decided the rest of the thread wouldn't live up to this post. I was right. :up:

[FutureEmperor]

That would be nice. Jews, however, have been mistreated throughout their history outside their homeland, and recently have had genocide commited on them, which nearly wiped all of them out. They are not safe without a country of their own..
I see, and sadly looking at the way many people hink i will have to agree, although i tend to believe that we can all live together in peace and harmony i also tend to forget that not everywhere is like little ole ottawa, and i should know i've been there and seen it.



They were always threatened to some degree, it's just that action rarely took place against them. Those Jews became apathetic, aloof... they've been through every empire in human histroy, from Babylon to Asyria, to Greece and Rome, the Ottomans and Britain. They didn't really expect their neighbours to attack them. But, with outside encouragement and help, they did..
Yes again its the curse of xenophobia.



Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Arabs that broke in an all-out total war (that is, war for the annihiliation of one side) against Israel, mere hours after it had declared its independence. Israel won, by the way. :) They had like four old tanks and two 20mm cannons to fight with, and they dragged those across the country..
The question i have though is that would this war of happened had Isreal declared its independence (its so much harder advocating the side of what if.)



Because they tend to die by the millions, it seems. Nasty habit, I know, very unhealthy.. It has only happened once under the leadership of some of the craziest people to lead in the 20th century (im not writing it off, Im just pointing out that your statement seems to say that it happens alot of times.), it doesnt happen everywhere.



I agree. Israel tried those (and still does, hopelessly), but to no avail. Its enemies couldn't care less for subtle and non-forceful means.. Sad isnt it, why cant people listen to reason.



That's quite a different statement than 'Israelis initiate strikes purposely on innocents', now isn't it? And yes, you're right. Israel does its very best to avoid un-needed casualties, but the enemy doesn't exactly make it very easy. Strapping an 11 year-old kid with explosives... what are you going to do? He's going to die, either way. Or when a Palestinian combatant has children flock around him, acting as a human shield. So, Israeli troops are not allowed to shoot in those circumstances... but sometimes, when your life and\or your comrades' lives are in grave and immediate danger, you have to act.. Once again sad isnt it, but many times mistakes are made, and i agree both sides need to come to terms before this travisty can be rectified. This also brings me back to my original statement of would these things happened if Isreal hadn't been formed.



Because Israel is a democratic, western nation. Yes, the neighbours don't like them very much... but then again, they don't like any kind of neighbours, do they? It's not like they've been nice to anyone lately. They've acted forcefully and violently against any cause they've found alien to them..
The same sentiments that we have in the west. Once again something to blame on human nature



That was the original idea. But guess who didn't approve of it? In 1947 in the UN, the 'two states for two people' declaration was held. Israelis rejoiced like they haven't in a looong time. The Arabs however didn't like it one bit. So, they started a war as soon as Israel declared its independence. Israel won, and took hold of much territory in the process. I'd say, serves them right..
But why did Isreal declare its independence? I'm really interested in this whole ordeal, but i cant say that i am an expert.



Again, it wasn't given. The UN wanted to place both people in it, and the Jews very much agreed. The Arabs didn't. War ensued. The end... well, you know..
Yeah, sadly



That's flat-out wrong. Israel is a democratic nation, and grants religious and cultural freedom to all its inhabitants and visitors. Further more, the Muslims have been given complete control over their holy site, the Al Aksa mosque, which has been built over the ruins of the great and ancient Jewish temple. There's one little wall left of that temple, were Jews come to pray, and get stones and molotov cocktails thrown at them, and in darker times shots were fired as well. Jews very much respect the Muslims' religious freedom. . I didnt know that, once again Im not to versed in the problems with Isreal and the middle east, im just working on what i read myself. And if that is the case than its a terrible thing.


Once more, Muslims have complete dominion over the holy sites. It's the Jews have little to no access to their holy sites. Jews hold God as the holiest of holies, but still have a great sentimental, religious and historical link to the land and its sites. Parts of Jerusalem (most notably the site of the Great Temple), Jericho, Nablus, Hebron, Beit Lehem, all of which are inseperable parts of Jewish and Israeli heritage and history, and all of which are under total Arab Muslim control. Few Jews have come there and made it back alive and in one piece.. I didnt know that, Then im in the wrong and i should be berrating the people who are making these sites dangerous.



Heaven, maybe. There's no place on this earth were Jews can live peacefully, without the ultimate protection of the Jewish state of Israel. History has shown this..
Not quite, i believe that the whole world could be accepting of jews. A country could help, but its not the only solution.



I'd rather piss people off and be able to defend myself and the only home I've had and ever will have, than to piss peope off and die like Jews did in the Holocaust. .
Id rather break all my contacts with that place and live a life away from pissed off people, but then i have never really had strong connections with anything.



I'm glad you have. You must understand, however, that it is highly emotional for me.
I realise it now, and i also realise how much more passionate and learned you are on the subject, than i am. I think our goals are the same but our methods of achieving these goals are different, and i realise how my first statement may of sounded harsh but i still must ask the question, how would the world be different with out the creation of Isreal. I never meant any offence or any cold remarks, and as i am niether spiritual or tied down to one place i may have different feelings about moving.

[yingyang]

'Nuclear Power for peace"

LOL

You know.. this guy kinda sounds like Mr. Bush.....

[War Angel]

It has only happened once under the leadership of some of the craziest people to lead in the 20th century (im not writing it off, Im just pointing out that your statement seems to say that it happens alot of times.), it doesnt happen everywhere.
It happened all over Europe before the Holocaust, though in much smaller numbers. The thing is, country-less people get abused. It's like someone without a family, a home and friends. Nobody can touch Jews now - they are backed by Israel, and no-body wants Mossad agents on their case. No KKK activist can do anything to Jews, and they know it. If they did, you'd start hearing about KKK people 'disappearing' all over the place. Israel would of-course deny anything to do with it. :)


This also brings me back to my original statement of would these things happened if Isreal hadn't been formed.
The Holocaust would un-doubtedly happen again. Somewhere else maybe, under different circumstances perhaps, but it would. Country-less people tend to be abused, and someone as annoying as the Jews don't stand a chance without a powerful nation backing them up.


But why did Isreal declare its independence?
Because the time was right. It was legitimate (i.e, the 29.11.1947 thing), and the tides of events showed that any later would not be good. Why at all... I've already stated that without a country, a people have no hope, let alone a beaten people like the Jews.


Not quite, i believe that the whole world could be accepting of jews. A country could help, but its not the only solution.
You could be right, and I could be paranoid. But after over 6 million dead, I'm not taking any chances.

Also, I'm glad your attitude is right about this. I knew I should'nt have given up this debate with you. :)

[Cuchulainn]

It happened all over Europe before the Holocaust, though in much smaller numbers. The thing is, country-less people get abused. It's like someone without a family, a home and friends. Nobody can touch Jews now - they are backed by Israel, and no-body wants Mossad agents on their case. No KKK activist can do anything to Jews, and they know it. If they did, you'd start hearing about KKK people 'disappearing' all over the place. Israel would of-course deny anything to do with it. :)

Like they do now when innocent Palestinians get killed? I'm not a great fan of Palestine, don't get me wrong, if anything, I'd side with Israel, but to deny innocents get deliberately killed is mad. They do. May not be be a top sanction, but it happens, a lot. The Bedoin Ababs working for Israel are trigger happy, then you have the gunships. Taking out a terrorist by blowing up the whole street. There has already been a discussion on this & we are digressing from the topic but the halo-complex of the Jews is slightly annoying in this instance.

[Sasquatch]

FutureEmperor: I do admire and respect your ideals of "can't we all just get along". I just wish it wasn't so...naive.


would you care to elaborate, as i thought that alternative fuels and greater rights and freedoms was progressive?Change just about everything, and something is bound to change for the better. Their quest for alternative fuels while completely disregarding nuclear energy is just a stupid move altogether, while their fights for special rights give the equal rights movement for homosexuals and everybody else a bad name. And that's even without their refusal to allow military recruiters in public schools.
Thats sad millions slaughtered because of cowardice. its called initiative.Not really cowardice, more indifference. It is sad, though. But most countries thought "they're not a threat to me, it's not my place to step in". Until Nazi Germany invaded another country, it was a problem only Nazi Germany had. The United States was under this same mentality -- we wanted to help, but didn't have enough support until Pearl Harbor. A lot of people believe Pearl Harbor was prettymuch planned out by our government, but Japan had a larger attack than they were counting on.
Acctually that site just helped my argument more, why coulnt they have keeped the whole country palestine, instead of splitting it up, it was mentioned that both Muslims and Jews were living together. And most of the culturally significant areas are in Isreal...Are you sure? I don't know how that helps your argument. It's already been said how much there needed to be a Jewish country. The mandates gave about 25% of the original "Palestine" to form Israel, which was then simply a Jewish Palestinian nation, as opposed to the other, larger, Arab Palestinian nation. When Israel was finally created, Gaza and the West Bank (where most conflict is now) were under control of Jordan (formerly Palestine, or Arab Palestine) and Egypt. That was until Israel kicked ass in the Six-Day War (1967), a defensive war against Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, where three countries tried to completely eliminate Israel, and Israel not only defended itself, but took control of more land. The land they took control over was the same land used by those three countries to launch their invasions -- Gaza, West Bank, and Golan Heights. It was only by the graciousness of Israel that they allowed (and still do) Arabs to stay in those territories -- the same territories they not only used thirty years ago to launch their invasions, but use today to launch their terrorist attacks.
I never said they target innocent civilians, but that Innocent civilians become casualties in these times of hate, the muslims dont hate the jews they hate how they cant visit thier own holy sites.That's a good one. They can visit their own holy sites (as War Angel described), quite unlike the period between 1948 - 1967 when Jews couldn't visit Jerusalem.
You say that we put them back in thier homeland, but if thier homeland was occupied by someone else, and that putting the jews back into thier homeland caused a rift between that someone else and the jews, then wouldnt it be our fault. as it would of never of happened with out us?You're misunderstanding again. Nobody was forced off their land when Israel was put back in its rightful place. In fact, they were allowed to stay on the land Israel took in the Six-Day War, even though they had used (and still do) that land to launch their attack from.
Maybe someplace where they dont have to fear death? thats always a good place to live.Try telling a black person in 1920s America, "You should just move away, that'd be a better idea. it's your fault for being here."
im pretty sure most Isreali's dont visit thier holy sites all the time, and that they usually make a once a year trip to these areas, so my question is why is it important that the Isrealis get the land in which thier holy sites are situated, but the Muslims cant get the lands on which thier holy sites are located. it seems pretty unfair to me.Well, first of all, because Israel can. Secondly, because Israel has the rights to that land. Third, Muslims can get to their holy sites (as I said, unlike Jews when Muslims had control over them).
It wasnt an accusation, it was a warning to becareful of what you say. also as i recall no muslim country has used a WMDYou can't be serious. Ever heard of Iraq? Kurds? Saddam Hussein? Gulf War Syndrome?
infact the only MOABS used were used by the United StatesMOABs are conventional weapons. It's not a WMD, it's just a bigass bomb. There is no nuclear, biological, or chemical threat in a MOAB. And the United States (and nobody else) uses them because the United States developed them.
and the only nuclear weapons used in anger were used by the United StatesTwo bombs, sixty years ago. And it could be very easily argued that those two saved millions more lives, both military and civilian, and billions upon billions of dollars worth of destruction.
oh and timothy mcvay was a terroristYes. And? If you're trying to name non-Muslim terrorists, you're at one. Two if you count the IRA.
and the United states funded Osama bin ladin so that he would fight against the USSR.Because the USSR was our enemy. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? The USSR funded our enemies, too. So what?
The germans killed thousands of jews in WW2If you remember correctly, most people don't look highly upon Nazi Germany.
and smoking kills millions yet its sanctioned all over the world
I know you're not trying to compare terrorism to tobacco.
Also remember Abu Ghraib prison that looked like torture for entertainment to me.Abu Gharab was nowhere near "torture". It was a few irresponsible MPs mistreating prisoners. There's a difference between torture and abuse or mistreatment.
The US destroyed Iraq recentlyDestroyed? Buddy, Iraq had been destroyed for a while, it's still standing just find now.
and droped Millions of tons of munitions on a tiny little vietnam....yeah? We bombed an enemy. How is that bad?
North Korea hasnt invaded a country since the Korean war, and there isnt really any sources of active genocide in north korea.North Korea is also a developing nulear power, and hostile to most of the world. While I highly doubt Kim Jong Il is stupid enough to try anything, he's still a threat.
One non-muslim country that could be a threat to the whole world, how about... THE US, its invaded many countries on the emphasis of freedom, all these "radical countries" that we talk about end up doing nothing in the end, Only the US does anything, and it does alot.Show me a conflict where the U.S. has gone in alone.
And how have these "Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen" countries threatened the world, they have a hard enough time keeping up with the world.How about the constant terrorism they promote and sponsor? If not sponsoring, they surely don't do anything to prevent it.
What are you talking about it already happened a Sovereign country was invaded and its leader imprisoned (although he did deserve it) with no credible reason and with no reprecusions.If he deserved it, there's a credible reason, isn't there? More than two hundred countries contributed to the liberation of Iraq.
I bet you wouldnt say that if your son was nuked just so some political leader could leave his mark.......I will be extremely polite and respectful here, and ask you to kindly keep your mouth shut around issues you are completely ignorant of.
I agree that the first nuclear attack would be more devastating, but a nuclear retaliation would kill thousands of innocents (the first nuclear attack being only against combat forces), This would be a warcrime at best.Using a nuclear weapon would be a warcrime. And even if that were to be the case, I doubt there would be a nuclear retaliation.
I fail to see how thier resolve would strengthen after learning that many of thier comrades are being indiscriminately killed with no way to defend themselves, only some of the people on the home front would have a greater fighting spirit.Then you know little of military morale.
The victim country? oh you mean the country that was invading a smaller less easily defended nation that had no other choice.If you didn't know, sometimes the smaller, weaker nation is the one in the wrong. Iraq is a perfect example of that. But even if Kuwait had used nuclear weapons on Iraq in the early 90s, there would have been serious repercussions.
And the rest of the "Civilized world" would be angry at the nation that used the Nuclear weapon, but what could it do? invade? but that was disasterous. bomb into submission? thats never worked.... what do you do?Why would invading be disasterous? It's the same concept as Saddam. You do know he's on trial for using WMDs against the Kurds, right? (As well as other things.)
I dont see why, unless logical means the place that pisses alot of people of and ends up in the deaths of hundreds.No, logical means historically accurate and religiously accurate. Why are you blaming Israel for the Muslims not wanting them there?
So why give them that excuse, it just added more fuel to the fire. from the way things were going it seemed that the area was calming down, but then Isreal is formed and it all goes to pot again.Sure, the area was "calming down" because they were running out of Jews. But those damn Jews had to start somethin' again by moving in, didn't they?
Well if you give them a reason to use a nuclear weapon on you then yes, it is your faultThis is rediculous. Again, I equate this with blaming child abuse on the kid. "You got a bad grade and provoked Mommy to beat you with a piece of lumber."
I dont see why not as many religions end up fueling warsReligious extremism, yes. Religion in general hasn't fuelled a war for a good eight hundred years.
And thats fine and dandy, but with crusades, and jihads, and wars on islam."Wars on Islam"??? What the hell are you talking about?

[War Angel]

to deny innocents get deliberately killed is mad
No, it isn't, because innocents never have been TARGETED. Yes, innocents have been killed by Israel, but that was never the goal or even a required side-effect.


then you have the gunships. Taking out a terrorist by blowing up the whole street.
The Apache Longbow has one of the most accurate air-borne weapons used today - the Hellfire missile. Israel uses those. Yes, it has a certain degree of collateral damage, but it is mininal. Better than to drop a large bomb, and certainly you don't expect Israel to risk the lives of soldiers to initiate a pincer-strike on the terrorists, when there are other ways to go about it.

Also, please note that often the car is loaded with explosives, and also that people often flock around the car (again, acting as a sort of human shield).

[Sasquatch]

No, it isn't, because innocents never have been TARGETED. Yes, innocents have been killed by Israel, but that was never the goal or even a required side-effect.

As opposed to the intentional targetting of civilians, including women and children, by those supporting the Palestinian "cause". Comparing the two is just plain foolish.

[Cuchulainn]

Dear God...it's the same old same old with you two. The same tired one-sidedness, the same right wing extremism. The same Good Vs Evil..

Soldiers kill innocents. It happens, it happened here in Northern Ireland, it happened in Vietnam, WWII, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Chechnya etc etc etc. How on EARTH can you sit there & believe the Israeli are immune to this? It's blinkered madness.

They do, there are accounts from Palestinian's, journalists, western cameramen. I've seen footage of it....please wake up to the reality that maybe, JUST maybe it happens. I've also seen what those gunships do, I'm sorry, but unless they were AIMING to take down the whole block, accuracy isn't it's strongpoint.

No one in England could believe that Her Majesty's Forces could shoot & kill 13 innocent Civil rights marchers here, it happened. No one could believe a Police Force could collude with Loyalist Terrorists to kill certain Catholics, it happened.

Don't believe everything you are told, for the love of God. When this happens & when you deny it does, it feeds the hate even more. It recruits for Hamas, Al Aqsa etc. It's like a vicious circle, you have ther likes of Sasquatch & War Angel claiming the righteous higher ground while blatently ignoring facts which may question that, believing everything they're told in some madly naive 'Why would my government lie mummy?' type stance opposite the 'religious' fundamentalist madmen, with equally blinkered views who recruit on the strength of the Wests denial of responsibility & give cause to the word Crusader & Zionism. You are both different parts of the same beast & it's like watching a dog not only chase it's tail but bite the fecker & have the tail bite back. It's like the tape is on loop & we got to listen to it over & over & over......repeat to fade

[War Angel]

the same right wing extremism.
Dunno 'bout Sasquatch, but I'm a centrist. I very much despise right-wing ideaology (at least here), even more so than than I loathe left-wing mentallity.


How on EARTH can you sit there & believe the Israeli are immune to this?
Israeli troops are not immune to mistakes, no. Although they are superbly trained and keeping the lives of innocents ANYWHERE is their prime objective, before even taking out the enemy, they do hit innocents on rare occasions, mainly due to the circumstances on the battlefield (things I've mentioned before, like the use of children, human shields, etc). However, saying they do it on PURPOSE is outrageously wrong, and I consider it slander and an insult.

Recently, an Israeli soldier has been found to have purposely targeted an activist, killing him with a sniping shot. I don't think he'll be seeing day-light any time soon.

Now, I won't say Israelis don't mistreat Palestinians. I've seen it happen, and I loathe it. They shout at them, humiliate them, and sometimes even beat them (not without reason, but it's still not right). That is horrible, and the higher command holds this as unlawful, and those found doing it are severly punished (imprisoned then kicked out of the unit, a terrible blow to any combatant, especially an Israeli one). But, to say Israeli soldiers TARGET AND KILL innocents... that's far-fetched and outrageous.


They do, there are accounts from Palestinian's, journalists, western cameramen.
Oh, you mean the same Palestinians and jouranlists who fake casualties? Check this out (http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/editions/israel/2005/10/pallywood-palestinian-staged-incidents.php). It may shed led on those 'casualties' and 'innocents murdered by Israelis'. It's really quite interesting. Pallywood.


Don't believe everything you are told, for the love of God.
I am not 'told' anything, and I daresay neither has Sasquatch. We have both SEEN, for ourselves.


It's like the tape is on loop & we got to listen to it over & over & over......repeat to fade
I assume you mean the Israeli\Arab conflict. Well, say what you will, both sides are fighting for what they think is the most important thing in the world to them. There's honour in that. Saying stuff like 'Oh, here they go again' presents those who say it in a bad, apathetic and ignorant light, like those who don't really understand what it's all about for those actually there, doing the fighting, suffering and living it all. It's easy for an on-looker to pass judgement.


I've also seen what those gunships do, I'm sorry, but unless they were AIMING to take down the whole block, accuracy isn't it's strongpoint.
The Hellfire bears less than 1kg of explosives. Any larger area-damage, and it's not due to the missile or the helicopter.

[Cuchulainn]

Dunno 'bout Sasquatch, but I'm a centrist. I very much despise right-wing ideaology (at least here), even more so than than I loathe left-wing mentallity.

For that mistake on your political views, I apologise



Israeli troops are not immune to mistakes, no. Although they are superbly trained and keeping the lives of innocents ANYWHERE is their prime objective, before even taking out the enemy, they do hit innocents on rare occasions, mainly due to the circumstances on the battlefield (things I've mentioned before, like the use of children, human shields, etc). However, saying they do it on PURPOSE is outrageously wrong, and I consider it slander and an insult.

Recently, an Israeli soldier has been found to have purposely targeted an activist, killing him with a sniping shot. I don't think he'll be seeing day-light any time soon.

You kinda pissed on your own soapbox with that one. How can you be insulted if on at least one occassion, my statement has been proven true? They have & I'm damn sure there has been more than this one time. The Israeli Army IS an army I admire, along with the Jewish people but they are just as prone to have a triggerhappy recruit with another agenda. I'm sorry but you simply cannot state they don't as fact.


Now, I won't say Israelis don't mistreat Palestinians. I've seen it happen, and I loathe it. They shout at them, humiliate them, and sometimes even beat them (not without reason, but it's still not right). That is horrible, and the higher command holds this as unlawful, and those found doing it are severly punished (imprisoned then kicked out of the unit, a terrible blow to any combatant, especially an Israeli one). But, to say Israeli soldiers TARGET AND KILL innocents... that's far-fetched and outrageous.

I refer my honorable gentleman to the statement I gave previously regarding pissing on your own soapbox.



Oh, you mean the same Palestinians and jouranlists who fake casualties? Check this out (http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/editions/israel/2005/10/pallywood-palestinian-staged-incidents.php). It may shed led on those 'casualties' and 'innocents murdered by Israelis'. It's really quite interesting. Pallywood.

Yes because a website made by Jewish people for Jewish people would never have a slant on things...:rolleyes2 it';s like the Jewish Al Jazera. Bad Source.



I am not 'told' anything, and I daresay neither has Sasquatch. We have both SEEN, for ourselves.

You watch the news, you listen to peers, people are not immune to subliminal propaganda.



I assume you mean the Israeli\Arab conflict. Well, say what you will, both sides are fighting for what they think is the most important thing in the world to them. There's honour in that. Saying stuff like 'Oh, here they go again' presents those who say it in a bad, apathetic and ignorant light, like those who don't really understand what it's all about for those actually there, doing the fighting, suffering and living it all. It's easy for an on-looker to pass judgement.

I'm talking about the whole East West divide, of which Israel is on the forefront, yes. I can pass judgement as I lived in a society not too dissimilar not too long ago, where Sectarian violence went on for many many years. The same tit-for-tat crap that is going on where you live. I can pass judgement because I know what it's like living there & felt the same about here as there. No one is changing & if no one changes this will never end. Here people slowly changed.



The Hellfire bears less than 1kg of explosives. Any larger area-damage, and it's not due to the missile or the helicopter.

It definately destroys whole blocks...what makes you think only one is fired? To be honest it could be down to the shoddy houses aswell.

The place isn't moving on with the same diabolical consequences as we suffered here. That's what I was getting at. The Terrorists kill innocents, Israeli Army Kill innocents, you give the terrorists a new mandate & it continues.

[Sasquatch]

For that mistake on your political views, I apologiseWhether you were correct in that assumption or not, I fail to see how having any trust in the honor of the Israeli military is "extreme right-wing".
You kinda pissed on your own soapbox with that one. How can you be insulted if on at least one occassion, my statement has been proven true? They have & I'm damn sure there has been more than this one time. The Israeli Army IS an army I admire, along with the Jewish people but they are just as prone to have a triggerhappy recruit with another agenda. I'm sorry but you simply cannot state they don't as fact.Your accusation wasn't that innocents get killed, but rather innocent civilians were targetted by the Israeli military. That is outrageous. Yes, it's a conflict, and civilians will be harmed (especially when they form "human shields" for that purpose, as a PR stunt that apparently you buy right in to), but you have no proof that Israeli soldiers deliberately target innocent civilians.
Yes because a website made by Jewish people for Jewish people would never have a slant on things...:rolleyes2 it';s like the Jewish Al Jazera. Bad Source.It was a story with a reference to another site, where the movie was. Are you going to pass off everything that you disagree with as Jewish propaganda?
You watch the news, you listen to peers, people are not immune to subliminal propaganda.So what makes you think you haven't bought in to it? What's with the popular opinion of "everybody who disagrees with me is gullible or brainwashed and can't think for themselves"?
It definately destroys whole blocks...what makes you think only one is fired? To be honest it could be down to the shoddy houses aswell.I think they should target entire blocks, along with mosques, but hey that's just me.

[Cuchulainn]

I think they should target entire blocks, along with mosques, but hey that's just me.

<!--You pathetic little boy.-->

We don't say things like this to people.

~Void

<!--I Do. If condoning attacking mosques & blocks of muslim houses isn't the words of an idiot & my words were then there is something seriously wrong here.-->*snip*

Whether or not there is something wrong here does not mean you can add fuel to a fire by flaming and argueng with a Mod about his decision in thread. In future, do this sort of thing through the PM system. That is what it's for. ~ Leeza

[Sasquatch]

Let me explain. Target entire blocks, and eventually people will say "Hmm, if we stop supporting these suicide bombers, if we stop letting them do it, we won't get our homes destroyed. Sounds like a good idea."

And mosques? The messages are spread through the mosques, and very often, weapons and explosives are stockpiled in the mosques. A message needs to be sent -- If you support them, you become them.

[Mikeneko Rocker -- Tim]

I could have sworn that's just another way to piss off the Jewish community, given the sole fact that Heny Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz are Jews.

[edczxcvbnm]

I think the UN needs to call all the leaders of the world together and read to them Dr. Seuss's 'The Butter Battle'. Then discuss how the story relateds to their frivilous troubles like a 2nd grade class.

[Cuchulainn]

Let me explain. Target entire blocks, and eventually people will say "Hmm, if we stop supporting these suicide bombers, if we stop letting them do it, we won't get our homes destroyed. Sounds like a good idea."

And mosques? The messages are spread through the mosques, and very often, weapons and explosives are stockpiled in the mosques. A message needs to be sent -- If you support them, you become them.

That is complete & utter garbage. Doing that gives them a mandate, a reason to hate & creates martyrs. It feeds the war. It didn't stop Partisans during WWII when entire villages were obliterated in German 'retrobution', it made the fight more vehement. It certainly doesn't work here or anywhere, at any time.

Your Medieval Nazi style of dealing with this is truely & utterly insane.

[Ultima Kadaj]

that is news that is brainwash crap, if it wasnt true, then WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL OF THEM? theres about a million of them left, just about the smallest race population, what, are they just lackin in people? no, i dont think so. Where the concentration camps harvesting gold and other minerals? bull, helll no. Where the piles of clothes, hair, bodies there for FUN? Hmmm...... nope!

where the HELL did you get that?

[War Angel]

are just as prone to have a triggerhappy recruit with another agenda.
Yes, that happens. Nobody can stop a crazy soldier when he's alone. BUT - to say it's an official Israeli stance (to kill innocents) is outrageous. Evil people exist everywhere, and some are sadly recruited into the Israeli army. I can tell you that the Border Guard (Mishmar Hagvul) has plenty of really nasty bastards - but they do little fighting. Most of what they do is interaction with the population, which means plenty of humiliation and mis-treatment as I've said, but no callous killings.


Yes because a website made by Jewish people for Jewish people would never have a slant on things... it';s like the Jewish Al Jazera. Bad Source.
I just tried to find a suitable link. The movies are there, and it states the topic - that's all. Really, do watch those movies, they shed quite a bit of light on things and your 'objective media'.


You watch the news, you listen to peers, people are not immune to subliminal propaganda.
No, no, you don't seem to understand what I meant by SEE. I've BEEN there, on several occasions. I've seen the nasty border-guard troops I've mentioned before, I've seen pissy Palestinians, and yes, I've heard plenty of stories from soldiers. That's not media, news, or tall tales. That's just long talks with other blokes like me while on guard duty, who spent more time in different places than me. :)


No one is changing & if no one changes this will never end.
This is almost true. Only, it was clearly one side who said 'NO' to peace and compromise too many times to count, and it wasn't the Israelis.


what makes you think only one is fired?
Knowing the technicalities of the missile itself (which I could go into, if you like), it is extremely unlikely that more than one was fired. The collateral damage is caused by cars loaded with weapons, ammunition and explosives, gas, and low-quality building.


The Terrorists kill innocents, Israeli Army Kill innocents,
True, only the first targets innocents, while the second avoids killing them as much as it can.


I think they should target entire blocks, along with mosques, but hey that's just me.
Anger and blood-thirstiness are not the proper ways to conduct a war. At least, that's not what I think is right. Blowing up mosques won't achieve anything but enrage the enemy, and rightfully so. The Israeli army has thus-far managed to maintain a moral high-ground - it should not spoil that by acting like the terrorists themselves.


Target entire blocks, and eventually people will say "Hmm, if we stop supporting these suicide bombers, if we stop letting them do it, we won't get our homes destroyed. Sounds like a good idea."
Not going to work. Remember that whole house demolition thing? Israel thought that if they'd wreck the house of a suicide bomber, it would prevent future bombers from actually blowing up. It proved useless. Arabs are fierce, and desperate Arabs are downright fanatical. When in war, care little material other than the blood of their enemies. They'd fight to the bitter end. Pushing them to desperation is wrong.


If you support them, you become them.
They already know that, and it's true. That still doesn't mean that Israel is going to start blowing everything up because of suspected terrorism support. They'd be carpet-bombing then, indeed.

[FutureEmperor]

I think they should target entire blocks, along with mosques, but hey that's just me.

This comment acctually scares me, I cant think with that mentallity, tell me sasquatch if a person came to your hometown, blew up your church and your childhood house and killed all the people that you remember as a child, would you think, hey maybe those people have a point and i should just give up...


Also i would like to point out that while there is honour in the military, there is no honour in killing, ANYTYPE of killing.


Finnally i do not think of myself nieve because i think that people could live together in peace and harmony, i think of others as lazy, think about it all we would have to do is give up the grudges, and stop killing other human beings, and just think to yourself could i kill a human being (imagine your hands around thier throat and thier eyes gazing into yours, you probably cant do it, thats how hard it is to kill a person, so why do we do it?) so if its that easy not to kill then why do we still fight. i believe that people who say that it is nieve to think of world peace are people who A) like to kill (sadistic) B)Fear the unknown and believe the inaccurate propaganda which is the media, and C) are too lazy to even try (heck the most common excuse that i hear is, it wont work because there are other people out there who wont stop the hate, ) that excuse sucks because if every one stoped then there wouldnt be anybody out there that would hurt you. Makes sense huh, and if you say no, then i ask you why do you want people to die?


Finally i also believe that if you bomb a persons house they will want to bomb your house (an eye for an eye). But i also believe that it works in reverse, if you build a house for someone, they will feel in debt to you and build you a house. The cycle of death has to be broken and it could be, what reason would the terrorist have if Isreal started being nice to palestine? Think about the terrorist would be hated by all sides and would truely be enemies to humanity, perspective would change for everyone. Its that easy. and its cheaper too, war is expensive as hell, building a house is definately alot cheaper.

[Giga Guess]

I know one of our Albertans spoke of much the same thing to classes he taught....Ernst Zundel....didn't have a very long career, shockingly enough.

[The Man]

I think the UN needs to call all the leaders of the world together and read to them Dr. Seuss's 'The Butter Battle'. Then discuss how the story relateds to their frivilous troubles like a 2nd grade class.That would be the best thing ever.

[Despotus]

But I have to say one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century was to give the displaced jews their own country in the middle east, not because of what it is. but because of where it is. They gave a land that is holy to many religions, to people of a certain religion.

I never saw the reason, for example, imagine giving Washington DC back to England and New York city back to the Nedtherlands, simply because history said that these areas once belonged to those countries. Many Americans would be up in arms at this, much of thier national pride is in these two cities, and yet they were taken away without their concent and given to another group of peoples who have no more claim to it than the US.

No western country wanted to give an inch of land to the Isrealis, and so they gave them land that wasn't theirs, and now all we have is bloodshed, if anything The area that is now Isreal should have been made neutral territory guarded by a multicultural defence force so that peoples from all religions and nationalities could visit it in peace. But No once again logic fails.

Agreed. I always state this as my opinion on the situation in the Middle East. We, the victorious Allies, along with the U.N. created the horror that now exists in the Middle East. The Jews should have been given their own country, absolutely, because they have been thrown to the wind and forced to wander for centuries; but I.M.H.O. that country should have been given to them by the very country that put them through the attrocities of the Holocaust, Germany. It's a no-brainer, duh!! As restitution, many reparations should have been made by the defeated Nazi Germans, including the loss of a nice chunk of territory in order to create a Jewish Nation of Israel.

I also like the idea FutureEmperor shared with us regarding the preservation of those cities which are holy to 3 different, major religions as international cities for the benefit of all members of those religions. They should never belong to just one group. Doesn't anyone remember the Crusades???:rolleyes2

[Shoeberto]

Yes let's revive old old threads please.


o wait