[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But is still the only nation in the ME who has nuclear weapons.

I am trying to find a point here.

You know in our country, certain people are allowed to have guns to protect themselves, and certain people that have been proven to be dangerous are not.

Saying since Israel has them, Iran should too is an absurd rationalization.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I don't think there will be an "exchange". There will be one side using them and that is the Israeli/US side. As per usual the innocent victims will be the Middle Easterners.

Yes of course. Because Iran would never use nukes on Israel.

You crack me up.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko

A voice of reason. MAD was the only reason why the US and Russia didn't fire their nukes off at each other.

Somehow I just can't believe that vmarks takes Iran's president so seriously.

Mutually Assured Destruction works when both parties want to ensure their survival. Iran's president talking about the end-times should indicate that perhaps he isn't interested in survival in this life. That's where MAD breaks down.

I absolutely take seriously those who publicly declare their aim is to 'remove Israel from the face of the world' - that's genocidal talk, and should not be ignored.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Mutually Assured Destruction works when both parties want to ensure their survival. Iran's president talking about the end-times should indicate that perhaps he isn't interested in survival in this life. That's where MAD breaks down.

I absolutely take seriously those who publicly declare their aim is to 'remove Israel from the face of the world' - that's genocidal talk, and should not be ignored.

Well I got nothing much to say I guess. It must suck to live in fear.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

When I speak about the Zionist Israelis, it isn't prejudiced: Sharon and other speak about them all the time, and about them soon coming to Israel.

It appears that I am correct: Israel's presidents and prime ministers have no fear about bringing about the return of the Zionist Movement. The Zionists are the prophesized redeemers of Israel who will change the land to a perfect Jewish society before the end of times. Bringing about the return of the Kingdom of Zion is associated with the end of times.

So when you call me prejudiced, you need to be sure you're correct. When I call you on speaking about 'Madhi' I am correct. You're misusing the word Madhi and acharit hayamim and applying your prejudice.

Fixed

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Mutually Assured Destruction works when both parties want to ensure their survival. Iran's president talking about the end-times should indicate that perhaps he isn't interested in survival in this life. That's where MAD breaks down.

I absolutely take seriously those who publicly declare their aim is to 'remove Israel from the face of the world' - that's genocidal talk, and should not be ignored.

What's genocidal about it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I absolutely take seriously those who publicly declare their aim is to 'remove Israel from the face of the world' - that's genocidal talk, and should not be ignored ...

by talking about removing Iran from the face of the world

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

by talking about removing Iran from the face of the world

[vmarks]

No one is talking about removing Iran from the face of the world, except von Wrangell and Wiskedjak.

No world leaders are doing so.

But Iran's leader is talking about removing Israel from the face of the world, and talking about bringing death to America.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What's genocidal about it?

I don't understand why you would say that. The statement in itself de facto proof. Iran's leader wants to "wipe" Israel off the map. That is genocidal and I can't believe this is even being debated.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I don't understand why you would say that. The statement in itself de facto proof. Iran's leader wants to "wipe" Israel off the map. That is genocidal and I can't believe this is even being debated.

Again, how is it genocidal? I'd like for you (or vmarks) to describe what's genocidal about it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

vonWrangell parodying vmarks:

When I speak about the Zionist Israelis, it isn't prejudiced: Sharon and other speak about them all the time, and about them soon coming to Israel.

It appears that I am correct: Israel's presidents and prime ministers have no fear about bringing about the return of the Zionist Movement. The Zionists are the prophesized redeemers of Israel who will change the land to a perfect Jewish society before the end of times. Bringing about the return of the Kingdom of Zion is associated with the end of times.

So when you call me prejudiced, you need to be sure you're correct. When I call you on speaking about 'Madhi' I am correct. You're misusing the word Madhi and acharit hayamim and applying your prejudice.

Hi. Zionism is about establishing a country where Jews are safe.

The world has proven time and time again that it cannot consistently do this in other countries.

The zionists are not prophesied.

Israel is not intended to be a perfect Jewish society, but one where Jews live safely with non-Jews.

Israel as a zionist vision has nothing to do with the-end-of-days.

But I am not surprised that everything you have said is incorrect.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I don't understand why you would say that. The statement in itself de facto proof. Iran's leader wants to "wipe" Israel off the map. That is genocidal and I can't believe this is even being debated.

Wiping a country off the face of the map is NOT wiping an entire people off the face of the map. So, political destruction != genocidal destruction. Dig?!? If you want to be taken seriously in a debate you must be factual and logical.

Besides, If Iran were to kill every Israeli it would not kill every Jewish person, just every Israeli. If my memory serves me correct, there are now more Jews living outside of Israel then within Israel.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wiping a country off the face of the map is NOT wiping an entire people off the face of the map. So, political destruction != genocidal destruction. Dig?!? If you want to be taken seriously in a debate you must be factual and logical.

Besides, If Iran were to kill every Israeli it would not kill every Jewish person, just every Israeli. If my memory serves me correct, there are now more Jews living outside of Israel then within Israel.

According to one definition, genocide is:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

[emphasis mine]

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Again, how is it genocidal? I'd like for you (or vmarks) to describe what's genocidal about it.

See my reply to dcmacdaddy, it should be above this one.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

You mean just like you hate muslims and anybody else who isn't a raving Christian fundaMENTAList?

I support the efforts in Iraq to free the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq from oppression and from the tyranny of radical forces who are blowing up innocent Muslims like crazy.

I support the right of the Palestinian people to have a nation of their own. One which exists IN PEACE with Israel as a neighbor.

I believe Iran has the right to generate power for it's own cities, industries and people WITHOUT resorting to methods which allow them the tools they could turn into WMD's, which they have made clear could easily be used to eliminate Israel and attack the USA.

I believe Muslims should have the rights of any other citizen and be held to the same standards of citizenship as any other citizen. And as long as the our



And here's something for you God-mocking idjits to ponder...

If God himself does not compel obedience to His Holy word, how can man be so bold as to attempt such compulsion?

That goes for Christian AND Muslim fundaMENTALists.

The Scriptures invite belief--they do not compel it. Fundamentalists would compel obedience.

I am opposed to such compulsion.

Author and Newsweek Editor, Jon Meacham says of America, "...we're not a Christian nation, we're not entirely a secular state. We're a nation full of Christians. We're a nation with an important secular tradition...we're working (or should be working) in the service of freedom and liberty because that's what got us here..."

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wiping a country off the face of the map is NOT wiping an entire people off the face of the map. So, political destruction != genocidal destruction. Dig?!? If you want to be taken seriously in a debate you must be factual and logical.

Thank you.

Besides, If Iran were to kill every Israeli it would not kill every Jewish person, just every Israeli. If my memory serves me correct, there are now more Jews living outside of Israel then within Israel.

This would still be classified as genocide (if they targeted only Jewish Israelis) as you don't have to be successful in killing off every single individual of the targeted ethnic group to commit a genocide.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

No one is talking about removing Iran from the face of the world, except von Wrangell and Wiskedjak.

No world leaders are doing so.

But Iran's leader is talking about removing Israel from the face of the world, and talking about bringing death to America.

Remember vmarks, in here black is white, and white is black

Originally Posted by placebo1969

According to one definition, genocide is:
[emphasis mine]

Don't bother, they will just ignore it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

See my reply to dcmacdaddy, it should be above this one.

Look at the first paragraph in his post that you quoted.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

See my reply to dcmacdaddy, it should be above this one.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Look at the first paragraph in his post that you quoted.

See my answer, part 2, verse 3, chapter 4, Jackson 5...

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

The zionists are not prophesied.

No? I seem to remember something about the Jews being gathered to Israel again just before the end of days.

Israel is not intended to be a perfect Jewish society, but one where Jews live safely with non-Jews.

Then why commit an ethnic cleansing to do that?

Israel as a zionist vision has nothing to do with the-end-of-days.

Really? So Judaism doesn't say anything about gathering the scattered Jewish exiles to geographic Israel?

You sir, are a bad liar.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

See my answer, part 2, verse 3, chapter 4, Jackson 5...

Doesn't surprise me at all that people like yourself can't answer a simple question. Wanna give it a shot again?

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Look at the first paragraph in his post that you quoted.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wiping a country off the face of the map is NOT wiping an entire people off the face of the map. So, political destruction != genocidal destruction. Dig?!? If you want to be taken seriously in a debate you must be factual and logical.

By "!=" (at least on my computer at work) he means "not equal", no?

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Okay, I looked at the first paragrah of what dcmacdaddy wrote. I still don't see how wiping a country off the mapp is not genocide. (Sorry for the double negative.)

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

By "!=" (at least on my computer at work) he means "not equal", no?



Okay, I looked at the first paragrah of what dcmacdaddy wrote. I still don't see how wiping a country off the mapp is not genocide. (Sorry for the double negative.)

OK, draw up (with a pencil) Israel and it's neighbours.



Done?


I'll wait.



OK? Good.

Now get an eraser and erase Israel from the map.


Have you just committed a genocide?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wiping a country off the face of the map is NOT wiping an entire people off the face of the map. So, political destruction != genocidal destruction. Dig?!? If you want to be taken seriously in a debate you must be factual and logical.

Besides, If Iran were to kill every Israeli it would not kill every Jewish person, just every Israeli. If my memory serves me correct, there are now more Jews living outside of Israel then within Israel.

It is difficult at this time to just come out and say: Iran should carry out nuclear genocide against the Jews of Israel. The time is not right for that sort of sentiment to be acceptable yet.

But the ground can be prepared for that by sort of inching up on it.

As a preliminary step, the "wipe Israel off the map" effort desensitizes people to the idea of politicide, the elimination of the Jewish state.

Once that becomes acceptable and a legitimate position to hold, there will be less opposition to the idea of actually implementing that eradication of Israel.

Here's a little thought-experiment: imagine the situation reversed, as far as calling for the elimination of established rights of a group of people. But change the identity of the target group.

The key objection of the "erase Israel" people is basically an objection to the right of Jews to defend themselves. The existence of the state of Israel provides the realization of that right of Jews to defend themselves. To call for ending the existence of Israel is first and foremost a call for Jews not to have the right of self-defense.

I would suggest to those who do not see anything out of order in such a call from a world leader to imagine what would happen if someone made a declaration seeking to cancel some other group's rights. For example, suppose that the following statement appeared:

End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now.

It would be a call to curtail the rights of Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is a call to curtail the right of Jews to self-defense.

It would be biased against Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is biased against Jews.

It would arouse fierce protests and threats and a huge outcry, the very opposite of the acceptance that people have for the call to eradicate the existence of Israel.

What would happen to the "freedom of speech" argument? It would be drowned out by statements that a "End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now" statement is hostile to Muslims (it is, just as the "wipe Israel off the map" statement is hostile to Jews), that it is provocative (it is, just as the erase Israel statement is provocative), and so on. Freedom of speech? Don't bet on it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration to the US. But I propose this thought-experiment to illustrate the double standard that is going to prevail.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

No? I seem to remember something about the Jews being gathered to Israel again just before the end of days.

That's a Christian end-times belief and a Jewish belief that the Kingdom of Israel will be reborn when the Messiah comes, but not a zionist belief. You claimed that it was. You were wrong.

Then why commit an ethnic cleansing to do that?

zionism did not proscribe or commit an ethnic cleansing. Had it done so, why are there druze, arabs, bedouin, christians, ba'hai living happily in Israel? What it did do was fight wars that were launched against them.

Really? So Judaism doesn't say anything about gathering the scattered Jewish exiles to geographic Israel?

You sir, are a bad liar.

You sir, are confusing Judaism and zionism. Zionism is in its origins a pretty socialist philosophy. Look at all the kibbutzim. It was created by secular Jews, not religious ones. They had no belief in end-times or re-establishing the Kingdom of Israel, instead they worked to create a safe haven for Jews as a democracy, not a monarchy.

But now we know when you say you don't hate jews, just zionists, that you mean the same thing, because you've confused the two so thoroughly here.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I absolutely take seriously those who publicly declare their aim is to 'remove Israel from the face of the world' - that's genocidal talk, and should not be ignored.

What he really meant:

It is difficult at this time to just come out and say: Iran should carry out nuclear genocide against the Jews of Israel. The time is not right for that sort of sentiment to be acceptable yet.

But the ground can be prepared for that by sort of inching up on it.

As a preliminary step, the "wipe Israel off the map" effort desensitizes people to the idea of politicide, the elimination of the Jewish state.

Once that becomes acceptable and a legitimate position to hold, there will be less opposition to the idea of actually implementing that eradication of Israel.

Here's a little thought-experiment: imagine the situation reversed, as far as calling for the elimination of established rights of a group of people. But change the identity of the target group.

The key objection of the "erase Israel" people is basically an objection to the right of Jews to defend themselves. The existence of the state of Israel provides the realization of that right of Jews to defend themselves. To call for ending the existence of Israel is first and foremost a call for Jews not to have the right of self-defense.

I would suggest to those who do not see anything out of order in such a call from a world leader to imagine what would happen if someone made a declaration seeking to cancel some other group's rights. For example, suppose that the following statement appeared:

End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now.

It would be a call to curtail the rights of Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is a call to curtail the right of Jews to self-defense.

It would be biased against Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is biased against Jews.

It would arouse fierce protests and threats and a huge outcry, the very opposite of the acceptance that people have for the call to eradicate the existence of Israel.

What would happen to the "freedom of speech" argument? It would be drowned out by statements that a "End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now" statement is hostile to Muslims (it is, just as the "wipe Israel off the map" statement is hostile to Jews), that it is provocative (it is, just as the erase Israel statement is provocative), and so on. Freedom of speech? Don't bet on it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration to the US. But I propose this thought-experiment to illustrate the double standard that is going to prevail.

A few points though:

Here's a little thought-experiment: imagine the situation reversed, as far as calling for the elimination of established rights of a group of people. But change the identity of the target group.

Like the rights Israel has taken away from the Palestinians? Where's your outrage to that? Oh, sorry. I forgot. You support the ethnic cleansing committed by Israel (I almost wrote your nation, but then you don't live in Israel) against the Palestinians.

End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now.

It would be a call to curtail the rights of Muslims,

I'd actually like you to do this. It would bring an end to your society corrupting more Muslims.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration to the US.

It was just the first thing that came to mind wasn't it.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by PacHead

So, it means they will have to be bombed.

You might be one of the biggest asshats on these boards, but this actually made me LOL! Thanks

[Rumor]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

It is difficult at this time to just come out and say: Iran should carry out nuclear genocide against the Jews of Israel. The time is not right for that sort of sentiment to be acceptable yet.

What I want is for Iran to try and eliminate the Jews in Israel so that Israel will be forced to go nuclear in their retaliation. Then, all the other ME countries will jump in on Israel and it will be a complete free-for-all of violence and destruction in the Middle East. Hopefully, the only people left living at the end will be those who aren't willing to fight to the death over a bunch of scrubby desert and will be willing to *really* work for peace with their neighbors.

[Kevin]

Only one side wants to "fight to the death" only one side is showing any interest in negotiating or peace.

And it's not the Palestinians (Jordanians)

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What he really meant:




A few points though:


Like the rights Israel has taken away from the Palestinians? Where's your outrage to that? Oh, sorry. I forgot. You support the ethnic cleansing committed by Israel (I almost wrote your nation, but then you don't live in Israel) against the Palestinians.

There were no Palestinians when Israel was formed, just arabs who considered themselves southern Syrians, and they made war against the Jews, including those who had been there for centuries, not just zionists. No one was ethnically cleansed, and you haven't explained how they could have been with their continued existence in Israel.

I'd actually like you to do this. It would bring an end to your society corrupting more Muslims.

Our society does not corrupt Muslims intentionally. (If we do, I missed the meeting to sit around and discuss how to corrupt just the Muslims.)

If Muslims are corrupted by a Western society, then don't blame the society, blame the Muslims for not resisting. By blaming society instead of the people responsible, you're rendering them as if they were children, not adults with free will.

It was just the first thing that came to mind wasn't it.

It was intended to get your attention. I could contrive no other situation that effectively used religion equivalently and would be meaningful to you personally. Substituting former air force personnel from scandinavian countries with the name Logic just doesn't set up an equivalent situation.

[Kevin]

Yes tit was the west's fault for making those terrorists in the US go to strip bars.

I mean they couldn't help themselves!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Our society does not corrupt Muslims intentionally. (If we do, I missed the meeting to sit around and discuss how to corrupt just the Muslims.)

It was listed in the monthly newsletter. Check page 3, item 7 titled 12 Ways to Corrupt a Muslim in the US.

[Kevin]

The extremists need to stop blaming The West™ and put the blame were it belongs.

Vagnetic wavs.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I completely agree with vmarks on this. No one in the middle east should have hidden nuclear weapons.

I don't think you mean that! Otherwise, you'd be saying you support Israel's being repeatedly attacked by it's hostile neighbors, those who are sworn (as Iran's president said) to wipe Israel off the map.

It is only the threat of wmd's that keeps those neighbors snarling, but in check.

Without that threat there would have certainly been more bloodshed.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What I want is for Iran to try and eliminate the Jeww in Israel so that Israel will be forced to nuclear in their retaliation. Then, all the other ME countries will jump in on Israel and it will be a complete free-for-all of violence and destruction in the Middle East. Hopefully, the only people left living at the end will be those who aren't willing to fight to the death over a bunch of scrubby desert and will be willing to *really* work for peace with their neighbors.

Hahahaha! You think YOU are safe????



You have a fine comedic sense!

[abe]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Our society does not corrupt Muslims intentionally. (If we do, I missed the meeting to sit around and discuss how to corrupt just the Muslims.)

If Muslims are corrupted by a Western society, then don't blame the society, blame the Muslims for not resisting. By blaming society instead of the people responsible, you're rendering them as if they were children, not adults with free will.

That's where radical Islam begins to look like radical Christianity.

If God himself does not compel obedience how can man be so bold as to attempt to do so?

VW, you guys want to make it EASIER for yourselves by reducing temptation and compelling EVERYONE to believe and be bound by the same rules so no one will face temptations that are too great, lest they succumb to them.

THAT is the ULTIMATE example of the liberal mindset!

Control everyone. Make everybody do as YOU say. It will be better that way. YOU know what's best for everyone.

[abe]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What he really meant:
It is difficult at this time to just come out and say: Iran should carry out nuclear genocide against the Jews of Israel. The time is not right for that sort of sentiment to be acceptable yet.

But the ground can be prepared for that by sort of inching up on it.

As a preliminary step, the "wipe Israel off the map" effort desensitizes people to the idea of politicide, the elimination of the Jewish state.

Once that becomes acceptable and a legitimate position to hold, there will be less opposition to the idea of actually implementing that eradication of Israel.

Here's a little thought-experiment: imagine the situation reversed, as far as calling for the elimination of established rights of a group of people. But change the identity of the target group.

The key objection of the "erase Israel" people is basically an objection to the right of Jews to defend themselves. The existence of the state of Israel provides the realization of that right of Jews to defend themselves. To call for ending the existence of Israel is first and foremost a call for Jews not to have the right of self-defense.

I would suggest to those who do not see anything out of order in such a call from a world leader to imagine what would happen if someone made a declaration seeking to cancel some other group's rights. For example, suppose that the following statement appeared:

End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now.

It would be a call to curtail the rights of Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is a call to curtail the right of Jews to self-defense.

It would be biased against Muslims, just as the call to end Israel's existence is biased against Jews.

It would arouse fierce protests and threats and a huge outcry, the very opposite of the acceptance that people have for the call to eradicate the existence of Israel.

What would happen to the "freedom of speech" argument? It would be drowned out by statements that a "End Muslim Immigration to the US, Now" statement is hostile to Muslims (it is, just as the "wipe Israel off the map" statement is hostile to Jews), that it is provocative (it is, just as the erase Israel statement is provocative), and so on. Freedom of speech? Don't bet on it.

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration to the US. But I propose this thought-experiment to illustrate the double standard that is going to prevail.

Islam is different than Christianity or Judaism, for example, in many respects. Thus, it must be considered differently than other religions when it comes to admitting or denying immigration.

There are several things about Islam that make it different than other religions. Maybe the greatest difference is that Islam, by nature, threatens those who are not Islamic. If you are a believer you may conveniently ignore some of the ominous or lethal aspects of the religion or the tradition of Islam. But anyone who becomes a serious student will have to come back to these points and the only option for those who are serious about their faith or who wish to become serious is to submit to it's teachings and instructions.

As Charles Huntington wrote, "Islam has bloody borders." It is commanded that true believers spread the reach of Islam to every corner of the world (including Israel) and where the true believers meet with resistance they use any means necessary to obey the Holy teachings.

That is the source and reason for much, if not most, of the world's violence right now.

Where Christianity and Judaism can peacefully co-exist with any culture or religious group, Islam must conquer.

And so Islam is different in nature than other faiths and considering the matter of it's believers can not be done in the same manner as might be done with those of other religions.

If the followers of islam abide by their Holy teachings and instructions they will seek, by every means available to them, to eventually conquer, take over, defeat, dominate, rule over every non-Islamic government on Earth.

No other homogenous ethnic or religious group can be said to represent this same disruptive potential.

And there is no serious talk of altering the Koran to reflect a philosophy less threatening to it's non-Islamic neighbors. And because of these reasons Islam and it's followers, whether they be sweet and peaceful old couples, to young families brimming with youth and hope and wanting to get their fair share of the American Dream, must be seen differently than peoples of other religions.

And what about the idea of having so many Muslims in the US that one day a vote is taken and a Muslim President is elected?

It COULD happen, conceivably.

And the only problem with that is that when the very first effort by the President was made to allow Sharia to usurp the Constitution and to make the USA a Sharia ruled Muslim nation, civil war would break out.

So, the idea of treating all immigrants the same is an idea the government has NEVER held and one that some of you will have to twist and squirm to reconcile.

Muslims, as a group, aren't the same as believers of other religions. If they were there would be no point for Cartoon Riots.

What's happened in France is a lesson.

What happened in the Balkans is a lesson.

What happened in Algeria is a lesson.

What's happening in the UK is a lesson.

What's happening in Iraq is a lesson.

What's happened in Israel is a lesson.

The Cartoon Riots have been a lesson.

What happened in Afghanistan is a lesson.

BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED, BLOODSHED.

Say it's not true.

If that doesn't move you, consider this:

You love your mother. You'd do ANYTHING for your mother. You want her to be happy and healthy and free. You'd do whatever was necessary to protect her from harm and keep her safe.

But do you want her to move in to live with you??? Yes? Fine.

So what do you do when she takes over YOUR kitchen and makes you watch HER TV shows?

What if talking to her does no good and buying another TV shouldn't be necessary?

It's YOUR home.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abe

I don't think you mean that! Otherwise, you'd be saying you support Israel's being repeatedly attacked by it's hostile neighbors, those who are sworn (as Iran's president said) to wipe Israel off the map.

It is only the threat of wmd's that keeps those neighbors snarling, but in check.

Without that threat there would have certainly been more bloodshed.

I said I don't think anyone in the middle east should have hidden nuclear weapons. Israel is welcome to have them. I would just like to see Israel come clean about it status as a nuclear power.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I said I don't think anyone in the middle east should have hidden nuclear weapons. Israel is welcome to have them. I would just like to see Israel come clean about it status as a nuclear power.

Why come clean?

[abe]

April 05, 2006

ARE YOU READY FOR HIZBOLLAH'S PREEMPTIVE TERROR?

Walid Phares

In an article titled “Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism” in the Washington Post, journalist Dana Priest says “U.S. Experts wary of Military Action over Nuclear Program.” The gist of the piece is clear: If –or when the US- will engage in military activities against the Iranian regime over the nuclear crisis, one has to expect that Tehran would use its assets to respond against US targets in the region and beyond. The article goes on to explain the mechanisms of this equation.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the...u_ready_f.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

OK, draw up (with a pencil) Israel and it's neighbours.

Done?

I'll wait.

OK? Good.

Now get an eraser and erase Israel from the map.

Have you just committed a genocide?

Wow, that was the stupidest post I have read in this thread.

Wiping Israel off the map has nothing to do with erasers. But more to do with murdering everyone on that land.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks

There were no Palestinians when Israel was formed, just arabs who considered themselves southern Syrians, and they made war against the Jews, including those who had been there for centuries, not just zionists. No one was ethnically cleansed, and you haven't explained how they could have been with their continued existence in Israel.


Our society does not corrupt Muslims intentionally. (If we do, I missed the meeting to sit around and discuss how to corrupt just the Muslims.)

If Muslims are corrupted by a Western society, then don't blame the society, blame the Muslims for not resisting. By blaming society instead of the people responsible, you're rendering them as if they were children, not adults with free will.

It was intended to get your attention. I could contrive no other situation that effectively used religion equivalently and would be meaningful to you personally. Substituting former air force personnel from scandinavian countries with the name Logic just doesn't set up an equivalent situation.

When I visited South Africa in the early nineties I found people who had the same attitude as yours - they even made the same logical arguments. Its always the extreme views which take the longest to moderdate. But if a country like SA can sort out the race issues they had (though they have a long way to go) , surely Israel can do it, though it looks like it may take a few more decades of bloodshed at this rate.

[Kevin]

Israel has race issues?

[mania]

I know I kid alot here and sometimes take opposing sides depending on my mood, but I wish von, vmarks, kevin, etc could join me for a beer and just get along (but then that would be againsts someones religion). if more religions would allow beer the world would undoubtably get along much better.

[Kevin]

I drink a beer with a meal every once in awhile.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abe

Why come clean?

For the same reasons the US wants every other nuclear weaponed country to enter into nuclear weapons agreements; so that the use and proliferation of it's nuclear weapons technology can be monitored.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Nicko

When I visited South Africa in the early nineties I found people who had the same attitude as yours - they even made the same logical arguments. Its always the extreme views which take the longest to moderdate. But if a country like SA can sort out the race issues they had (though they have a long way to go) , surely Israel can do it, though it looks like it may take a few more decades of bloodshed at this rate.

Yeah but the difference is that South Africans had come to realise that they could fight forever without either side winning. Israel still thinks that it can beat the Palestinians and the Arabs into submission.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

There were no Palestinians when Israel was formed, just arabs who considered themselves southern Syrians, and they made war against the Jews, including those who had been there for centuries, not just zionists. No one was ethnically cleansed, and you haven't explained how they could have been with their continued existence in Israel.

There were no Israelis when Israel was formed. Just Europeans who considered themselves Jewish.

Lets look at Jabotinsky said:

[The Arabs] look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.

Or what Ahad Ha'am said:
From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.

It doesn't matter to what nation they "belonged". They lived in the area you today call Israel and were forced away from there by force and threats by the people who today call themselves Israelis.

As for why they are still in Israel. Are you claiming the Nazis didn't perform a genocide and ethnic cleansing?

You'd fit right in with your ideological brothers of Slobo and Hitler. Congratulations.

It was intended to get your attention. I could contrive no other situation that effectively used religion equivalently and would be meaningful to you personally. Substituting former air force personnel from scandinavian countries with the name Logic just doesn't set up an equivalent situation.

Well, I know it's kinda difficult for you to understand but by posting here I'm already showing attention. But nice try.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Nicko

When I visited South Africa in the early nineties I found people who had the same attitude as yours - they even made the same logical arguments. Its always the extreme views which take the longest to moderdate. But if a country like SA can sort out the race issues they had (though they have a long way to go) , surely Israel can do it, though it looks like it may take a few more decades of bloodshed at this rate.

Indeed. We even have vmarks on this forum who claimed the following is a great offer to the Palestinians:

Map of Future Palestine

and even after I pointed out that it is the following all over:

Bantustants