[zen jihad]

Quote: "Israel threatened Thursday to boycott an international conference on a nuclear-free Middle East sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, if a resolution branding Israel a nuclear threat is not removed from the agenda."

Now, this is the ame nation that is whispering in the ears of Bush to go bomb Iran on the notion thatr it has WMDs. The same hypocritical nation that is stirring up the trouble in the Mid-East on this very issue. This nation that daers to influence foreign countries intelligence to further it;s own agenda.

How blatant does this get? Not only does Israel wants its neighbours pacified via US intervention (of course, Israel has just taken stock of lovely new US made bunker buster bombs). A nation that dares to tell us that it's ok for them to have a nuclear detterent, but Muslim countris can't.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/480927.html

[macvillage.net]

Didn't Saddam do something similar several years back, claiming it had an agenda against Iraq and it's WMD program?

Same Sh*t, different ass

[Shaddim]

Israel has had nukes for 30 years, and has proven that they are responsible in safekeeping them. End of discussion.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Israel has had nukes for 30 years, and has proven that they are responsible in safekeeping them. End of discussion.

So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

You can't even trust ME nations with airplanes much less nuclear weapons.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

Because they aren't the ones who are the #1 source of terrorist activities in the world, Arabs are.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because they aren't the ones who are the #1 source of terrorist activities in the world, Arabs are.

So, what has Iran done lately that would be called terrorism?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

Whatever else can be said about the source of Israel's military might, the nukes are one thing which cannot be blamed in the US. Israel got its nukes from -and the irony of this is absolutely delicious- France.

It was wrong for France to give nuclear weapons to an extremely young and still-unstable nation. Nevertheless, France gambled and won: Israel has, in fact, kept their weapons responsibly. Just because the dice came up on point once, however, does not mean they should be rolled again.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

Same reason I don't walk down the street advertising the heat that I'm packing.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Whatever else can be said about the source of Israel's military might, the nukes are one thing which cannot be blamed in the US. Israel got its nukes from -and the irony of this is absolutely delicious- France.

It was wrong for France to give nuclear weapons to an extremely young and still-unstable nation. Nevertheless, France gambled and won: Israel has, in fact, kept their weapons responsibly. Just because the dice came up on point once, however, does not mean they should be rolled again.

But the problem is that as long as Israel has them everyone that is on their "list of enemies" will try to develop/buy one. It will always be that way. So unless Israel promises to get rid of their own it is just as good to allow others to develop their own as long as it is monitored by international observers.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
So, what has Iran done lately that would be called terrorism?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

And Millennium made an excellent point, that I was about to make myself, one extemely lucky move doesn't warrant others.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
But the problem is that as long as Israel has them everyone that is on their "list of enemies" will try to develop/buy one. It will always be that way. So unless Israel promises to get rid of their own it is just as good to allow others to develop their own as long as it is monitored by international observers.

Yes, and we all know how effective those international observers are...

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

And Millennium made an excellent point, that I was about to make myself, one extemely lucky move doesn't warrant others.

1. Did you miss this part of the article?

U.S. intelligence officials emphasize they have no evidence that the Iranian government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 plot and,

2. Did you see all the other nations that were mentioned but no one has said should be attacked?

All of the hijackers came into the US and lived there for a while before completing the terrorist attack. Does that mean you don't trust the US government with WMD's?

One word comes to mind: thin.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, and we all know how effective those international observers are...

Well it seems like they were more effective and correct than the US "intelligence" agencies when it came to Iraq....

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
But the problem is that as long as Israel has them everyone that is on their "list of enemies" will try to develop/buy one. It will always be that way.

Is it right to forcibly deprive them of what is rightfully theirs, simply because of the actions others take?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see any kind of justice in that. I don't think anyone here is going to mistake me for a blind follower of Israel, but in this specific case I'm going to have to side with them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
You can't even trust ME nations with airplanes much less nuclear weapons.

Israel being a ME nation

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

Because then they would have to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Israel has had nukes for 30 years, and has proven that they are responsible in safekeeping them. End of discussion.

actually it just topped 40 years this year. we go the first in 1964. at the projected growth rate of Israels stockpile they should be around 600-800 nuclear weapons currently avaliable to her including neutron bombs, cobalt, and themonuclear weapons (the kind vanunu took picutres of are estimated at 10x the strength of those dropped on japan). but that is a very ruff estimate since no one can really say how many.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Whatever else can be said about the source of Israel's military might, the nukes are one thing which cannot be blamed in the US. Israel got its nukes from -and the irony of this is absolutely delicious- France.

It was wrong for France to give nuclear weapons to an extremely young and still-unstable nation. Nevertheless, France gambled and won: Israel has, in fact, kept their weapons responsibly. Just because the dice came up on point once, however, does not mean they should be rolled again.

They may have started us off with Dimona and the first weapons I dont remmber exactly however the materials needed to produce the weapons here are generally bought from the US of A

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
So why do they not admit they have nukes? And why not allow the other M.E. nations to have them for 30 years and see if they are responsible enough to have them?

From what I understand the Israeli's entrusted the Palestinian Police force with small arms sufficient to do the job of policing it's new territory and what happened???

I wouldn't trust the ME nations with even an AIRPLANE!

We see what they do with commercial airliners.

And you ask the world to entrust the ME nations with NUKES????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!! !

I am CERTAIN you wrote that as a way to make us all laugh.

LOLOL

Good One, Logic!!!!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
So, what has Iran done lately that would be called terrorism?

They MAY not have done anything LATELY, yet by virtue of their rule by Islamic law they are not to be trusted.

It is the same Islamic rule of law that 'justified' fatwa and jihad (no, not you zen jihad) and kidnappings and the active and tacit support of terrorism against innocents around the world.

Isn't that right?

[PacHead]

You can't trust primitive dictatorial countries who are at least 600 years behind the times with anything, least of all nukes. It's not really that hard of a concept to comprehend.

Any dictatorial craphole getting close to acheiving their nuke dreams should be immediately bombed. Those people are simply not to be trusted, they're sick, insane and evil.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Didn't Saddam do something similar several years back, claiming it had an agenda against Iraq and it's WMD program?

Same Sh*t, different ass

Yup, same shxx different thread.

Didn't SADDAM do something similar several years back, claiming it had an agenda against Iraq and it's WMD program?????

What the heck are you TRYING to say?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You can't trust primitive dictatorial countries who are at least 600 years behind the times with anything, least of all nukes. It's not really that hard of a concept to comprehend.

Any dictatorial craphole getting close to acheiving their nuke dreams should be immediately bombed. Those people are simply not to be trusted, they're sick, insane and evil.

[CreepingDeth]

Another Zen-Jihad anti-ISrael thread. It's like clockwork.
1. Why would you give nuclear weapons to government hostile to the U.S. and E.U.rope?
2. Why would you give it to a government that is known to support terrorist actions?
3. Why would you give nuclear weapons to governments that oppress their women, indoctrinate their kids, kill their civilians, and have a common hatred of freedom?

"Yes Mr. Johnson, you can have a gun. The man who robbed the store has proven trustworthy, so we give you a gun, even though you've committed 3 acts of murder and got off my a lying third party. Here's your rifle, the ammunition, and a get out of jail free card."

In Related News



And hats off to aberdeenwriter, who actually supports a country that has some hostile neighbors. You're almost a foreign policy neocon. Keep up the good work.

[Logic]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Isn't that right?

No.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yup, same shxx different thread.

Didn't SADDAM do something similar several years back, claiming it had an agenda against Iraq and it's WMD program?????

What the heck are you TRYING to say?

Saddam == Sharon.

I'd hate to break it to you, but despite different religions, they have the same political motives. They have similar upbringing, training, backgrounds. Very similar lives. Identical belief system, morals, ethics.

This is just another example of how similar they are. Saddam said all the time that the world was out to get Iraq, and it was all anti-iraq and unjustified actions.

Sharon does the same exact ****.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Another Zen-Jihad anti-ISrael thread. It's like clockwork.
1. Why would you give nuclear weapons to government hostile to the U.S. and E.U.rope?
2. Why would you give it to a government that is known to support terrorist actions?
3. Why would you give nuclear weapons to governments that oppress their women, indoctrinate their kids, kill their civilians, and have a common hatred of freedom?

Who's giving nuclear weapons to anyone?

[Wiskedjak]

I only know of one nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. How it used them didn't seem to be very responsible and resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand civilians.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I only know of one nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. How it used them didn't seem to be very responsible and resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand civilians.

And the saving of many, many more lives.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And the saving of many, many more lives.

Actually historians widely dispute that claim.

There were many reasons pointing to the end for Japan.


Heck US documents and memo's show that part of the push for using the nuke's was simply to see how they would do in warfare. Pure curiosity. Not stratigic.

Strategy was used to justify a decision already made. It wasn't used in the decision making. It was used post drop.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Actually historians widely dispute that claim.

There were many reasons pointing to the end for Japan.


Heck US documents and memo's show that part of the push for using the nuke's was simply to see how they would do in warfare. Pure curiosity. Not stratigic.

Strategy was used to justify a decision already made. It wasn't used in the decision making. It was used post drop.

The fanatical idiots wanted to continue fighting even after bomb #1 was dropped.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Another Zen-Jihad anti-ISrael thread. It's like clockwork.
1. Why would you give nuclear weapons to government hostile to the U.S. and E.U.rope?
2. Why would you give it to a government that is known to support terrorist actions?
3. Why would you give nuclear weapons to governments that oppress their women, indoctrinate their kids, kill their civilians, and have a common hatred of freedom?

"Yes Mr. Johnson, you can have a gun. The man who robbed the store has proven trustworthy, so we give you a gun, even though you've committed 3 acts of murder and got off my a lying third party. Here's your rifle, the ammunition, and a get out of jail free card."

In Related News



And hats off to aberdeenwriter, who actually supports a country that has some hostile neighbors. You're almost a foreign policy neocon. Keep up the good work.

lolol

tyvm!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
No.

Oh?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Actually historians widely dispute that claim.

There were many reasons pointing to the end for Japan.

Heck US documents and memo's show that part of the push for using the nuke's was simply to see how they would do in warfare. Pure curiosity. Not stratigic.

Strategy was used to justify a decision already made. It wasn't used in the decision making. It was used post drop.

Reading this makes me think of the deceased 60 Minutes correspondent, Harry Reasoner.

But in this case it would be more like, "Fuzzy Reasoning."

My ex-girlfriend's Dad was stationed aboard a US navy warship which was heading for Japan to take part in the direct assault and subsequent invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Although I already knew from (grade school) the importance the A-Bombs played in bringing about the Japanese surrender, his statement to me hammered it home.

He said that he and everyone aboard was ecstatic at the news of the surrender because he knew they'd all be able to go home.

MILLIONS more (from combined losses on both sides) would have died in that invasion. Hirohito's Generals literally fought to prevent the Emporer's surrender decree from being recorded and broadcast (there was a movie about this, can't recall the name) to the Japanese people.

Make NO mistake about it, it is an example of peace being achieved through the use of violence.

As for the question of Israel's justification for having nukes:

Saddam Hussein's neighbors NEVER ganged up to defeat him.

Israel is surrounded by countries who, to lesser and greater degrees, want Israel GONE. They have joined forces at least on one occasion to wage war on Israel to make Israel disappear.

It's like Daniel in the Lion's Den. Surrounded by danger and with death possible at any minute. Where God closed the lion's mouths to keep Daniel safe, Israel's possession of nukes gives them an 'equalizer.'

It makes Israel's enemies think twice before invading and helps the Israeli people sleep a little more soundly, knowing the last word in a catastrophic 'gang bang' would be theirs.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The fanatical idiots wanted to continue fighting even after bomb #1 was dropped.

ABSOLUTLEY CORRECT

[Logic]

Of course some people are ready to sacrifice civilians to save the lives of soldiers. Sort of like the terrorists do. Does it surprise me? Absolutely not. I wouldn't sacrifice one civilians life over that of several soldiers. Ever.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
The fanatical idiots wanted to continue fighting even after bomb #1 was dropped.

I'd hate to break it to you, but you need more than a few fanatics.

There are still fanatics who believe that the Nazi forces are still going strong. They parade around, worshop Hitler, and all their sillyness. Can we say that WWII is still going on? Technically the Nazi's are still around. The fanatics are still alive.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Saddam Hussein's neighbors NEVER ganged up to defeat him.

Gulf War I.

May want to look who was supporting. Hint: everyone but Saddam and his party. Support from inside Iraq, and every direction.

Israel is surrounded by countries who, to lesser and greater degrees, want Israel GONE. They have joined forces at least on one occasion to wage war on Israel to make Israel disappear.

It's like Daniel in the Lion's Den. Surrounded by danger and with death possible at any minute. Where God closed the lion's mouths to keep Daniel safe, Israel's possession of nukes gives them an 'equalizer.'

It makes Israel's enemies think twice before invading and helps the Israeli people sleep a little more soundly, knowing the last word in a catastrophic 'gang bang' would be theirs.

Actually... it's not really an equalizer. It's intent is to build tensions.

Pakistan became a nuclear power partially against India, and mainly against Israel. It's a muslim nuclear power. It made it very clear what the intentions were: to protect other muslim nations from Israel. It accelerated development to compete with India. But it's motive wasn't India.

Now the question is who will break the tie? Will one country fire? Or will one country get the upper hand on another type of weapon? Israel has Bio/Chem. Pakistan doesn't. But Israel's testing is somewhat limited on them, so they aren't really usable (yet). Iran is said to have looked at the idea of a dirty bomb. That's got logistical advantages that a missle doesn't have.

That was the goal of the nuclear program. By creating the tensions, it could justify anything it wanted.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Logic:
Of course some people are ready to sacrifice civilians to save the lives of soldiers. Sort of like the terrorists do. Does it surprise me? Absolutely not. I wouldn't sacrifice one civilians life over that of several soldiers. Ever.

Remember PacHeads Rule:

To be a terrorist, you must be muslim.

Otherwise, it's 'war'.

Killing civilians is acceptable, appropriate and moral if your a christian, and (american or consent of american government).

[Logic]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Remember PacHeads Rule:

To be a terrorist, you must be muslim.

Otherwise, it's 'war'.

Killing civilians is acceptable, appropriate and moral if your a christian, and (american or consent of american government).

Yup. The typical right wing hypocrisy and xenophobia.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
1. Did you miss this part of the article?

2. Did you see all the other nations that were mentioned but no one has said should be attacked?

All of the hijackers came into the US and lived there for a while before completing the terrorist attack. Does that mean you don't trust the US government with WMD's?

One word comes to mind: thin.

LOLOL

Logic, I gotta hand it to you. You are smooth. Your statements seem so reasonable that I often go along with them because they often aren't inflammatory (unlike mine lolol).

Your posts often just appear to be so reasonable that one simply goes along with your conclusions without even thinking.

THAT IS SMOOTH!

First of all, the title of that article is: "More Evidence of an Iran-Al Qaeda Connection"

"A top terror operative made a Tehran visit while planning the 9/11 attacks, NEWSWEEK has learned..."

So, are you actually DEFENDING the right of Iran to have nukes or any WMD?

If so, why would they need them? None of the countries with wmd's has used them or even used them to THREATEN Iran!

However, the evidence shows Iran has conspired to attack the US and have continually sought to build a WMD capability.

WHY?

Because the peace loving nation of Iran wants to import it's religous beliefs (through use of force) on the rest of the world?

The US has shown restraint (we could have but didn't threaten or attack Iran and neither has Israel but we both have WMD's) and so has Israel.

Iran has PROVEN itself incapable of such restraint.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And the saving of many, many more lives.

How did dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing several hundred thousand civilians, save "many, many more lives"?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
Of course some people are ready to sacrifice civilians to save the lives of soldiers. Sort of like the terrorists do. Does it surprise me? Absolutely not. I wouldn't sacrifice one civilians life over that of several soldiers. Ever.

Not even in a great Jihad, where some Islamic warriors are in a firefight with the soldiers of freedom and the Muslim guys whip a grenade in the direction of their enemy and accidentally kill some innocent civilians?

[Logic]

First, you really need to stop using lolololol in every post of your if you want any credability.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
So, are you actually DEFENDING the right of Iran to have nukes or any WMD?

If so, why would they need them? None of the countries with wmd's has used them or even used them to THREATEN Iran!

Israel has frequently threatened to attack Iran and has been known to attack other nations in the M.E. Just today they struck in Syria. Therefor I see no problem with Iran trying to get their hands on nukes. MAD would probably be the best "peace-keeper" in the ME at this moment.

However, the evidence shows Iran has conspired to attack the US and have continually sought to build a WMD capability.

Nothing has shown that they want to attack the US. That very article states that no evidence is for any involvement of the Iranian government in 9/11. And of course they they've tried to get their hands on WMD's in the past. The Western supported Iraq used WMD's after getting the co-ordinates and material from the west while attacking Iran.

But has anyone seen any evidence of Iran actually trying to get their hands on nukes? Or do you simply blindly fall into the rhetorical quicksand the US government has been spreading?

And again, if you want any credibility and if you want me to continue replying to you please stop using lolololol and please stop posting rants. I've got better things to do than answer that kind of posts.

[Logic]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Not even in a great Jihad, where some Islamic warriors are in a firefight with the soldiers of freedom and the Muslim guys whip a grenade in the direction of their enemy and accidentally kill some innocent civilians?

No Jihadist would fight the soldiers of freedom because then they would be fighting themselves. And there is a huge difference between consciously targeting civilians and collateral damage even though there really is no such thing as collateral damage.

But to answer your(rather ignorant and skewed) question:

Muhammed(pbuh) once saw a woman that had been killed in a battle. He said: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?" And after that banned Muslims from ever killing innocent civilians.

So there you go.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd hate to break it to you, but you need more than a few fanatics.

There are still fanatics who believe that the Nazi forces are still going strong. They parade around, worshop Hitler, and all their sillyness. Can we say that WWII is still going on? Technically the Nazi's are still around. The fanatics are still alive.

No lives are being lost.


Gulf War I.

May want to look who was supporting. Hint: everyone but Saddam and his party. Support from inside Iraq, and every direction.

May want to look up the reason for Gulf War I. Hint: Saddam's invasion of it's neighbor, Kuwaiit.

Pakistan became a nuclear power partially against India, and mainly against Israel. It's a muslim nuclear power. It made it very clear what the intentions were: to protect other muslim nations from Israel. It accelerated development to compete with India. But it's motive wasn't India.

Oh, but Pakistan had to be persuaded from it's nuclear stand off with India just a few years ago, (capping YEARS of fighting and thousands of lives lost on both sides) because it was concerned with protecting other muslim nations from Israel.

Uh huh.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
No Jihadist would fight the soldiers of freedom because then they would be fighting themselves. And there is a huge difference between consciously targeting civilians and collateral damage even though there really is no such thing as collateral damage.

But to answer your(rather ignorant and skewed) question:

Muhammed(pbuh) once saw a woman that had been killed in a battle. He said: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?" And after that banned Muslims from ever killing innocent civilians.

So there you go.

So, by definition the insurgents and the 9/11 attackers were not Muslim. They started this mess and as we speak are killing innocent muslims as well as 'infidels.'

So why in the world do you SUPPORT their actions if they don't represent the religious beliefs of Islam?

[Logic]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
So, by definition the insurgents and the 9/11 attackers were not Muslim. They started this mess and as we speak are killing innocent muslims as well as 'infidels.'

So why in the world do you SUPPORT their actions if they don't represent the religious beliefs of Islam?

The 9/11 attackers were not Muslims. The rebels in Iraq are. The terrorists(Zarqawi & co) in Iraq are not.

I know that in the binary US of A that might be difficult to understand but in the rest of the world it's very well understood.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Oh, but Pakistan had to be persuaded from it's nuclear stand off with India just a few years ago, (capping YEARS of fighting and thousands of lives lost on both sides) because it was concerned with protecting other muslim nations from Israel.

Uh huh.

Again: the reason for construction, was Israel. The reason is sped up the project, was India.

India created the project because they didn't like the idea of Pakistan having the weapons.


Their fighting is over land... if you nuke it, you loose by definition. Killing people is ok in their case... ruining land is not. Hence the reason nukes weren't a priority until Israel had nukes.

Otherwise they would have looked to develop them much earlier.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
[B]First, you really need to stop using lolololol in every post of your if you want any credability.

Israel has frequently threatened to attack Iran and has been known to attack other nations in the M.E. Just today they struck in Syria. Therefor I see no problem with Iran trying to get their hands on nukes. MAD would probably be the best "peace-keeper" in the ME at this moment.

You have to be kidding if you expect anyone to fall for that out of context, truncated argument! We BOTH know Israel would leave ALL of it's neighbors alone were they not threatening.

Nothing has shown that they want to attack the US.

"The final report of the 9-11 Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Iraq was"

But has anyone seen any evidence of Iran actually trying to get their hands on nukes? Or do you simply blindly fall into the rhetorical quicksand the US government has been spreading?


LOLOLOL

Wasn't there a little Israeli bombing attack some years ago on an Iranian nuclear facility?

Or maybe all this FREEDOM I enjoy is clouding my sense.

And again, if you want any credibility and if you want me to continue replying to you please stop using lolololol and please stop posting rants. I've got better things to do than answer that kind of posts.

Hey, I try to be a happy guy and often succeed at it.

Would it satisfy your Islamic or Talibanic-like need to control the thoughts and expressions of others if I simply used instead?



I'll allow you a graceful pass from the inescapable admission that the Palestinians are being ill-led and their non-leadership has worked against the freedom and self-determination of it's people and has perpetuated violence.

Know what? I believe you enjoy our exchanges as much as I do. You'd miss them as I would. But I don't try to control your expressing yourself in the way you choose. (see, I believe in free speech) So, at the risk of losing a pleasant, intelligent, well-meaning, good hearted person with a Muslim perspective, to chat with...

LOLOLOLOLOLOL



Hope you'll reconsider.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Again: the reason for construction, was Israel. The reason is sped up the project, was India.

India created the project because they didn't like the idea of Pakistan having the weapons.


Their fighting is over land... if you nuke it, you loose by definition. Killing people is ok in their case... ruining land is not. Hence the reason nukes weren't a priority until Israel had nukes.

Otherwise they would have looked to develop them much earlier.

Killing people is ok in their case. Hmmm... Are they also masquerading as Muslims? (Like the 9/11 hijackers who were financed by bin Laden and with the support of the taliban, whose supposed belief is Islam.)

Seems a lot of that is going around. I'd look into it if I were a real Muslim. People committing murder and acts of violence; killing innocent civilians in the name of Allah (pbuh) shouldn't be allowed or supported...in word or deed.

Glad to see you don't support the terrorists.

EDIT: Oh, another thought; isn't the Pakistan/Indian conflict also about religious beliefs?