Attention: The Holocaust didn't happen

[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. 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. , 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.

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.

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 genocide

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.

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 wrong

Yet 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 Isreal

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.

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 smurfing 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 MOTHERsmurfERS SKY HIGH" needless to say that statement scared the [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] 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 smurfing read my disclaimer, why the smurf 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.

[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.