This is odd... Israel wants Iran to cease their "nuclear weapons program"

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Yet israel supports the use of nuclear weapons:doh::doh: :shifty:

"Some 72 percent of Israelis support the use of nuclear weapons in specific circumstances, a Canadian survey revealed on Monday."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908725.html

:shifty:
"Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules"
WHY????

Israel Looks to U.S.-India Deal to Expand Ties to Nuclear Suppliers

Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption to non-proliferation rules so it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available


The move is sure to raise concerns among Arab nations already considering their neighbor the region's atomic arms threat. Israel has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons but is generally considered to possess them.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/20...on_from_at.php (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/israel_seeks_exemption_from_at.php)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

and fyi, if anyone else wishes to post idiotic responses such as in the last thread (which was oddly locked:shifty:) then PM me withwhatever you have to say that is considered "profanity", if you have a logical response then by all means do respond :up:

[The WosMan]

It's quite simple; Israel only has their weapons for deterrence. Iran on the other hand has proven too untrustworthy a government to have them and will likely distribute them to terrorist groups or use the weapons themselves. The Iranian leadership has no sense or self-preservation like western governments due to the President being one of those followers of the 12th Imam, and they believe the only way to bring their messiah back is to cause war and chaos in the world. He is evil and a religious wack-job.

Further, I have found in life that people who generally come to the consensus that you have with your argument generally dislike Jews or have some sort of anti-Semitic streak in them. Now my analysis comes from my very conservative, white, registered Republican, Roman Catholic point of view and we all know that people like myself are the real racists, right?

[Letum]

Israel's contempt for the non-proliferation agreement and Iran's weapons programs are
two very separate issues.

The rules that apply for one country do not have to apply for another country when the
circumstances are different.

Therefore Israel is not hypocritical to accuse Iran of seeking Nuclear arms whilst they
seek to expand their own.

It is naive to treat all countries the same when the circumstances in each are so very different.

[Onkel Neal]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.

[SUBMAN1]

Sounds to me like elite_hunter_sh3 needs a lesson in Middle East politics. He just doesn't get it.

-S

[Camaero]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.

Same here.

[Sea Demon]

Sounds to me like elite_hunter_sh3 needs a lesson in Middle East politics. He just doesn't get it.

-S

Somebody down the line seems to have poisoned his mind at some point. I agree totally with the post above. Got to go with the good guys here also. :up: It's rather simple really.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Israel's contempt for the non-proliferation agreement and Iran's weapons programs are
two very separate issues.

The rules that apply for one country do not have to apply for another country when the
circumstances are different.

Therefore Israel is not hypocritical to accuse Iran of seeking Nuclear arms whilst they
seek to expand their own.

It is naive to treat all countries the same when the circumstances in each are so very different.
If someone is going to use that kind of double standard, then nothing applies, so why should Iran comply with any UN rules?
What makes Israel so special and above the law?

[Rockin Robbins]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.

Ditto. The original poster knows the difference too. He's not doing a good job of pretending the two nations are on equal moral footing here.:rotfl:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

does the fact that Israel spies on the U.S. more than all others combined seem a little suspicious??

[SUBMAN1]

does the fact that Israel spies on the U.S. more than all others combined seem a little suspicious??

Hardly. The UK and Austrialia are the major spies in America. No one tops them. Isreal is minor by comparrison.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

If someone is going to use that kind of double standard, then nothing applies, so why should Iran comply with any UN rules?
What makes Israel so special and above the law?

True, it is a double standard, one I accept. Why is Israel special? Homeland of the people who survived the holocaust. I don't argue that you have to agree, but surely you can see the difference between Israel and Iran.

Disclaimer: Iran's population has potential, but their leadership and hardcore religous jeapordize its future.

[Letum]

Israel's contempt for the non-proliferation agreement and Iran's weapons programs are
two very separate issues.

The rules that apply for one country do not have to apply for another country when the
circumstances are different.

Therefore Israel is not hypocritical to accuse Iran of seeking Nuclear arms whilst they
seek to expand their own.

It is naive to treat all countries the same when the circumstances in each are so very different.
If someone is going to use that kind of double standard, then nothing applies, so why should Iran comply with any UN rules?
What makes Israel so special and above the law?

It is not a dubble standard if the circumstances for each country are diffrent.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

If someone is going to use that kind of double standard, then nothing applies, so why should Iran comply with any UN rules?
What makes Israel so special and above the law?
True, it is a double standard, one I accept. Why is Israel special? Homeland of the people who survived the holocaust. I don't argue that you have to agree, but surely you can see the difference between Israel and Iran.

Disclaimer: Iran's population has potential, but their leadership and hardcore religous jeapordize its future.

Well then lets put the American Indians into Tel Aviv and see if anyone gets pissed--surely two persecuted people could have an understanding and live together?

[fatty]

does the fact that Israel spies on the U.S. more than all others combined seem a little suspicious??

I don't know details about Israeli nuclear policy so I can't say much about your first post, but it's worth mentioning that every country with a reasonable intelligence community spies on every other country.

If you subscribe to some of the most popular theories of international relations, then it boils down to all states acting to serve their own interests (self-preservation, the most basic of self-interests). Israel wants to bypass NPTs so she can defend herself against an explicitly aggressive neighbour. Western states like to support Israel because she is one of the few friendly bastions left in an oil-rich region, a strong Israel should contain Iran leaving less work for the rest of the world's forces, and because of various domestic pressures (the so-called Israel lobby).

Just some thoughts.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

does the fact that Israel spies on the U.S. more than all others combined seem a little suspicious??
Hardly. The UK and Austrialia are the major spies in America. No one tops them. Isreal is minor by comparrison.

-S
they've actually supported the U.S nation in a positive manner and don't require massive expenditures and spur world disdain for that support.:shifty:

[fatty]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...

Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.

[Letum]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.

100%?
20%!

[fatty]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.

100%?
20%!

100,000%!

[Letum]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.
100%?
20%!
100,000%!

126.2%!?

[fatty]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.
100%?
20%!
100,000%!

126.2%!?

MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!

:rock:

[Letum]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.
100%?
20%!
100,000%!
126.2%!?
MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!

:rock:
Baaaaahahaha! :rotfl:
The Allington closing! I never saw it coming at all!
I thaught you would go for a large integer.
I'm not really used to the numerical version (it's a little before my time),
but all the same: Good game Sir! a well deserved win.

Ellite Hunter: Are you a novice? You left the Crescent wide open with your
first move and didn't get a look in after that. I only ask because of the recent
rash of match fixing.

[JSLTIGER]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.
Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...

Do you speak Hebrew? Obviously not. If you did, then you'd know that the sole meaning of the word Eretz in Hebrew is land. Eretz Yisrael simply means the "land of Israel," and it is generally used today to speak about the current State of Israel.

The Talmud is a book of commentary on Jewish laws, nothing more, nothing less.

The Zohar is a book by the Kabbalists, who were the Jewish mystics, and are generally considered outside of mainstream Judaism. Beyond that, the book simply deals with the mystical nature of G-d, the nature of souls, sin, and the origins of the universe according to Kabbalist views. A book designed to takeover the world? I think not.

I'd like to see evidence that Israeli scholars want to nuke Europe. That hardly seems like a mainstream viewpoint.

As for Rome and Christianity, if you were being persecuted by a group of people, wouldn't you want them to go away? I know I would. Before you even start, Christians were/are NOT blameless. During the Crusades (a war against Muslims (not Jews!)) plenty of Jews were killed in the crossfire between the two groups. Despite this, it doesn't mean that Jews are out to destroy Christianity. Jews don't even proselytize to attempt to get people to convert! If anything, Jews are the ones who have suffered through forced conversions by Christians.

Your post is baseless and designed to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) among the ignorant. Furthermore, Google is hardly a reliable resource, as it returns various discredited sites among its results.

[fatty]

Israel has an agenda to take over most of all the countries that are currently considered "Arab Lands". They call these places "Greater Israel" or "Eretz Israel" you can google those terms.

You might enjoy reading things by Israel Shahak, a Jew who has exposed many things Jewish.

Israeli scholars have threatened to nuke Europe. Both the Talmud and the Zohar show Jewish plans to destroy Rome and Christianity. google for that info...
Both have their nuts, mostly they are the exceptions. Listen to what Ahmadinejad says and then search for some of the yellow journalism that comes out of Israel. No side is entirely 100% innocent.
100%?
20%!
100,000%!
126.2%!?
MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!

:rock:
Baaaaahahaha! :rotfl:
The Allington closing! I never saw it coming at all!
I thaught you would go for a large integer.
I'm not really used to the numerical version (it's a little before my time),
but all the same: Good game Sir! a well deserved win.

Ellite Hunter: Are you a novice? You left the Crescent wide open with your
first move and didn't get a look in after that. I only ask because of the recent
rash of match fixing.

I think this silly thread has been sufficiently derailed :up:

[Letum]

Christians were/are NOT blameless. During the Crusades (a war against Muslims (not Jews!)) plenty of Jews were killed in the crossfire between the two groups.
No kidding!
Out side the nearest city walls to me there are mass graves full of Jews from the
wave of anti-semitism in the late middle-ages that swept across the UK, especialy in
the North. Christianity, like all of Abraham's major religions, is a long way from
blameless.


Your post is baseless and designed to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) among the ignorant. Furthermore, Google is hardly a reliable resource, as it returns various discredited sites among its results.
^this very much so. Spot on.

*edit*eek! Hope I didn't put anything back on the rails!
Cheddar gorge anyone?
Word for Word?

[Castout]

I sympathizes with Israelis struggle but the last Lebanon war caused so many innocent civilian casualties. What happened? Human lives are precious damn it.

[sunvalleyslim]

Man you guys are lucky Avon Lady didn't respond today, so far.
You can't compare Israel and Iran in the same breath.
Israel is trying to survive in a hateful world. Constantly Arab nations are crying for it's demise. Now, not being a history buff, please tell me who Israel is constantly trying to kill,that hasn't been trying to kill them first?

[joegrundman]

I don't know what that Elite whatsisface is on, but he is not the only person who has a crappy understanding of the middle east.

Just ask your president if he knows how it works over there, coz if he does, he ain't exactly proving it.

Firstly Iran is a very ancient country and has absolutely no desire to be massively attacked by vastly superior firepower, and even less desire to be destroyed completely.

Secondly, the Islamic revolution desires to preserve itself and propagate itself. It will not expend itself in some apocalyptic strike against Israel. In fact the opposite is true. Israel is Iran's best ally. The festering sore of Israel in the Arab psyche (as some British muslim commentator so elegantly put it) is what keeps the Islamic revolutionary dream alive -particularly in the dry periods when the US isn't doing anything especially hate-worthy.

Thirdly, the genius in the white house made his axis of evil speech. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. We can see what happened to Iraq. Just before the war Iraq fessed up that the WMD program had been dismantled and showed the records. It was ignored completely and the attack went ahead. North Korea just went and became a declared nuclear power and has henceforward been treated with genuine diplomacy. The lesson to Iran, which has had a nuclear program since the 70s, is clear. Nukes will buy you a seat at the negotiating table with a hostile US. An absence of nukes will not.

Iran wants nukes because it has absolutely genuine security concerns. Once it has them it is going to be held by the effects of deterrence as much as anyone else is. the only time Iran would actually use them in a strike against Israel would be as a retaliatory measure. Given that it is unlikely that Iran will ever have the means to strike the US heartland, that threat will constitute Iran's deterrence vis-a-vis the US.

Nevertheless, the kind of comments that the iranian leadership makes constitute a threat to Israel and Israel has to balance the realities of the situation with the moral obligation to take all threats to your nation seriously. It's not easy.

[P_Funk]

I sympathizes with Israelis struggle but the last Lebanon war caused so many innocent civilian casualties. What happened? Human lives are precious damn it.
What struggle? Since 1973 Israel has not faced a serious threat to her territory. All of the last 20 and some years has been a time of great power for Israel. They are in the driver's seat.

If we forgo the usual arguments about the motives or whatever, Israel has been in the best position for decades. They however haven't turned this relative peace into a stable political situation. That is in my opinion the nature of their leadership's agenda, that being control of its neighbours. That or the militant streak that's dominated Israel's legitimate fight for survival has left them devoid of diplomatic ideals, at least in the hierarchy that persists by replacing itself with the same brand of leader.

Etc...

[Letum]

I don't know what that Elite whatsisface is on, but he is not the only person who has a crappy understanding of the middle east.

Just ask your president if he knows how it works over there, coz if he does, he ain't exactly proving it.

Firstly Iran is a very ancient country and has absolutely no desire to be massively attacked by vastly superior firepower, and even less desire to be destroyed completely.

Secondly, the Islamic revolution desires to preserve itself and propagate itself. It will not expend itself in some apocalyptic strike against Israel. In fact the opposite is true. Israel is Iran's best ally. The festering sore of Israel in the Arab psyche (as some British muslim commentator so elegantly put it) is what keeps the Islamic revolutionary dream alive -particularly in the dry periods when the US isn't doing anything especially hate-worthy.

Thirdly, the genius in the white house made his axis of evil speech. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. We can see what happened to Iraq. Just before the war Iraq fessed up that the WMD program had been dismantled and showed the records. It was ignored completely and the attack went ahead. North Korea just went and became a declared nuclear power and has henceforward been treated with genuine diplomacy. The lesson to Iran, which has had a nuclear program since the 70s, is clear. Nukes will buy you a seat at the negotiating table with a hostile US. An absence of nukes will not.

Iran wants nukes because it has absolutely genuine security concerns. Once it has them it is going to be held by the effects of deterrence as much as anyone else is. the only time Iran would actually use them in a strike against Israel would be as a retaliatory measure. Given that it is unlikely that Iran will ever have the means to strike the US heartland, that threat will constitute Iran's deterrence vis-a-vis the US.

Nevertheless, the kind of comments that the iranian leadership makes constitute a threat to Israel and Israel has to balance the realities of the situation with the moral obligation to take all threats to your nation seriously. It's not easy.

About the most sense there has been in such a senseless thread. Very eloquent too. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

The person who started this thread is an anti-Semite. Any fake lies he can find about Jewish and Israeli conspiracies against the world, he's been posting here almost since day 1 he's joined. Whether it's the Liberty, 9/11, now the old lie of Israel threatening to nuke Europe and even older lies of non-existant Talmudic passages, this piece of drek posts them here.

He's of Serbian origin and there appear to be many like him from there. Go figure.

He's the lowest of the low slime.

This is my contribution to this thread. I can no longer bother refuting every stupid negative tossed my people's way.

It is beyond me why SubSim tolerates such trash. He's StormFront material.

Maybe Neal is a Columbia U. grad. :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Oh, and if anybody's has a "crappy understanding of the Middle East", when seriously trying not to, it's P_Funk, Letum and joegrundman.

I'm just sayin'. :roll:

[Letum]

Oh, and if anybody's has a "crappy understanding of the Middle East", when seriously trying not to, it's P_Funk, Letum and joegrundman.

I'm just sayin'. :roll:


What makes you think that?

[joea]

Oh, and if anybody's has a "crappy understanding of the Middle East", when seriously trying not to, it's P_Funk, Letum and joegrundman.

I'm just sayin'. :roll:

What makes you think that?

Who knows, but insulting a nationality (Serbian I have a couple of friends who are completely unlike Elite_SH3) and 3 different posters becasue she doesn't agree with their opinions.

Bravo! http://img26.exs.cx/img26/2245/thumbsup8de.gif

NOT

[baggygreen]

I think its fair enough for israel to have nukes.

Ok, so dinnerjacket is a nutjob. Fine, i dont think anyone would disagree too much. Problem is, that nutjob is in control of a country. When a nutjob says things on the street, you generally dismiss them, but when he controls a country and says them, you HAVE to take notice. He's repeatedly announced that he wants israel wiped off the map, they hardly have a choice but to go with the traditional, timehonoured method of MAD. Why? because it's worked before.

Does anyone think that if Isarel didnt have nukes they'd still be around? i dont, because i think that the spectre of nuclear retaliation is pretty much all that has stopped the arab nations launching all out war in the past 30 or 40 years.

Now back to the original point, dinnerjacket wants israel wiped off the map, and is trying to get a nuclear program up and running. unfortunately, at the moment i cant see how this is a good idea..

[Letum]

Oh, and if anybody's has a "crappy understanding of the Middle East", when seriously trying not to, it's P_Funk, Letum and joegrundman.

I'm just sayin'. :roll:

What makes you think that?
Who knows, but insulting a nationality (Serbian I have a couple of friends who are completely unlike Elite_SH3) and 3 different posters becasue she doesn't agree with their opinions.

Bravo! http://img26.exs.cx/img26/2245/thumbsup8de.gif

NOT
Ahh, go easy. I don't think anyone can blame Avon for loseing her rag in a thread like this. Who wouldn't if one had Ellite_Hunter takeing unjustifyed pot-shots at your race and country.

[Onkel Neal]

The person who started this thread is an anti-Semite. Any fake lies he can find about Jewish and Israeli conspiracies against the world, he's been posting here almost since day 1 he's joined. Whether it's the Liberty, 9/11, now the old lie of Israel threatening to nuke Europe and even older lies of non-existant Talmudic passages, this piece of drek posts them here.

He's of Serbian origin and there appear to be many like him from there. Go figure.

He's the lowest of the low slime.

This is my contribution to this thread. I can no longer bother refuting every stupid negative tossed my people's way.

It is beyond me why SubSim tolerates such trash. He's StormFront material.

Maybe Neal is a Columbia U. grad. :hmm:

Because I believe it's good to allow different opinions and points of view. Even those I disagree with. Elite is still a young guy with new, strong opinions. How do we have an impact on those we disagree with? Engage them in discussion.

[joea]

Classy post Neal. :up:

Sorry. :oops:

[Letum]

Classy post Neal. :up:


^ this!

You do a dammed good job modding imho, and it can't be easy here.

[Skybird]

I had picked some quotes from various posters and answered to them on point, but then hit the wrong button. Damn. I don't do it all again, so just a few comments in loose order.

First, compliment to Neal, I agree with all his postings here.

I think that since nations face different variables by which they exist, it makes no sense to try to judge them all by the same standards. Therefore, I accept to measure Iran and Israel and their nuclear programs by different standards. these standards are MY standards, and must not reflect their self-understanding. I try to base on reason ond logic in doing so. By choice of this method, I must already being seen as a hostile by those whose self-description excludes this, because it leads to different results than their own guessing. This is especially true for religious fundamentalism in general, and Islam in special. Some people's understanding is always self-centred, since they are equipped with only self-referring standards and methods of mind, this is especically true with religious views of all kind. If you want to reach beyond this constant stagnation, you need to use more general standards to use. People fearing to have to loose something from changes, oppose these with great strength and bitterness. Sometimes they do oppose simply by habit, and long tradition. the result is the same: stagnation, and an occasional outburst of violance and aggression against the other.

I back Israel not because I like it, I never have hidden that I consider it to be strategically stupid and irresponsible that it was founded in the way it was, today I just defend it's right to exist for pragmatic reasons: it cannot be removed today, 60 years later, without doing the same ammount of injustice again that was allowed to happen back then. I would vote for that option only if it were not 60 but let's say 6 years ago. After some time, some generations, historical changes that sometime back took place, simply turn into solid manifests. That's how it always has been, and that'S how it is with the state of Israel as well. Palestinians: live with it. The sooner you start to accept, the sooner you start to adapt. the sooner you start to adapt, the sooner you will start to be better off. Period. - This I write as the son of my father whose family and whole village was forced out of their place of birth in - now Polish - eastern parts of Germany before WWII. My father was one year old - and he was the reason that the Russian patrol catching the refugees did not kill them all right in place - officer leading the Russian troops had a heart. All this was never an issue in our family. We never saw the need to disucss it a lot, and accepted the way things turned out to be. No hard feeling against the Russians or Poles. We live in the present, and the present is no replacement for the lomng ago past - it simply IS.

Israel has been under constant shelling by missiles and grenades for years and years. Thousands of bombs were delivered into the civilian society, either by missiles, or by suicide bombers. To demand them not to react to that and swalow their losses without a word, is nothing but arrogant, inhumane, and a hidden form of hate on them. Israel is not innocent, and surely also tries very hard to wage the propaganda war successfully. But then, that is what the others are like, too. If we find it so hard to choose a side in this conflict, at least we could have the decency not to fall into their weapons-arm, while at the same time we pay their enemy to buy weapons , and even deliver them these weapons.

I have been in Iran, and have plenty of memories from that. Some are good, some are not, but all in all it was the most civilized and educated place amongst all Muslim countries I ever stayed in. It also is a coiuntry of huge contrasts between the "Bildungsbürgertum", which is very strongly represented due to the long times of colonial and european influence that you can still perceive if only you open your eyes), and the religious hysteria pushed by the orthodox, and the Islamic conquestors. and as so often, not the most reasonable, but the loudest-yelling unfortunately decide the face of the country. That the US had so bitterly opposed the youth'S careful attempts to gain some more freedom and liberties ten years ago, because they did not wish to turn into an all out american-style democracy, did not acchieve any good, but disillusionised many yolung ones, and chased them into the armns of the hardliners. Patriotism in Iran is extremely high and easily rivals that level to be seen in america. That is because although the violent subjugating of Persia by the ongoing islamic aggression after Byzantium and the Sassanides had fought themselves down to total weakness usually is ignorred (after all, Persia is not Persia anymore, but an Islamic country), the long history of Persian culture (also quite a vioolant one, btw) is not forgotten. Iran/Persia is the place of one of the oldest civilizational developements mondern man knows about. Compared to that history, America is nothing more than a baby. It is not easy to explain to an Iranian, even a moderate, educated one, why Iran should accept to be lectured about "democracy" by such an infant who all too willingly ignores the many distortions and pervertions in his own democracy at home. You must not even start with mentioning the Islamic perception of the world as all world being it's own, to see the problem here. If there is one basic sin, one most elemental flaw of american foreign policies, than it is this: arrogance, born by the believe to be the navel of the earth, the one shining exmaple all others have to follow - in their own interest. It may be true, or not, but you just don't slap it into others' face like this. The same flaw in character you can see in Islam, of course. In the end, all fundamentalism is always just the same narrowness of mind, leading to megalomania, hate, and aggression.

If there will ever be a strike on Iran, I demand evidence IN ADVANCE that the state of their nuclear program orders that strike, and I do not accept that evidence when it is coming from American or Israelis sources only. I insist of beiong shown the evidence BEFORE I accept mass murder and generation-long suffering. If somebody tells me that in that order maybe we miss the opportunity, or that Islam would not answers us that favour if in reversed roles, I only say that I am not Islam, but I am better. The imminent past has shown, that it is not trustworthy to believe intel sercices of countries who have a personal agenda of wanting to see only those "informations" that support thier way of going. The IAEA also is no trustworthy agent here. So the issue of credible evidence is the biggest problem, by far the biggest proble, I have with all this, and I do not know a solution. but if it is there, one should not conclude from the fact that I will even nuclear strikes against key installations of the weapons program (and only and exclusoively against these), that I love it and be happy, and do not think of bcoming guilty from accepting it to happen. we all will become guilty if we accept to conduct such a strike. However, I think that our guilt would be even greater if allowing the Iranians to have nukes. In the end, it is no ethical, but mathematical problem - and that simply is the cruel truth.

But such events I always will consider to be nothing else but a monnumental tragedy. A necessity, but still a tragedy. It will not win us the battle against raising Islam. It will buy us time only.


:dead: so much for "some comments in loose order".

[Skybird]

Because I believe it's good to allow different opinions and points of view. Even those I disagree with. Elite is still a young guy with new, strong opinions. How do we have an impact on those we disagree with? Engage them in discussion.

Never tell a young guy that he is still a young guy - it tends to make young guys angry! :lol: Most teens are like that - especially when wanting to buy cigarettes - and not getting them. :p

[August]

I sympathizes with Israelis struggle but the last Lebanon war caused so many innocent civilian casualties. What happened? Human lives are precious damn it.

Well part of it is the Hezbollah tactic of fighting from behind the skirts of women and children for the propaganda value when they are caught in the crossfire. Another part of it is how in the western medias eyes a dead Hez fighter becomes an innocent civilian casualty once his weapons and ammo are removed.

There are civilian casualties in any war but Israels enemies have learned how to use them to their advantage.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

refering to posts #411-#418
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4655506#post4655506
refute any of the evidence presented in those posts



funny thing is the statement about The statement about FUD is EXACTLY what jews do...:shifty:, who are the ones telling the whole world Iran is gonna plaster the middle east with mushroom clouds??, who are the ones that keep pressuring the world to Attack Iran??

how healthy do you think "Christianity" is today and who is the catalyst of the corrosion??. "The ultimate goal of research is to evaluate the evidence as to credibility and volume while avoiding the advertised and revealing the legitimate yet supressed aspects of it and that is why I tend not to even point out the obvious in that thread--the obvious has just been ridiculed by the jews as "conspiracy".

Where are the "big-screen" versions of the subjects in Addressing Filth?
no where... why because jewish people control the media and here is proof
this is a list of all the head owners and people in control of many major media corp. in the U.S
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News &
World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents
of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the
largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television,
great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with
Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public
Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed
by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of
AOL-Time-Warner

NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming,
NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media
giant" (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and
MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and
Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol
Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London
Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and
Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications
and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture
Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's
News. Corp., owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic,
which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore
credits Marty with being his "mentor."

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times,
the Boston Globe and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the
Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com,
website monitoring "anti-Israel media."

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington
Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular
columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and
co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee
on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.

ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as
an expert on domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the
New Times network of "alternative weeklies."

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media
hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban
Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY
Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner
of Universal Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent
agency, which represents 600 news personalities such
as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div.
of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good
Morning Miami"

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good
Morning Miami"

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American
operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel
Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and
Washington Post, son of

CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington
Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec.
Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco
Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco
Chronicle,

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities,
San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities,
San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol
Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated
from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New
Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse
Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the
Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker;
Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City
Business Journals, business newspapers published in
more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in
cable television programming and cable systems serving
1 million homes.

the main person who "addressed filth" and tried to show the world of the israeli control over the United States was a Canadian

Joseph Alphonse Habel, born 7/13/95 in Deschaillons, Quebec. In 1934 he was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the "Riding" of Cochrane North in the northernmost logging and mining part of this province. He was re-elected MPP in 1937 and 1945 and then was elected to the Canadian House of Commons for the Liberal Party of Canada in 1953. He was Chief Opposition Whip from 1958-1963 and served until 4/23/68. Anyway, back to his Addressing Filth, which took place on March 15, 1946. Mr Habel, during the debate to the Speech from the Throne told a remarkable story of intrigue and treachery. In a "witty and courageous" manner he went on to detail and name names of those who were agitating for workers "rights" and intimidating the content workers of this area. Here is but one quote:

"In 1935 the members of the Central Executive Committee of the party further consolidated their position in the Northern section of Ontario by ordering Finlanders and other foreigners, who had been chased out of their own countries by anti-Communists, to infiltrate into the great gold producing mines. They were followed by Jewish Communists and "Polish Reds". High-grading, the White Slave Traffic, organized gambling and labor unrest, swept through the whole of the largest mining camps in Canada, like a forest fire on a windy day."

Mr Habel went on and showed letters and other hard evidence for over an hour and it is given fairly detailed account in an oft "discredited" book called RED FOG OVER AMERICA, pages 133-137, written by Canadian William Guy Carr. Notwithstanding the derision heaped upon this man Carr, I ask you--why would he lie? He was there at this hearing and Mr Habel was, by all accounts, a very honorable man. I am in the process of trying to get transcripts of this hearing, which I believe is documented in the House of Commons Journal, Volume 87. If I can get this in an "on-line" version I will post it as it is a perfect example of how the Red Beast is able to slither into all aspects of the Western world while the general populace is lulled into inaction or worse, acquiescence. Mr Habel passed away 12/5/79.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

What do Presidents John F. Kennedy, James Garfield
and Abraham Lincoln, and Congressman Louis McFadden
all have in common?

They all believed in the necessity of
dismantling what has evolved into what is
now known as the Federal Reserve Banking System
("The Fed")

They were unique in that they all had the
understanding and power to act on their
beliefs, but never got the chance to because
they were assassinated before got the chance.

What's the big deal about the Fed?

For starters, it's not, contrary to
popular belief, a part of the government.

It's privately owned...which means the
United States does not control its
own money supply.

Strange but true.

The Fed was created around the same time
that the US adopted such charming practices
as taxing the income of working people
and conscripting its citizens against
their will to fight and die in overseas
wars.

Who really rules America? It's not who
you think.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html)

and im not surprised AL hanst joined in this debate.... she probably knows im right:roll:
and dont forget lets play 'debunk the 17 yr old from his "radical" ideas':roll:

[Letum]

[...] (http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html)

It really wouldn't take a genious to pick all this apart bit-by-bit. However, most of it is so
blatent that if you don't see picture now, you won't see the brush strokes if I, or others,
took the time to expose them.


I have given you some benafit of doubt for long enough. You continue to express very hateful
views that are totaly lacking in compassion and foundation in reality. It reflects upon you
very badly.

[JSLTIGER]

What do Presidents John F. Kennedy, James Garfield
and Abraham Lincoln, and Congressman Louis McFadden
all have in common?

They all believed in the necessity of
dismantling what has evolved into what is
now known as the Federal Reserve Banking System
("The Fed")

They were unique in that they all had the
understanding and power to act on their
beliefs, but never got the chance to because
they were assassinated before got the chance.

What's the big deal about the Fed?

For starters, it's not, contrary to
popular belief, a part of the government.

It's privately owned...which means the
United States does not control its
own money supply.

Strange but true.

The Fed was created around the same time
that the US adopted such charming practices
as taxing the income of working people
and conscripting its citizens against
their will to fight and die in overseas
wars.

Who really rules America? It's not who
you think.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html (http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html)

and im not surprised AL hanst joined in this debate.... she probably knows im right:roll:
and dont forget lets play 'debunk the 17 yr old from his "radical" ideas':roll:
OK...you've just proved your ignorance for everyone to see here, especially of US history.

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the US, from 1861-1865. James Garfield was the 20th President in 1881.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL 1913 UNDER WOODROW WILSON.

How could these guys want to dismantle something that never existed????!!

McFadden was a congressman in the middle of the Great Depression under Hoover, prior to the restructuring of the Fed which led to programs like the FDIC and SEC. Of course he wasn't happy with it! The country was in its worst economic period in history.

As for the previous post, there are quite a few names on there of people who are not Jewish, and the one name that instantly pops into mind as at least having inaccuracies about his description is Ari Fleischman, who hasn't been Bush's press secretary in four years.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

[...]
It really wouldn't take a genious to pick all this apart bit-by-bit. However, most of it is so
blatent that if you don't see picture now, you won't see the brush strokes if I, or others,
took the time to expose them.


I have given you some benafit of doubt for long enough. You continue to express very hateful
views that are totaly lacking in compassion and foundation in reality. It reflects upon you
very badly.

if its so easy then by all means pick it all apart:roll:

[JSLTIGER]

[...]
It really wouldn't take a genious to pick all this apart bit-by-bit. However, most of it is so
blatent that if you don't see picture now, you won't see the brush strokes if I, or others,
took the time to expose them.


I have given you some benafit of doubt for long enough. You continue to express very hateful
views that are totaly lacking in compassion and foundation in reality. It reflects upon you
very badly.
if its so easy then by all means pick it all apart:roll:

Already did...see the post above.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

"The Federal Reserve System is the third try at a central banking system in the United States. The First Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States) (1791-1811) and the Second Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States) (1816-1836) each had twenty year charters and they both issued currency and made commercial loans. The banks were opposed by many who thought they were engines of corruption that supported the business class over the needs of the common man. Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson), a populist leaning President, vetoed legislation to renew the Second Bank of the United States ushering in an unstable period of "free banking" with many state chartered banks going in and out of business. In 1863, as a means to help finance the Civil War, a system of national banks was instituted by National Currency Act. The banks each had the power to issue standardized national bank notes based on United States bonds held by the bank. The Act was totally revised in 1864 and later named as the National-Bank Act or National Banking Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act) as it is popularly known. The administration of the new national banking system was vested in the newly created Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and its chief administrator, the Comptroller of the Currency. The Office, a part of the U.S. Treasury Department, still exists today and it examines and supervises all nationally chartered banks."

[JSLTIGER]

Both Banks of the US were experiments that failed well before the era of both of the presidents I named, and that fact is born out in your own source. Futhermore, in order for that office to exist in the Treasury, it had to be created BY the president and APPROVED by both the Congress and the president, who, at the time was Abe Lincoln. Doesn't very much sound like he was opposed to the idea of a central banking system.

Additionally, the National Bank was an idea created by Alexander Hamilton back in the 1790s and had nothing to do with the Jews.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

He's of Serbian origin and there appear to be many like him from there. Go figure.

He's the lowest of the low slime.



well well look who is the racist now... First people who follow the religion of islam, now serbians... what next????

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Both Banks of the US were experiments that failed well before the era of both of the presidents I named, and that fact is born out in your own source. Futhermore,


thats why he and other president didnt want the idea of a federal reserve system to be put into place...

[fatty]

Well, I tried. IBL :up:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

The rules that apply for one country do not have to apply for another country when the circumstances are different.
Therefore Israel is not hypocritical to accuse Iran of seeking Nuclear arms whilst they seek to expand their own.


Israel is currently engaging in a military occupation of Arab land; they have created Apartheid within said territory violating the 4th Hague Conventions of 1907. Israel has repeatedly violated the 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949 which essentially makes them war criminals.

To the best of my knowledge; Iran is not doing any of this! Why should Israel not be held to a HIGHER standard due to their numerous war crimes committed in violation of international law?

True, it is a double standard, one I accept. Why is Israel special? Homeland of the people who survived the holocaust. I don't argue that you have to agree, but surely you can see the difference between Israel and Iran.

There is a difference; Iran is not practicing Apartheid in a foreign territory it captured in a war...

Israel Practices Apartheid! (http://israelwatchresearchproject.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-about-apartheid-israel.html)

There is a difference alright!


The Talmud is a book of commentary on Jewish laws, nothing more, nothing less.

“Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory.”

-Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, (1939-1943) “Authority” pg. 637

Those who professed Judaism felt no doubt that the Talmud was equal to the Bible as a source of instruction and decision in problems of religion, and every effort to set forth religious teachings and duties was based on it.

-The Jewish Encyclopedia, (1901-1906) –The Talmud – “It’s Authority”

[JSLTIGER]

The Talmud is a book of commentary on Jewish laws, nothing more, nothing less.
“Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory.”

-Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, (1939-1943) “Authority” pg. 637

Those who professed Judaism felt no doubt that the Talmud was equal to the Bible as a source of instruction and decision in problems of religion, and every effort to set forth religious teachings and duties was based on it.

-The Jewish Encyclopedia, (1901-1906) –The Talmud – “It’s Authority”

Nothing here disputes what I wrote. It's commentary based off of the bible.

Another important Jewish text besides the Tanakh is the Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings that interpret, explain and apply the Torah scriptures. The Talmud was written between the second and fifth century CE, but Orthodox Jews believe it was revealed to Moses along with the Torah and preseved orally until it was written down. The Talmud is thus known as the "Oral Torah," with the first five books of the Tanakh designated the "Written Torah."
Role of the Talmud in Judaism

In Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah is accepted as equally sacred, inspired, and authoritative as the Written Torah. One of the aims of Orthodox Judaism in Israel is to establish Talmudic law as the state law of Israel. Elsewhere in the world, Orthodox Jews submit themselves voluntarily to Talmudic law and the rabbinic court system, especially in matters of dietary and ritual law, marriage and divorce, and social work.

The Talmud also plays an important role in Conservative Judaism, although it is viewed as an evolutionary process that changes with the times. Both professional and lay Talmudic scholarship is dedicated to determining the proper response to modern issues by intensive study of the Talmud. Reform Judaism officially rejects the Talmud as an entirely human invention reflecting medieval thought and values.
In 1923, Polish Rabbi Meir Shapiro organized the Daf Yomi ("the daily page") for a group of students, in which one page of the Talmud is studied each day. This took 2,711 days - about seven and a half years.
The Daf Yomi has since been undertaken by thousands of Jews around the world, and in 1997 a global celebration was held to celebrate the completion of the 10th cycle of readings. Over 70,000 took part in the celebration, which gathered at the locations around the world connected by satellite, including Madison Square Garden, Nassau Coliseum, Eugene, Oregon, and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Current Daf Yomi groups, now embarked on the 11th cycle of readings, can be found around the globe and the daily reading is available on the Internet (http://www.dafyomi.org/).
Organization of the Talmud

There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The former was composed circa 500 CE and the latter was completed around 600 CE. By the 11th century, the Babylonian Talmud had established supremacy and today it is the one that is meant by "the Talmud." Thus it is the one on which we will concentrate.
The Talmud consists of two parts: the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah is rabbinic commentary on the Torah and the Gemara is rabbinic commentary on the Mishnah.
Mishnah

The Mishnah ("a teaching that is repeated") is organized as a law book, and consists of legal rulings and teachings by rabbis of the first through third centuries CE. It was codified by Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi around 200 CE and divided into "six orders," or shisha sedarim in Hebrew (the Talmud is known colloquially as "shas" for short), each of which addresses a different aspect of Jewish life:
Zera'im ("Seeds") - blessings, tithes, temple offerings, agriculture
Mo'ed ("Set Feasts") - Sabbath laws and holiday observances
Nashim ("Women") - marriage and divorce
Nezikin ("Damages") - idolatry, matters of civil law, and the Pirke Avot
Kodashim ("Holy Things") - sacrificial system in the Temple, dietary laws
Tohorot ("Purities") - ritual purity and impurityEach Order contains seven to twelve subdivisions called tractates (masekhtot). There are a total of 63 tractates in the Mishnah: see the Fast Facts (http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/fastfacts.htm) page for a list of them. The tractates are further divided into chapters. The most commonly read tractate is the Pirke Avot (Sayings of the Fathers), a collection of ethical rules.
Gemara

The Gemara ("completion") is primarily a commentary on the Mishnah. Like the Mishnah, it contains matters of Jewish law (halakhah), but it also includes stories, legends, and sermons (aggadah, "discourse").
References

"Talmud and Midrash." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108161) (2004).
Essential Judiasm: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs and Rituals (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0671034812/ref=nosim?tag=religionfacts-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0671034812&creative=373489&camp=211189) by George Robinson (Pocket Books, 2000).
"Torah, Torah, Torah: The Unfolding of a Tradition." Judaism for Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764552996/ref=nosim?tag=religionfacts-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0764552996&creative=373489&camp=211189) (Hungry Minds, 2001).
Tracey R. Rich, "Torah." (http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm) Judaism 101 (1995-99).http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/texts/talmud.htm

[elite_hunter_sh3]

"It's quite simple; Israel only has their weapons for deterrence. Iran on the other hand has proven too untrustworthy a government to have them and will likely distribute them to terrorist groups or use the weapons themselves.
But a state that ethnically cleanses Palestinians from Hebron, dropped 1 million cluster bombs on Lebanon and practices Apartheid in the Occupied Territories is fit to have such weapons? How about the Samson Option? Ever hear of that one? Look it up and tell me that we can trust Israel with such weapons.

The Iranian leadership has no sense or self-preservation like western governments due to the President being one of those followers of the 12th Imam, and they believe the only way to bring their messiah back is to cause war and chaos in the world. He is evil and a religious wack-job.
That is why Iran has not participated in a war of agression in how long? For a nation with no sense of self-preservation they sure have held off on firing Shahab missiles at Israel's Dimona Reactor! http://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Further, I have found in life that people who generally come to the consensus that you have with your argument generally dislike Jews or have some sort of anti-Semitic streak in them.
Now we resort to the ad hominem attacks; criticising Israel makes you anti-semitic. Well let me tell you something; I am not anti-semitic! I have nothing against the Palestinians.

Now my analysis comes from my very conservative, white, registered Republican, Roman Catholic point of view and we all know that people like myself are the real racists, right?"
Ever visit a Chabad Lubavitch center? The ideology from that group makes the Ku Klux Klan look like a group of peacenik hippy diversity-mongers. 'Racists' come in all colours, faiths and political affiliations.

What I would want to know is why you believe Iran is an "aggressive neighbor"? What has Iran done in the past that would make you believe the way you do. If you source the 1979 hostage situation, i have the bombing of the USS Liberty. If you talk about Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" statements, i will use the brainwashed neo-conservative route and say what he actually meant, which was remove Israel and send them to Europe (not kill them).

there's no way Iran would want a war with Israel because they'd have to face the USA in the process. As a result, the supreme leader could lose his regime and probably wouldn't like that too much. Also, Ahmadinejad has to answer to the Iranian parliament as well; would they allow him to go to war? you speak of Ahmadinejad like he's a dictator. This guy was elected and they have a working republic. The Iranian people are some of the most free people in the Muslim world (that's saying alot too). Obviously, this guy talks about religion because Iran is an Islamic republic, similiar to how Israel is a Jewish state.

I want to know your hard core evidence that proves Iran is too unstable to have defensive nuclear weapons. A region is far more stable when it is bi-lateral, in contrast to unilateral. I mean, Israel was close to using a nuke in its war with Syria, which means, if they are successfully invaded, they will use the nuke because they don't have to fear retaliation. Millions of Muslims would die as a result of the actions of their governments. Now, if Iran had the capability to fire a nuke back, Israel would now fear for its population's lives and might think twice before using it. This is the real reason why Israel doesn't want the Iranians to possess it. They will no longer have a last resort advantage.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

i am heading to school... i will continue this debate in a few hours..

[SUBMAN1]

Ever notice elite_hunter_sh3 that you are the only person that feels any different? This is simply a fact of being uneducated on the subject. Read up on the history of the Middle East. It might do you some good. And by the way, Isreal occupied that land long before any Arab set foot on it. It was the Arabs that took it away in the first place many thousands of years ago. America simply gave them back what was rightfully theirs.

-S

[caspofungin]

Read up on the history of the Middle East

you should take your own advice, mate.

And by the way, Isreal occupied that land long before any Arab set foot on it. It was the Arabs that took it away in the first place many thousands of years ago. America simply gave them back what was rightfully theirs.

Bollocks. Suffice to say, if you follow your own logic, you should trade places with the native americans in their reservations.

[JSLTIGER]

I am not anti-semitic! I have nothing against the Palestinians.

Anti-semitic, in general usage, does not refer to all semitic peoples, but primarily those of the Jewish faith. This is an old usage by known, since you seem to prefer this label, "anti-Jewish" peoples. Our mistake, allow me to change that label for you to "anti-Jewish."

Ever visit a Chabad Lubavitch center? The ideology from that group makes the Ku Klux Klan look like a group of peacenik hippy diversity-mongers. 'Racists' come in all colours, faiths and political affiliations.

Have YOU ever visited a Chabad Lubavitch center? I have. Their religious belief, while intense, is not discriminatory at all. They believe that Jews should pursue their belief to whatever extent they wish, and they believe that people should be proud of their religion. Oddly enough, however, I do agree with your final sentence in this quote, and just as an FYI, I count you as one of them.

What I would want to know is why you believe Iran is an "aggressive neighbor"? What has Iran done in the past that would make you believe the way you do. Granted, the Iraqis invaded first in the Iran-Iraq war, but they did retreat, and Iran then pursued into Iraq, ignoring the UN calls for a cease-fire and pursuing a policy designed to expand Iran's influence in the region.

If you source the 1979 hostage situation, i have the bombing of the USS Liberty.
For which Israel apologized a day later and offered to pay reparations to the US. Iran didn't do either.

If you talk about Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" statements, i will use the brainwashed neo-conservative route and say what he actually meant, which was remove Israel and send them to Europe (not kill them).
If your argument is that there are "occupied territories" and Israel separately, why should there be any need to remove Israel? How would that be any better than what you claim happened 50 years ago, especially since much of the land was purchased by Jews legally from the Palestinians. When the UN divided the land under the 1947 partition plan, it was divided by majority population. Jewish-majority land was to be placed under Jewish control, Arab majority under Arab control. The Jews said fine, the Arabs said no, and then proceeded to attempt to take the land allotted to the Jews also. They lost the war to an underfunded, ill-equipped nation despite being armed with some of the latest equipment, while Israel had, for example, three 1875 French cannons at its disposal.

Also, Ahmadinejad has to answer to the Iranian parliament as well; would they allow him to go to war? you speak of Ahmadinejad like he's a dictator. This guy was elected and they have a working republic.
It's hardly a republic when the candidates are all screened for acceptability by the Supreme Leadership Council of the Ayatollahs. That's like saying that the People's Republic of China is actually a republic/democracy. Sure they can "vote," but with a single party and no opposition, or with pre-screened candidates, what's the point?

The Iranian people are some of the most free people in the Muslim world (that's saying alot too).
I like the qualifier here. Nice touch.

Obviously, this guy talks about religion because Iran is an Islamic republic, similiar to how Israel is a Jewish state.
Yes, and that's all well and good, but the government of Israel doesn't talk about "wiping [its neighbors] off the map."

I want to know your hard core evidence that proves Iran is too unstable to have defensive nuclear weapons.
See the above.

A region is far more stable when it is bi-lateral, in contrast to unilateral. I mean, Israel was close to using a nuke in its war with Syria, which means, if they are successfully invaded, they will use the nuke because they don't have to fear retaliation. Millions of Muslims would die as a result of the actions of their governments. Now, if Iran had the capability to fire a nuke back, Israel would now fear for its population's lives and might think twice before using it. This is the real reason why Israel doesn't want the Iranians to possess it. They will no longer have a last resort advantage.
Israel doesn't even acknowledge it has nuclear weapons, therefore, using them isn't really on the table. What war with Syria? Where is your proof that they were close to using nukes?

Israel has been invaded before. 1973. The Yom Kippur War. There was no use of nukes then, why would there be now?

Furthermore, where is your proof that they even have them (I, too, believe they do, but for the sake of our debate)?

Hypothetically, how does Iran having nukes eliminate a "last resort advantage"? If Israel launches, Iran launches, and everybody dies. If Iran launches first, then Israel launches, and everybody still dies. As you say, the Samson option is a HYPOTHETICAL last resort, when there are no other options available. How is this any different from US or USSR policy of Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War?

[Letum]

Ever notice elite_hunter_sh3 that you are the only person that feels any different? This is simply a fact of being uneducated on the subject. Read up on the history of the Middle East. It might do you some good. And by the way, Isreal occupied that land long before any Arab set foot on it. It was the Arabs that took it away in the first place many thousands of years ago. America simply gave them back what was rightfully theirs.

-S



The whole "we where here first" thing is irrelevant and ridiculous, whichever side it is argued from.

[caspofungin]

When the UN divided the land under the 1947 partition plan, it was divided by majority population. Jewish-majority land was to be placed under Jewish control, Arab majority under Arab control. The Jews said fine, the Arabs said no, and then proceeded to attempt to take the land allotted to the Jews also.
nope, the un agreement gave the jewish population (about 1/3 of the total population of the british mandate of palestine) 55% of the land. that's why the arabs rejected that plan. check up on the un 1947 partition plan, and for kicks, read up on folke bernadotte.

They lost the war to an underfunded, ill-equipped nation despite being armed with some of the latest equipment, while Israel had, for example, three 1875 French cannons at its disposal.
3 1875 french cannons, in addition to cromwell tanks, spitfires, czech versions of the messerschmit 109, british 2" and 3" mortars, american half-tracks, etc. the israelis were well funded by various zionist organizations, and actually had numerical parity with the arab forces.

of course, the arabs were outfought tactically and strategically, just as they have been in every confrontation since.

especially since much of the land was purchased by Jews legally from the Palestinians
"The majority of politicians, including the “dovish” labor party, imbue the teaching that the Palestinians of 1948 left on their own behalf, rather than by forceful displacement or fleeing for safety. The denial of transfer within the Israeli leadership perpetuates the indoctrination of falsities in Israeli society." http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2113.cfm

"Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes the directives of Plan Dalet, which consequently adds to Morris’ “consensus of transfer.” He states, “The plan was executed because the soldiers in the battlefield were oriented by a general attitude from above and motivated by remarks made by the Yishuv’s leaders on the need to ‘clean’ the country. These remarks were translated into acts of depopulation by enthusiastic commanders on the ground, who knew that their actions would be justified in retrospect by the political leadership.”"

if you're using history to justify why 1 nation can have nukes and another can't, at least try and get both sides of the historical perspective.

[STEED]

Israel has nukes to ensure it's survival.
Iran wants to nukes to erase Israel.

I'm siding with the good guys here.

Well said Neal. :yep:

[JSLTIGER]

the un agreement gave the jewish population (about 1/3 of the total population of the british mandate of palestine) 55% of the land. that's why the arabs rejected that plan.

"
The land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory Palestine[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Merip)) consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one third of the coastline. The Jewish state was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Merip) The state included three fertile lowland plains — the Sharon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon%2C_Israel) on the coast, the Jezreel Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezreel_Valley) and the upper Jordan Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Valley).
The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Desert). The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the Red Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea) and the Sea of Galilee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee) (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine). The land allocated to the Jewish state was largely made up of areas in which there was a significant Jewish population.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Pa.C3.9Fia)
The plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish state. In many specific cases, this meant including areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish state. Thus the Jewish State would have an overall large Arab minority. Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the "Jewish Problem".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-MidEastWeb1947)
The UNSCOP boundaries divided the population such that the Arab State would have a population of 735,000, including 10,000 (1%) Jews, and the Jewish State would have a population of 905,000, including 498,000 (55%) Jews.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-2) Due to boundary adjustments the Arab population of the Jewish State decreased by approximately 85,000, so the Jewish State would have had a 61% Jewish majority.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-3) The UNSCOP report noted that in the Jewish State there would be "about 90,000 Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin), cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons." All population figures are based on 1945 statistics."

3 1875 french cannons, in addition to cromwell tanks, spitfires, czech versions of the messerschmit 109, british 2" and 3" mortars, american half-tracks, etc. the israelis were well funded by various zionist organizations, and actually had numerical parity with the arab forces.

of course, the arabs were outfought tactically and strategically, just as they have been in every confrontation since.

All of this equipment was equalled or bettered by the Arabs, while the Israelis had to manufacture their own improvised bullets and hand-held weapons, or obtain them through war surplus channels.

"The majority of politicians, including the “dovish” labor party, imbue the teaching that the Palestinians of 1948 left on their own behalf, rather than by forceful displacement or fleeing for safety. The denial of transfer within the Israeli leadership perpetuates the indoctrination of falsities in Israeli society." http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2113.cfm

"Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes the directives of Plan Dalet, which consequently adds to Morris’ “consensus of transfer.” He states, “The plan was executed because the soldiers in the battlefield were oriented by a general attitude from above and motivated by remarks made by the Yishuv’s leaders on the need to ‘clean’ the country. These remarks were translated into acts of depopulation by enthusiastic commanders on the ground, who knew that their actions would be justified in retrospect by the political leadership.”"


"The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km²) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km²) in 1945[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Khalaf) and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km²) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-CIA_Factbook_.E2.80.94_Israel) No figures of land ownership by Arabs were available, due to difficulties that were due to the incomplete transition from the unreliable Ottoman Land Code to a modern land registration system."

[elite_hunter_sh3]

If your argument is that there are "occupied territories" and Israel separately, why should there be any need to remove Israel?
The territories are occupied per ruling by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Scurity council.

When the UN divided the land under the 1947 partition plan, it was divided by majority population. Jewish-majority land was to be placed under Jewish control, Arab majority under Arab control.
What the revisionist leaves out is that the Arab majority population was going to be alotted a minority of Palestine while the minority Zionist population was going to get approximately 56% of Palestine under the UN Partition Plan; what th revisionist ignores is that the Jewish state would have contained a massively large Arab population; a population Zionists were fighting in 1947.

Note: The Zionists owned approximately 7% of the land if I am not mistaken due to land purchase.

The Jews said fine, the Arabs said no, and then proceeded to attempt to take the land allotted to the Jews also.

Actually there was a civil war going on in Palestine between the Zionists and Arabs in 1947. The Arab League entered the war to protect their own people.

present the following piece:

The Vicious Racism of Chabad Lubavitch

By: F. White of Israel Watch

Chabad-Lubavitch (also known as Chabad, Habad or Lubavitch), is one of the largest branches of Hasidic Judaism and one of the largest Jewish movements worldwide, especially in the United States, the Former Soviet Union, Europe and Israel. Chabad (חב"ד ) is a Hebrew acronym for "חכמה Chochmah, בינה Binah, דעת Da'at" ("Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge"). Lubavitch, taken from the Russian Любавичи, Lyubavichi, is the name of the town that served as the movement's headquarters for over a century. In 1993 there were over 200,000 adherents to the movement some estimate today that there are over a million. Its adherents are known as "Lubavitchers", or "Chabadniks." - Wikipedia

The following is a short compilation of racist quotes from prominent Chabad Lubavitch rabbi’s, leaders including Lubavitch ‘Rebbe’ Menachem Mendel Schneerson and even the founder of the movement Rabbi Scneur Zalman...

The ‘racism’ itself is anti-gentile in nature. The following quotes illustrate an almost pathological hatred of gentiles; for example gentiles are said to originate from a ‘Satanic’ source while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. This is quite racist material and interestingly enough this racism is largely reported from a Jewish academic source; read on…

1) The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: "Let us differentiate." Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of "let us differentiate" between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world...The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book of Chabad]: "And you have chosen us" [the Jews] means specifically that the Jewish body was chosen , because a choice is thus made between outwardly similar things. The Jewish body "looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews," but the meaning ... is that the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews] "their bodies are in vain."... An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase "let us differentiate" about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in regard to the soul: the soul of a Jewish embryo is different than the soul of a non-Jewish embryo. We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning." This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the [B]"heavens and the earth—are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim."

Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, [B]"And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.

SOURCE: Quotes from "Lubovitcher Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” - Chapter 4: The National Religious Party and the Religious Settlers – By: Dr. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.

2) Regarded as one of the Lubovitcher sect's leading authorities on Jewish mysticism, the St. Louis born rabbi, who also has a graduate degree in mathematics, speaks freely of Jews' genetic-based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews. It is a superiority that he asserts invests Jewish life with greater value in the eyes of the Torah. "If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first," Rabbi Ginsburgh told the Jewish Week. "If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA." Later, Rabbi Ginsburgh asked rhetorically: "If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value," he explained. "There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life."

SOURCE: Quotes from leading Chabadist, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh - “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” - Chapter 4: The National Religious Party and the Religious Settlers – By: Dr. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.

3) As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): “Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.” …If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA.……

SOURCE: Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh quoting the founder of the Chabad movement Shneur Zalman of Liadi - Jewish Week – April 26, 1996

The NewRepublic has commented on the anti-gentile hatred of the Chabad movement and issued the following on May 4th, 1992.

…there are some powerful ironies in Chabad’s new messianic universalism, in its mission to the gentiles; and surely the most unpleasant of them concerns Chabad’s otherwise undisguised and even racial contempt for the goyim.

{snip}

…Moreover, this characterization of gentiles as being inherently evil, as being spiritually as well as biologically inferior to Jews, has not in any way been revised in later Chabad writing.

Such demonisation (literally!) is reminiscent of propaganda one would expect to find in Nazi Germany. These racist comments are little more then sheer demonisation of gentiles; these comments serve to belittle gentiles to subhuman status. If nothing else; remember that a Jewish seed is worth more then a gentile child and adult body according to one of the above quotes.

The following article is from the Chabad Lubavitch website...for a complete rundown of their articles on intermarriage you can visit Chabad.org. I have decided to present the most powerful Chabad article on the racist nature of their beliefs in intermarriage...

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Israel has been under constant shelling by missiles and grenades for years and years. Thousands of bombs were delivered into the civilian society, either by missiles, or by suicide bombers. To demand them not to react to that and swalow their losses without a word, is nothing but arrogant, inhumane, and a hidden form of hate on them.

Here is the reality-based perspective on the issue:

http://israelwatchresearchproject.blogspot.com/2007/10/israels-war-on-palestinian-children.html

The extent of the Israel’s war on Palestinian children is largely unknown in many western circles. It is unfortunate that this is the case as such knowledge would likely shatter the myth that Israel is a righteous state that strives religiously not to kill or harm the most innocent people.

The human rights organisation “Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” reveals some very telling child casualty statistics from 1990 to 2001 in its report: “Breakdown of Palestinian Child Deaths Annually (1990 - 2001).” The “Percentage of Total Palestinian Deaths Represented by Children” from 1990 to 2001 are as follows:

1990: 29.8%
1991: 40%
1992: 24.6%
1993: 29.67%
1994: 27.08%
1995: 22.7%
1996: 40.27%
1997: 85%
1998: 51.85%
1999: 50%
2000: 35.96%
2001: 21.26%

We learn from these statistics that 22.9% of all Palestinian child deaths took place between the first and second Intifada. According to “Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” the above child deaths account for “Palestinian Children Killed By Israeli Soldiers, Settlers or Undercover Units”

“Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” reports that:

Israeli forces have consistently targeted Palestinian children since 1990. Looking at these deaths as a percentage of total deaths, we see that Palestinian children accounted for more than 20% of total deaths for every year since 1990. Between 1997-1999, they represented more than 50% of total deaths.

The latest statistics from “Btselem: The Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories” from 29.9.2000 to 24.9.2007 would support the view that Israeli forces are waging a war on the children of Palestine.

20.2% of all Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli security forces during the Al Aqsa Intifada have been represented by children. 20.4% of all Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli security forces within the Occupied Territories have been represented by children.

In contrast 11.6% of Israeli’s killed by Palestinians during the Al Aqsa Intifada were represented by children. 67.2% of these casualties died within the Occupied Territories. In percentage terms Israel has suffered approximately half of the child casualty rates as the Palestinians.

In a numerical breakdown Palestinian child casualties ran at an approximate 8:1 ratio in comparison to Israeli child casualty rates. In other words the Palestinians lost approximately eight times as many children as the Israeli’s due to hostile enemy action. Israel lost 119 children while the Palestinians lost 857 children during the Al Aqsa Intifada. This translates into Palestinians losing approximately 122 children per year while Israel has lost 17 children per year. The Palestinian verses Israeli child casualty rates are grossly lopsided against the Palestinians.

According to the statistics I have presented we learn that between the period of 2000-2007 and every year between 1990- 2001, 20% of all Palestinian deaths were represented by children and those deaths happened at the gunpoint/hands of Israeli’s. Israel’s war on the children of Palestine is a statistical fact and a very ugly one at that…

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory Palestine[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Merip)) consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one third of the coastline. The Jewish state was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Merip) The state included three fertile lowland plains — the Sharon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon%2C_Israel) on the coast, the Jezreel Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezreel_Valley) and the upper Jordan Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Valley).


Bottom line is a minority who owned 7% of the land was to receive 56% of the land. Regardless of the quality of the land I certainly do not blame the Arabs for not wanting to see the majority population relegated to the a minority of the land

But there was even a bigger problem. The Jewish State was to have a large Arab minority. The problem with this is that Jews and Arabs were involved in a civil war with both sides trying to destroy the other. Arabs were to be subjected to the rule of a people hostile to them.

"The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km²) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km²) in 1945[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-Khalaf) and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km²) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181#_no te-CIA_Factbook_.E2.80.94_Israel) No figures of land ownership by Arabs were available, due to difficulties that were due to the incomplete transition from the unreliable Ottoman Land Code to a modern land registration system."


Since you view Wikipedia as a reliable credible source:

Land Ownership by district

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...e_of_Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#Land_ownership_of_the _British_Mandate_of_Palestine)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Samson's Option. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)http://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

why North Korea that has ICBMs, that exploded a nuke, that has launched missiles over japan, that has threatened to nuke the USA, has never been attacked.

why Pakistan, an islamic dictatorship has been allowed to build tens of nuclear weapons + long range ballistic missiles.

why USA and Russia can have thousands of nukes, UK/France/China/Israel/India hundreds of nukes, Pakistan tens of nukes and Iran can't own them. Especially since some of the countries named above have signed the NPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) and should have worked to dismantle and limit their nuclear arsenal rather than improving it, enlarging it (until half of the 80s for the US) and going on to modernize it, like they have actually done.

what legal right the USA have to say to another country what they can or can't do inside their borders. Ask him what legal right the USA have to invade or bomb another country that hasn't attacked them or one of their allies.

what proof he has that Iran is building a nuke since Iran has signed the NPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) (unlike Israel) and has allowed full inspections by the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/) (unlike Israel) to their nuclear CIVILIAN program and the inspectors haven't found any proof that Iran is building nukes.

pick it apart.. please:roll::hmm:

[JSLTIGER]

Israel has been under constant shelling by missiles and grenades for years and years. Thousands of bombs were delivered into the civilian society, either by missiles, or by suicide bombers. To demand them not to react to that and swalow their losses without a word, is nothing but arrogant, inhumane, and a hidden form of hate on them.
Here is the reality-based perspective on the issue:

http://israelwatchresearchproject.blogspot.com/2007/10/israels-war-on-palestinian-children.html

The extent of the Israel’s war on Palestinian children is largely unknown in many western circles. It is unfortunate that this is the case as such knowledge would likely shatter the myth that Israel is a righteous state that strives religiously not to kill or harm the most innocent people.

The human rights organisation “Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” reveals some very telling child casualty statistics from 1990 to 2001 in its report: “Breakdown of Palestinian Child Deaths Annually (1990 - 2001).” The “Percentage of Total Palestinian Deaths Represented by Children” from 1990 to 2001 are as follows:

1990: 29.8%
1991: 40%
1992: 24.6%
1993: 29.67%
1994: 27.08%
1995: 22.7%
1996: 40.27%
1997: 85%
1998: 51.85%
1999: 50%
2000: 35.96%
2001: 21.26%

We learn from these statistics that 22.9% of all Palestinian child deaths took place between the first and second Intifada. According to “Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” the above child deaths account for “Palestinian Children Killed By Israeli Soldiers, Settlers or Undercover Units”

“Defence for Children International, Palestine Section” reports that:

Israeli forces have consistently targeted Palestinian children since 1990. Looking at these deaths as a percentage of total deaths, we see that Palestinian children accounted for more than 20% of total deaths for every year since 1990. Between 1997-1999, they represented more than 50% of total deaths.

The latest statistics from “Btselem: The Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories” from 29.9.2000 to 24.9.2007 would support the view that Israeli forces are waging a war on the children of Palestine.

20.2% of all Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli security forces during the Al Aqsa Intifada have been represented by children. 20.4% of all Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli security forces within the Occupied Territories have been represented by children.

In contrast 11.6% of Israeli’s killed by Palestinians during the Al Aqsa Intifada were represented by children. 67.2% of these casualties died within the Occupied Territories. In percentage terms Israel has suffered approximately half of the child casualty rates as the Palestinians.

In a numerical breakdown Palestinian child casualties ran at an approximate 8:1 ratio in comparison to Israeli child casualty rates. In other words the Palestinians lost approximately eight times as many children as the Israeli’s due to hostile enemy action. Israel lost 119 children while the Palestinians lost 857 children during the Al Aqsa Intifada. This translates into Palestinians losing approximately 122 children per year while Israel has lost 17 children per year. The Palestinian verses Israeli child casualty rates are grossly lopsided against the Palestinians.

According to the statistics I have presented we learn that between the period of 2000-2007 and every year between 1990- 2001, 20% of all Palestinian deaths were represented by children and those deaths happened at the gunpoint/hands of Israeli’s. Israel’s war on the children of Palestine is a statistical fact and a very ugly one at that…

And how many of those children were used as human shields for Palestinian militants? How many were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers? How many brandished weapons? How many were suicide bombers? How many were killed in suicide attacks perpetrated by Palestinians themselves?

Because the percentage of children lost by Israelis is half that lost by the Palestinians, that justifies things? Tell that to the parents of those children on either side of the conflict.

[kiwi_2005]

Samson's Option. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)http://www.stormfront.org/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

why North Korea that has ICBMs, that exploded a nuke, that has launched missiles over japan, that has threatened to nuke the USA, has never been attacked.

why Pakistan, an islamic dictatorship has been allowed to build tens of nuclear weapons + long range ballistic missiles.

why USA and Russia can have thousands of nukes, UK/France/China/Israel/India hundreds of nukes, Pakistan tens of nukes and Iran can't own them. Especially since some of the countries named above have signed the NPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) and should have worked to dismantle and limit their nuclear arsenal rather than improving it, enlarging it (until half of the 80s for the US) and going on to modernize it, like they have actually done.

what legal right the USA have to say to another country what they can or can't do inside their borders. Ask him what legal right the USA have to invade or bomb another country that hasn't attacked them or one of their allies.

what proof he has that Iran is building a nuke since Iran has signed the NPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) (unlike Israel) and has allowed full inspections by the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/) (unlike Israel) to their nuclear CIVILIAN program and the inspectors haven't found any proof that Iran is building nukes.

pick it apart.. please:roll::hmm:

Thats freedom of speech in subsim, the above is a good question, can someone explain why without ripping Elite Hunter to streds.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, one has to recognize the difference between a good discussion and someone looking for attention. There are many interesting topics in this forum, spend your time wisely ;)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

And how many of those children were used as human shields for Palestinian militants? How many were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers? How many brandished weapons? How many were suicide bombers? How many were killed in suicide attacks perpetrated by Palestinians themselves?

If you bothered to actually read the article DCI/PS specifically refers to Palestinian children killed by Israeli's; DCI/PS also accuses Israel of 'targeting' these children not defending themselves against them. Second, Israeli jack-booted thugs have a history of murdering innocent children in cold blood...

An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...358173,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html)

So I believe DCI/PS.

Because the percentage of children lost by Israelis is half that lost by the Palestinians, that justifies things? Tell that to the parents of those children on either side of the conflict.

The intentional murder of any innocent child is a warcrime under international law; the difference is the Palestinians tend to be condemned when they engage in such acts.

[RedMenace]

As much as I wanted to agree with you, elite_hunter_sh3, as you have some interesting points about Israeli foreign policy, I can't side with you because of this:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/argument-another-member-s-another-425325.html

compare with

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=122900


Yeah, while there are definetly serious problems with Israeli foreign policy, I'm not gonna waste my time debating anything with neo-nazis.

NEXT.

[baggygreen]

Both Banks of the US were experiments that failed well before the era of both of the presidents I named, and that fact is born out in your own source. Futhermore,

thats why he and other president didnt want the idea of a federal reserve system to be put into place...
You made me laugh so hard that i got glares at work! Why didnt Leonardo da Vinci come up with einstein's theory of relativity? because he wanted to let Einstein share in some glory...:damn:

The other thing i saw was that you mentioned Israel is occupying 'arab' land that was taken in a war. I cant find the quote now, but it was there somewhere, buried amongst useless figures and so on. Anyway, You wouldnt happen to be speaking about the golan heights would you? which Israel took in the 6 days war, started by..... the arabs! a patch of land is a hell of a lot less compo than allied nations demanded from Germany following WW1...

[JSLTIGER]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/argument-another-member-s-another-425325.html

compare with

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=122900
Elite,

Just ignoring the whole white supremacy kick you're on for the moment, after flipping through the above links, its obvious that most of what you've posted today were the words of other people. You should be ashamed to have to claim the words of others as your own. If you (alone) want to debate me, then that's fine, but next time have the guts and knowledge to do it yourself. Until then, I'm not going to continue to waste my time with you.

And just for your friend AntiKhazar on the other forum, here's five high-profile spying cases not involving Jews: Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames, John Anthony Walker, Larry Wu-Tai Chin, and Clyde Lee Conrad.

[caspofungin]

And how many of those children were used as human shields for Palestinian militants? How many were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers? How many brandished weapons? How many were suicide bombers? How many were killed in suicide attacks perpetrated by Palestinians themselves?
and how many weren't? how may were in the wrong place at the wrong time? that's a ****ty reason to die. of course, when an israeli is in the wrong place at the wrong time, they're viewed as an innocent victim -- rightfully so. but a dead palestinian civilian? first thought, they must've been a terrorist. at best, all they get put down as is "collateral damage." "murder victim" comes a long way down on the list.

Because the percentage of children lost by Israelis is half that lost by the Palestinians, that justifies things? Tell that to the parents of those children on either side of the conflict
it doesn't justify it at all -- but you were just trying to a sentence ago. ignorance is one thing -- you have to go out of your way to find an objective viewpoint on the israeli-palestinian conflict. but wilful hypocrisy? How many were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers? i mean, is that supposed to be a reason to shoot someone? for f.u.c.k's sake.

[nikimcbee]

Wow, a troll thread.
http://www.clintoncards.co.uk/images/instore/trolls1.jpg

http://www.clintoncards.co.uk/images/instore/trolls1.jpg
http://www.clintoncards.co.uk/images/instore/trolls1.jpg
http://www.clintoncards.co.uk/images/instore/trolls1.jpg

armies of trolls hijack another retarded thread.:rotfl: :roll:

[Letum]

Wow, a troll thread.

armies of trolls hijack another retarded thread.:rotfl: :roll:

I don't see any trolling and if there was, that woul not help matters. :shifty:

[nikimcbee]

a joke airforce.
(video replaced with a video with less troll content)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6LmqvnaEOY
(you guys should watch this and chill out!

so many target, so little time.

A big-boy air force:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKZEo6d-ypc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu21W-ls_bE&mode=related&search=
:ping:

[caspofungin]

armies of trolls hijack another retarded thread

maybe so, maybe not. but there's some good points that've been raised, and some good questions that haven't been answered. if you aren't going to weigh in, don't.

[nikimcbee]

armies of trolls hijack another retarded thread

maybe so, maybe not. but there's some good points that've been raised, and some good questions that haven't been answered. if you aren't going to weigh in, don't.

Thanks,
This type of thread gets old.:shifty:

..but I do care, a lot!
http://www.partyinabasket.ca/images/Care%20Bears/CB-lunch-npkns.gif

[August]

Eh, the bottom line here is that the Palestinians perpetuate their own problems.

If you want the world to support your cause you don't act worse than your opponents. Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, kidnappings, factional internal warfare, all that stuff does is support the Israeli side of the argument.

[caspofungin]

August hits the nail on the head.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

what would be their other options?

Trying to go the diplomatic route never works, since the U.S. always sides with Baby Israel in those mid-east and UN talks.:roll:

[baggygreen]

I wonder why the Palestinians haven't taken any of Ghandi's lessons to heart..

Peaceful protest worked there against a power who was actually occupying the land.

Why not try that, a mass, silent sitdown protest? no violent response if israel turned tough, and suddenly israel would look terrible, and Palestinians get their international support.


Oh i forget, the Palestinians don't want to coexist, they want complete and utter control of the land and love killing israelis to try and get it.

[Letum]

Oh i forget, the Palestinians don't want to coexist, they want complete and utter control of the land.

Not only do the Israelis also want complete and utter control of the land, for the most
part they do have it.

Of coure that is no defense for palastinian violence.

[waste gate]

what would be their other options?

Trying to go the diplomatic route never works, since the U.S. always sides with Baby Israel in those mid-east and UN talks.:roll:

Are you saying the UN is of no value? Isn't that what it is for, negotiation?

[baggygreen]

Oh i forget, the Palestinians don't want to coexist, they want complete and utter control of the land.
Not only do the Israelis also want complete and utter control of the land, for the most
part they do have it.

Of coure that is no defense for palastinian violence.
No its not an excuse. And yes, the israelis do want more land.

Simplistically the way i see it is that Because israel is so small it can be overrun so easily. By trying to expand a bit, they give themselves a bit of a buffer. negligible ammount, but when you have so little land, every bit helps.

Now im not advocating it, but thats how I imagine they're thinking.

Something to remember through the whole situation is that Israel was placed where it is not by America but by the UN. BIIIIIG body with lots of nations. A majority had to agree not only on the creation but on the placement. And they did. As far as im concerned, both parties in principle ought to stay within the boundaries allocated to them 60 years ago.

Israel was attacked several times by various nations. In some instances, israel captured land in successful defensive campaigns, and in my opinion that land "for example the Golan heights" ought to remain Israel's, as a way of reparation, or punishment if you prefer.

Anyway, the unfortunate fact of the palestinian matter is that even if both governments agreed to stay in respective areas, the people never would. violence would still occur and people would still be killed.

Enough of that though.

To get this thread back on track and about Israel keeping their nukes, does anyone think that without the bomb, israel's enemies wouldnt have attacked more determinedly? My gut says israel having the bomb helped keep a lot of peace.

[Skybird]

My gut says israel having the bomb helped keep a lot of peace.
Yes. More so than nukes in Europe prevented war between NATO and the WP. and this although Israel unilaterally owned nukes and could have attacked outside it's boundaries, fearing no nuclear retaliation. They didn't. Like they also do not fire missles and bombs intentionally into crowds of people and do not intentionally select civilians ar targets - different to their opponents in Gaza and Lebanon who do all this, and even abuse their own civilians to hide, and provoke their death for scoring in the propaganda-war.

And such people (the latter) should be allowed to move around free and alive, or their patron should be allowed to gain access to nukes? No way.

[August]

what would be their other options?

Trying to go the diplomatic route never works, since the U.S. always sides with Baby Israel in those mid-east and UN talks.:roll:

Well duh. Do we side with the western style democracy that has rule of law or do we side with a people whose only rule is that of the gun and the suicide bomber?

You want other options? How about the Palestinians stop strapping explosives to their kids chests and get their own house in order first? Show the world they're ready for the statehood they demand.

[P_Funk]

I wonder why the Palestinians haven't taken any of Ghandi's lessons to heart..

Peaceful protest worked there against a power who was actually occupying the land.

Why not try that, a mass, silent sitdown protest? no violent response if israel turned tough, and suddenly israel would look terrible, and Palestinians get their international support.


Oh i forget, the Palestinians don't want to coexist, they want complete and utter control of the land and love killing israelis to try and get it. Right now Burma is in the news. The leader of the nation, not allowed to actually reign, is Aung Sang Suu Kyi, and she preaches total non-violence. The country has been a military dictatorship since 1962. Non-violence is sure getting them somewhere. Same with Tibet.

That isn't to say that I support terrorism or don't support pascifism, but you make it sound as if non-violence is the secret weapon against oppression. Its an awfully facile supposition on your part.

Simplistically the way i see it is that Because israel is so small it can be overrun so easily. By trying to expand a bit, they give themselves a bit of a buffer. negligible ammount, but when you have so little land, every bit helps.
You know, in the early days Rome always fought defensive wars. Their expansion was a defensive one. They called the wars with carthage Punic because they didn't take Carthage but weakened it. But lo and behold eventually it turned into an imperial expansion.

Yes Israel has a right to defend itself, yes it has done many things in its own self-interest. Does that mean that because they were against the wall in 1948 that after all this time there can't be a corruption? Israel is the ultimate power in the region. Never has a nation had such influence and not stepped over the line dividing pure self defense and greedy expansionism, even if just a little or a lot.

EDIT @ August.
You dismiss the nuances of both cases. Western Democracy has committed and supported many crimes which match the description you give of the alleged Palestinian way. Many of these are still remembered by people in this region. I don't think they believe that if they all turned into a bunch of GOP imitators that they'd be treated any better. That and I ask, what right do we have to impose the standards of our own society on them? We were robbing them of their sovereignty long before the word "suicide bomber" entered the vernacular.

[baggygreen]

I see what you're getting at with Burma p_funk. But burma has a disgusting amount of restrictions on media. in the palestinian situation, there is nowhere near the same level of restrictions.

What i was trying to get at was that the peaceful option may well be the way to go for the palestinians. If they were to stop any offensice actions at all against Israel, completely, and simply have sit-ins and so on, if israel were to do something about it the media would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. In burma there isnt an international media presence worth mentioning, not so in Israel. hence my point that a peaceful path might work out to be better than what they're doing at the moment.

You ought to have included my next sentence after the 2nd quote of mine though, where i said that i dont advocate it but i imagine it is their thought process.

Im curious though, you omitted a response for my last question which was to do with the original topic, has israel's bomb kept the peace better than if they didnt have it?

[Letum]

In some instances, israel captured land in successful defensive campaigns __________________

[August]

@ August.
You dismiss the nuances of both cases. Western Democracy has committed and supported many crimes which match the description you give of the alleged Palestinian way. Many of these are still remembered by people in this region. I don't think they believe that if they all turned into a bunch of GOP imitators that they'd be treated any better. That and I ask, what right do we have to impose the standards of our own society on them? We were robbing them of their sovereignty long before the word "suicide bomber" entered the vernacular.

I'm not talking about us imposing standards on them, i'm talking about them actually having some standards of their own that doesn't involve the thuggery they seem so taken with.

[caspofungin]

I'm not talking about us imposing standards on them, i'm talking about them actually having some standards of their own that doesn't involve the thuggery they seem so taken with.

you mean something like having free, fair elections, monitored by the U.N., the kind of democracy that's rare in the middle east? well they did, but no one seemed to like their choice. and the resultant sanctions can only be seen from their perspective as punitive.

so what message does that send? you're free to choose your leadership, as long as it's someone we like?

[August]

you mean something like having free, fair elections, monitored by the U.N., the kind of democracy that's rare in the middle east? well they did, but no one seemed to like their choice. and the resultant sanctions can only be seen from their perspective as punitive.

so what message does that send? you're free to choose your leadership, as long as it's someone we like?

Well I didn't say anything about elections, I was talking about their actions, but basicly the answer to your question is yes, regardless of how a regime comes to power. For example, hitler and the nazis were elected. Are you trying to say that this should have made them any more palatable to the rest of the world?

More to the point at hand should the rest of the world be forced to continue to support such a regime financially regardless of their actions? That's what you mean by sanctions you know.

[P_Funk]

I see what you're getting at with Burma p_funk. But burma has a disgusting amount of restrictions on media. in the palestinian situation, there is nowhere near the same level of restrictions.

What i was trying to get at was that the peaceful option may well be the way to go for the palestinians. If they were to stop any offensice actions at all against Israel, completely, and simply have sit-ins and so on, if israel were to do something about it the media would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. In burma there isnt an international media presence worth mentioning, not so in Israel. hence my point that a peaceful path might work out to be better than what they're doing at the moment.

You ought to have included my next sentence after the 2nd quote of mine though, where i said that i dont advocate it but i imagine it is their thought process.

Im curious though, you omitted a response for my last question which was to do with the original topic, has israel's bomb kept the peace better than if they didnt have it? Well the thing is that for a good long while recently Hamas ceased all attacks on Israel. This was their concession. But still Israel refused to deal next demanding that Hamas recognize Israel as a sovereign state. That of course was calculated with the konwledge that it would derail this process. Peace after this much conflict can only be a staged diplomatic process. Asking for everything up front on one end before giving anything back from yours is just intentionally throwing it away.

Its because of things like that that I hold the very strong opinion hat Israel is never going to allow a free unrestricted Palestinian state, regardless of the level of militant activity. Whether this is guised regional Imperialism or corrupt deluded acts of intended self-defense (or both) is not that important. Point is that you ask so much of a people you all dismiss to readily as barbaric. If they are so below our level as humans how can you ever expect them to redeem themselves to a level equal to sainthood in just one generation? Hell! Just one conference!?

This article is a perfect demonstration.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/

Israel wont back down at all. When you're in a cycle of violence like this you can't put the onus on one side, especially the side which feels victimized. Israel is the power broker here and yet they continue to throw their hands up as if they have no power and bombard more Gaza neighbourhoods.

As for the bomb. Well Israel has never needed the bomb really. In the hey day of Israel's struggle for survival when it faced 3 arab nations and their militaries it singlehanded annihilated all of them, without anything more than conventional arms. Has the bomb helped? I don't think it was needed. What I think it has done has encouraged proliferation. Nukes in the middle east controlled by a non-arab state that has a history of warring with them? What self respecting regime would tolorate that? Certainly not the US as it saw the USSR plant missiles on their back step.

EDIT. Well I didn't say anything about elections, I was talking about their actions, but basicly the answer to your question is yes, regardless of how a regime comes to power. For example, hitler and the nazis were elected. Are you trying to say that this should have made them any more palatable to the rest of the world?

More to the point at hand should the rest of the world be forced to continue to support such a regime financially regardless of their actions? That's what you mean by sanctions you know.
That is enforcing your values on them. Basically you're denying the Palestinians democracy because they elected a government that is an enemy of the US. And nobody was interested in invading Germany until Hitler actually did anything evil. However in the case of Hamas winning its election they werent given the opportunity to show they were different. Instead the entirety of Gaza was punished for who they elected, freely and democratically. This is more of the same thinking that caused the Clinton admin to starve the Iraqis because Saddaam was in power... left there by the Americans...

Its irrational. And of course its just going to create more hatred and political currency for the extremists to feed their existance.

[August]

Well the thing is that for a good long while recently Hamas ceased all attacks on Israel. This was their concession. But still Israel refused to deal next demanding that Hamas recognize Israel as a sovereign state.

"A good long while", that is actually only a few months long and doesn't include actions by various smaller radical groups operating from Hamas controlled territory, means nothing more than a momentary lull when taken in context with the decades of vicious guerrilla warfare Palestinian extremists have waged against the Israelis. Besides, wasn't that because Hamas was busy wiping out Fatah at the time?

In any case recognition could hardly be the "next" Israeli demand. It would be an obvious pre-rerequisite to any negotiations. The most basic of principles. You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't believe you have a right to exist.

That is enforcing your values on them. Basically you're denying the Palestinians democracy because they elected a government that is an enemy of the US.

I fail to see how. The US did not stop the Palestinians from electing Hamas, that sounds like democracy in action to me, and as much as the US may have disliked them it was obvious the world community would have kept feedling them money if Hamas had just disavowed their stated mission of destroying Israel.

And nobody was interested in invading Germany until Hitler actually did anything evil. However in the case of Hamas winning its election they werent given the opportunity to show they were different. Instead the entirety of Gaza was punished for who they elected, freely and democratically. This is more of the same thinking that caused the Clinton admin to starve the Iraqis because Saddaam was in power... left there by the Americans...

Cause and effect my friend, please don't confuse them. What has Hamas done to advance the peace process since they've been in power? They rubbed out their main competitors in Fatah, they've pointedly refused to even entertain the idea that the Jews might have a right to their own homeland and that peace between the two peoples is possible, and what else? A temporary hold on open attacks? Sorry, it's obviously going to take more than that.

As for Iraqi sanctions, that, just like leaving Saddam in power, was more a decision of the UN than the US. I have no doubt at all that Bush senior would have been quite happy to have taken out Saddam back in '91 if he thought he could get away with it politically.

Its irrational. And of course its just going to create more hatred and political currency for the extremists to feed their existance.

If not that it'd just be something else I think.

[Lurchi]

[...]For example, hitler and the nazis were elected. Are you trying to say that this should have made them any more palatable to the rest of the world?[...]

:roll:
No thread without (wrong) Nazi examples, right?

Hitler was never elected - he was given power by aged President v.Hindenburg. It is true that the NSDAP was the strongest party but never ever the absolute majority of german people voted for it.

Even during the last elections on March 5th 1933 when Hitler was already chancellor and used his power to repress and to ban parties he didn't receive more than 44%. His dictatorship was finally "legalized" through the Authorization Law but no german citizen was asked about that anymore.

I am sorry to destroy the simplified picture of an "all-Nazi Germany" even if this logic is so comfortable, easy to propagate and used as argument in discussions ...

[P_Funk]

"A good long while", that is actually only a few months long and doesn't include actions by various smaller radical groups operating from Hamas controlled territory, means nothing more than a momentary lull when taken in context with the decades of vicious guerrilla warfare Palestinian extremists have waged against the Israelis. Besides, wasn't that because Hamas was busy wiping out Fatah at the time?

In any case recognition could hardly be the "next" Israeli demand. It would be an obvious pre-rerequisite to any negotiations. The most basic of principles. You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't believe you have a right to exist. The Cease Fire was more than a year long where no suicide attacks occured as directed by Hamas. Of course they can't speak for every group in area, and how do you expect them to? One bankrupt government must control all the violent parties meanwhile Israel continues to rain bombs down on them? Its madness to assume anyone will ever stop who isn't in the government. And Israel is not so stupid as to believe that they can eliminate every Palestinian attacker by bombarding Gaza. They do it for other reason I believe, that or they dismiss diplomacy and simply seek to maintain the attackers at as low a level as possible. Such behavior however rationalized on their part is going to preclude peaceful settlements.

And you want to look at context, you have a people that ar under the thumb of Israel and they elected a terrorist government. Doesn't that say enough about how angry they are? But still they made a gesture. However small in context to the greater history it cannot be dismissed so easily. So 3 generations fight, what must the 4th do change anything? Sit idle for another 3 generations to equal out the blood shed? The mountain of demands are excessive given the antagonism between these people. Peace is about taking steps.

And Israel should not ask an individual government to recognize them. It is not governments that recognize nations but other nations. Governments do it on the part of the nation. To say that a government must recognize a nation before it can even be allowed to have a say is another political game. Does it matter whether they say it or not? I imagine that just as soon as Hamas might say they agree to Israel's right to exist Israel will say they don't believe them and they're still supporting attacks on them.. etc...

That is enforcing your values on them. Basically you're denying the Palestinians democracy because they elected a government that is an enemy of the US.
I fail to see how. The US did not stop the Palestinians from electing Hamas, that sounds like democracy in action to me, and as much as the US may have disliked them it was obvious the world community would have kept feedling them money if Hamas had just disavowed their stated mission of destroying Israel. It is a careful distinction but nevertheless it in effect punishes Palestine for its democratic decision, however you qualify it, since Palestine is dependant on the West for its ability to practise government.


Cause and effect my friend, please don't confuse them. What has Hamas done to advance the peace process since they've been in power? They rubbed out their main competitors in Fatah, they've pointedly refused to even entertain the idea that the Jews might have a right to their own homeland and that peace between the two peoples is possible, and what else? A temporary hold on open attacks? Sorry, it's obviously going to take more than that. Then I think that Israel is content to get potholes blown in Haifa every few months while they kill a few dozen Palestinians every month slowing the ebb of resistance. The real thing is that Israel has nothing to lose by beginning talks. They have the power, the moral authority, and the US backing. They have proven before to be prone to suddenly changing direction in peace talks yet they refuse to entertain them. Progress is a two way street.

As for Iraqi sanctions, that, just like leaving Saddam in power, was more a decision of the UN than the US. I have no doubt at all that Bush senior would have been quite happy to have taken out Saddam back in '91 if he thought he could get away with it politically. He got away with hiding the Kurdish atrocities from the UN in the lead up to the gulf war as he desperately tried to keep his would be tool as an ally. The US also allowed Saddaam to crush a popular revolution which had started in the wake of the attacks; gave him sanction to command his forces to quell it. The US didn't need to do anything to topple Saddaam. The UN wouldn't have opposed a popular revolution.

As if the US cares what the UN thinks anyway.

[Skybird]

In some instances, israel captured land in successful defensive
campaigns.
No problem. If somebody behaves aggressive and bullies his neighbour, and neighbour becomes angry and
defends and defeats the bully, it is only fair that there is a loss for the bully, as a penalty and
compensation. Wasn't much different with Germany's loss of todays Polish territories in the East. No
german government ever demanded these back, and no german government ever will demand them back (no
matter what the crazy twins raise in opposite claims). They are the price for that Hitler has been there.
I'm not talking about us imposing standards on them, i'm talking about them actually
having some standards of their own that doesn't involve the thuggery they seem so taken
with.
Totally agree. However, I also must point out that especially the example of Iran ten years ago
shows that the official policy of the US often is demanding others to become an American styled
democracy "all or nothing at all". So, August's reasonable statement is not really representative
for the American policy-making here. It becomes even worse when questions of pure economical
interests and power are concerned, and here the EU is not a bit better than America. just check
their Africa trade policies, for example, which often do damage to local farmers, for example, that by far exceed the ammount of develeopement aid that is payed to calm our guilty feelings.
you mean something like having free, fair elections, monitored by the U.N., the
kind of democracy that's rare in the middle east? well they did, but no one seemed to like their
choice. and the resultant sanctions can only be seen from their perspective as punitive.
so what message does that send? you're free to choose your leadership, as long as it's someone we
like?
No it means a reference to a most fundamental part of democracy: that voters are responsible for the
choices they make, and that others have the right to hold them responsible for voting for violence,
chaos, corruption, and aggression. If you vote for terrorists, don't be surprised if the world
accuses you of having voted for terrorists.
Well the thing is that for a good long while recently Hamas ceased all attacks on
Israel. This was their concession. But still Israel refused to deal next demanding that Hamas
recognize Israel as a sovereign state. That of course was calculated with the knowledge that it
would derail this process. Peace after this much conflict can only be a staged diplomatic process.
Asking for everything up front on one end before giving anything back from yours is just
intentionally throwing it away.
That is simply opportunistic distortion of facts. Hamas has used the time to massively increase
it's weapons arsenal, with rockets, modern missiles, SAMs and ATGMs, theyx coppy the model of Hezbullah now, and closed their ties with Iran. They (Hezbullah and Hamas) are stronger armed now than before the Lebanon war - and the UN soldiers did nothing to help preventing that, and the blockade mission on sea is an alibi only. what peacekeepers do is sending radio reports about every movement of Israel'S army that tries to compensate the revealed weaknesses from the Lebanon war by having massively increased training levels for all army units. that way, the UN serves as the intel service for Hezbullah, which reads these radio reports and can wonderfully monitor and observe the tatcis the Israelis are training, and thus is being enabled to adapt it's own tactics - with the massive help of UN observers on the ground. thank you for being neutral, dear UN. In no way Hezbullah has given up their political goal to destroy Israel, nor has Hamas. the Israeli demand that first they have to declare they no
longer try to destroy Israel and recognize it as a state is a most reasonable minimum precondtion
for any diplomatic process. Else diplomacy comes down to Israel negotiating the ways of it's own
destruction only.
I restrain myself from commenting anymore on that naivety saying that the Islamic challenge to
subjugate all world can be channelled, controlled, prevented by something like diplomatic talks.
That the world must be Islamic is non-negotiable from Islamic perspective. All world being Islamic
is the Islamic idea of bringing peavce to the world. that is no uneducated propaganda by me, that is
simply the brutal truth.
Its because of things like that that I hold the very strong opinion hat Israel is never going to allow a free unrestricted Palestinian state, regardless of the level of militant activity. Whether this is guised regional Imperialism or corrupt deluded acts of intended self-defense (or both) is not that important. Point is that you ask so much of a people you all dismiss to readily as barbaric. If they are so below our level as humans how can you ever expect them to redeem themselves to a level equal to sainthood in just one generation? Hell! Just one conference!?
As a matter of fact alestinians are not welcomed anywhere in the Arab world, for whereever they appeared in the past decades, they raised trouble, up to the attemtped takeover of Jordan and the black Friday when Hussein had no other chpoice than to militarily crack them down in self-defense. Palestinians have voted for a terror government, Lebanon accepts a terror group sponsored by Iran to participate in governemnt and effectively highjack it, Shia Iran uses the Palestinians as a tool to raise conflict with Sunni Arabia and destabilize the region.
However in the case of Hamas winning its election they werent given the opportunity to show they were different.
Yes. Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel and rejected all demands to give up that demand until today. They intentionally target boimbs and missiles at civilians, trying to kill civilians as the primary goal of their attacks. they accept to see their own civilians getting killed behind which they hide and whose death they provoke to score in the media war. They were different, you say. No, they are not different at all. They are exactly wehat they appear to be: unforgiving hostile enemies, using brutality and deception, murderers, wanting to kill Israel from the map. You do not negotiate with such thugs. You chase, find and kill them, bewfore they kill another school bus of yours.
But still they made a gesture.
Be advised - a thug not all of a sudden turns into a noble man because he in parts is hindered to commit further acts of indiscriminatory murder, in parts is tactically manouvering when stopping further terror plots. There has been no chnage in the nature and selöf-understanding of Hamas. Even now when I type this they reject to give up violance, and they reject Israel's right to exist, and reject to stop trying to annihilate it.
On the bomb thing, since it wa smentioned. Israel took very heva ylosses in the last two of the three wars it had to fight, this is often overseen. They were perfoming better than their enemies, but that does not mean their enemies were incompetent. Israel was close to braking point, and could not have taken it as a given fact that it would be so lucky again in case of a fourth conventional and detemrined attack. After the peace treaty with some it's neigjh bours, it did never reach out for Jordan, Egypt. It never threatened anyone with the bomb. It reserved the right for military action against Syria, (with which it still is at war, btw), and Lebanon, since Lebanon allows to act as a platform for years of attacks against Israelis soil, and a Syrian base. the Palestinian territories also are a platform for constant murderous terrorism. So who has the arrogance to tell the Isrtaelis they have no right to train their weapons against those who fire at their people and kill them year after year after year? Fact is that a two-state deal has been close in the past. Fact is that parts of the corrupt Fatah and the Hamas anyway did not like that. Fact is that the Palestinians accepted first the corruption of Fath, and then the terrorism of Hamas claiming poltical power over Palestinians. Fact is that there already could be a Palestinian state today. Fact is that Palestinians did not considere the compromise as good enough. Fact is that that they wanted it all, and going Israel awqay, after two generation. Fact is that this would mean a new monumental ammount of injustice towards millions of people, this time Israeli ones. Fact is that it was impossible to remove Israel, for it was not willing and would use force to prevent that. Fact is that the Palestinians overplayed their hand. Fact is that they now are being held responsible for the leaders of theirs tjhat they accepted by majority decision. Fact is that that is part of democracy. Fact is that the EU is giving money to a terror organization, knowing that much of that money will be transformed into weapons that get used against Israel. Fact is that europe has no moral responsibility to do that, but should recognize a moral responsibility not to give money to murderers and terrorists representing an ideology that is not only aiming to destroy Israel, but is hostile to all europe, and all non-Muslim mankind.
We have forgotten the lessons of the second world war. It is sometimes said that we often get what we try to avoid. Seen that way, a coward wanting to avoid conflict by appeasement has bad perspectives.
Hairsplitting on governments or nations accepting other nations. What use has that paragraph?
The real thing is that Israel has nothing to lose by beginning talks.
They often did that - and got bombs in return. Sooner or later you learn. You do not negogiate with the assassin who declares he is determined to kill you. Nor do you believe his lies. you simply judge him by his deeds. Palestinians do nothing substantial to get rid of their terror gangs, and huge oarts even still support them. So, not talking but readying your weapon is the reasonable option. You simply do not trust your enemy when he arrives to the talks with an unsafe grenade in his hand. And if you are clever you still do not trust him when he hides a hand behind his back.

[P_Funk]

I restrain myself from commenting anymore on that naivety saying that the Islamic challenge to
subjugate all world can be channelled, controlled, prevented by something like diplomatic talks.
That the world must be Islamic is non-negotiable from Islamic perspective. All world being Islamic
is the Islamic idea of bringing peavce to the world. that is no uneducated propaganda by me, that is
simply the brutal truth. I won't bother commenting on the rest of your post not because I don't respect it but because we've been there before and I don't believe either of us will explore any new ideas there. Unless you REALLY want to.

As for the drive to conquor the world thats where I don't quite follow your lead. There are those that think that Islamic terrorism and the other extremist brands are a representation of all Islam and there are those that believe it is a political movement borne from this and the last century. I'm of the latter and you I would assume from the former. Fundamentally we disagree on this so I don't think that we'll get very far in a discussion of events and ideas which surround this issue since both our opinions are often informed by this basic disagreement.

[Skybird]

There are those that think that Islamic terrorism and the other extremist brands are a representation of all Islam and there are those that believe it is a political movement borne from this and the last century.

Simply referring to Islam's own scriptures and their content, the way they consistently got implemented during history, are used in the same way in our living present, were set to living example by Muhammad himself, and seeing the link between Muhammad's personal goals, and the way he designed his very own private cult to acchieve them - this reveals the true one and only nature and essence of Islam, and it is in congruence with what is written in the Quran, and collected in the Hadith. And there is no other Islam than this one. Any other understanding of Islam is - heresy. Says not me - the Quran says so. Because Muhammad wanted to avoid diversity, and from that: weakness.

Terrorism is only one tool in the arsenal that Quran describes and Islam systematically used since the medieval and until today - but to understand it as the heart and core of the theory of Islam is like thinking that Uboats and Tigers-IVs are representing the theoretical background of Nazism. Arguing on that basis would mean to precisely miss the point - america is doing this currently with it's war on terror, and that is why it is not acchieving anything (it is not fighting the enemy, but his weapons only). But ignoring it would mean to completely misunderstand that it nevertheless is a legitimate tool in the arsenal of Islamic weapons.

Islam is more clever and does it exactly the other way around. It avoids to confront our weapons (in the widest meaning of this term, from constituions over mlitary to public education), and focusses on going directly after changing our nature and and self-understanding. It is extremely successfull in that, and the structural integrity of our cultural and social framework already have been eroded very much much. Terrorism in the main only has the function to distract our attention from these really decisive and dangerous pr0ocesses by which our culture and society slowly but surely gets destroyed as a non-islamic entity.

In a way I admire it. It is the same strategy and unscrupellousness that I would implement when wishing to destroy someone who is stronger than me, and to take over his remains. If you cant kill it from the outside, destroy it from the inside.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The UK and Austrialia are the major spies in America. No one tops them. Isreal is minor by comparrison.

-S


¬_______________________¬


You didnt see me....roight?

[baggygreen]

He's right KP

there was a big article the other day in papers down here, when we bought F/A-18s from the US they didnt tell us how to properly adjust the radar. So we figured it out for ourselves, with a little bit of helping ourselves. Apparently the US watched our progress too, but were very impressed.

[waste gate]

He's right KP

there was a big article the other day in papers down here, when we bought F/A-18s from the US they didnt tell us how to properly adjust the radar. So we figured it out for ourselves, with a little bit of helping ourselves. Apparently the US watched our progress too, but were very impressed.

Feel good about that. When the US pulled out of Iran in 1979 the F-14s were disabled by the US (Grumman) techs.

[baggygreen]

Id never heard that WG.

interesting:hmm:

thanks

[elite_hunter_sh3]

looks like this thread has died down.. after this comment it will be a finished debate or is it :hmm::hmm::p

as i quote a fellow member (not this forum)

"The MSM roundly categorizes WN as white supremacism and every other form of imagined evil, and what with WN supporting a civil libertarian they fail to imagine how it could be so. And I'll explain it to the "guests" reading this thread : we just want to be free. Free of tyranny and the race politics for which we now find ourselves underfoot. We have this relationship in the USA whereby we are economically conscripted to subsidize minorities who don't want to work, sit around and make babies. And as long is there is a tax code that redistributes the fruits of our labor, the problem will perpetuate ad-infinitum. Racial interests groups leverage the power of the government against one another, and the only way to eliminate that dynamic is to cut the purse strings. We'll never have peace in this country as long as the political parties play one group against the other with money at-stake. The other reason is, we don't see the purpose in fighting and dying to resolve non-white problems in foreign countries, which they seem to have a strong aptitude to create, over and over again. Its not our job! If Iraq or Iran want freedom and liberty, let them buck up and seize it for themselves, like we did. Thirdly, the limited purpose of government is to protect liberty, not to steal it, torture people, deny the a right to trial, or assassinate them extralegally. And yes, EVEN WN can agree with this.

The left and the MSM thinks WN are all brain-dead racist and unprincipled morons, and the dilemma here, for them, is whether to begrudgingly re-evaluate what WN is in fact, or whether they can get away with just labelling us as defective thinkers who don't realize whats in our own best interests. If they expose the dilemma to the public, WN is going to get exposure, and thats a good thing. Alot of regular Americans who say "I believe in liberty" are going to figure out "Hey! maybe I'm a WN too?" So I say, let them publish all the crap they want. Anyone who has heard Ron Paul speak knows that his ideas pass muster and are evaluated to be correct, no matter how many times you revisit them. Trying to slander RP is just going to force the conclusion among many Americans that they have more in common with WN than they thought."
what a fellow member said in one thread...

now allow for 2-5 comments on this and please lock thread.. if anyone wants to ask anything.. god invented something called PM...

[Takeda Shingen]

now allow for 2-5 comments on this and please lock thread.. if anyone wants to ask anything.. god invented something called PM...

PM is what you should have done in the first place. You are correct: This thread did die. What you are doing is simple instigation. Furthermore, I am not required to wait for your recommended 2-5 comments. This thread sinks now.

The Management