Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Picking a better place to exist and then when asked why couldnt you pick a better spot to exist, you use the length of time your people were in Lebanon, so I make the same claim. If length of time is what derives our ability to exist in a certain place then we have every right to exist in Israel, as we have had a Jewish population in Israel for longer than any other group extending back thousands upon thousands of years.

[Pareve]

nrhy wrote: the sane voice wrote: nrhy wrote: Quote: ho now its sounds right.more or less.still its very obvious whats its says.
for the record.im a zionist-i will fight anyone who will come to fight me.
i have a right to exist.

couldn´t you have picked a better spot to exist?
no.couldnt you?

we happened to be there for thousands of years...european jews belong in europe.

The Europeans never seemed to think so.

[skinn]

Pareve wrote: nrhy wrote: the sane voice wrote: nrhy wrote: Quote: ho now its sounds right.more or less.still its very obvious whats its says.
for the record.im a zionist-i will fight anyone who will come to fight me.
i have a right to exist.

couldn´t you have picked a better spot to exist?
no.couldnt you?

we happened to be there for thousands of years...european jews belong in europe.

The Europeans never seemed to think so.

jews belong everywhere, every human being has the right to exist anywhere.
but states don't follow the same logic. It's not moral to whipe out an entire population to form your own state.

[Shuya Nanahara]

Venom wrote: How can a writer try to use so many fancy words yet still get it so wrong?
I don’t know but Dan Adleman certainly pulls it off.

The only people living in a bubble are those whom feel that Israel and the United States should just play the game of appeasement to everyone else. Ran into a brick wall of Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously? Wow. This guy is delusional. He also states that Hezbollah defeated Israel's military tactics? That’s pretty funny. Figuring how many years they had to entrench themselves for this attack? Israel did not do poorly from a military standpoint. If he wanted to see the true might of their military Israel could have used the same arrogance and disregard for it's neighbors as Dan seems to believe and leveled the entire country. Now it chose a very light attack in terms of an incursion. The big dirty weapon used by Israel is the cluster bombs... wow.... you'd think that they were some kind of nuclear weapon.

Also the writer refers to Omert as a warmonger. Funny how the military taken by Israel was a retaliation. If I was Bush I'd have the US military in Iran right now and if I was Omert there would be an awful lot of Jews crossing into Syria to show them what military power they do have.

The only thing magical about this article is how the writer believes the United States and Israel should stand idle as the world is raped by terrorists whose goal is to kill Dan himself. That is unless he is totally devoted to Allah himself. Then he may be given a pass.

A complete trash article that presents only more waste to a clouded subject.

that comment shows exactly why we should not take anything you say seriously

[Venom]

Saracen
You say that the quote is in the context of the battle which is against the Jews as it states... maybe you didn't realize that? Also the quote seems pretty racist. If I was like "O Whitey, O Slave of the KKK, here is a black, come and kill him!" wouldn't that make them racist? Yes. Even if it was just for a single battle over a small territory and that didn't care about blacks being any place else..



Also Sacaren Muslims, Jews, and Christians as a whole have different views of Jesus. Just like if I (a Christian) go up to some guy in Iraq and tell him all about how wonderful Jesus is and how he is the Messiah he would laugh and tell me about how he is just merely some prophet and not the son of God that is coming back to this world.

Skinn you say its not moral to wipe out an entire population to form your own state, however you turn around and support those that stand to wipe out Israel. You can't take both stances.

As for Shuya Nanahara, Im glad you add some much to my comment. Way to come from the left, add nothing, and think you said something. If you disagree then state your reasons, if not then keep living in la la land. :lol:

[slitedeviance]

Venom wrote: If I was Bush I'd have the US military in Iran right now and if I was Omert there would be an awful lot of Jews crossing into Syria to show them what military power they do have.

Seriously? That's the best solution you can think of? That's pretty depressing if thinkings heading this way.

Couple of points:

1) Do you actually think in it's current state the US Military could effectively mount an invasion of Iran?

2) How do you think China and Russia would react to this attack on one of their major trading partners?

3) What justification would you use for these attacks under international law? Or would you be in favour of the US "going it alone" and acting unlilaterally on an invasion that was legally questionable?

4) How would the US Economy survive the MASSIVE increase in Gas prices following such an invasion.

5) How would you assess the reaction of the other nations in the ME, and would you think the US has the power to act alone in a war that could easily escalate into a full regional conflict?

[to_frankie]

superskippy wrote: Picking a better place to exist and then when asked why couldnt you pick a better spot to exist, you use the length of time your people were in Lebanon, so I make the same claim. If length of time is what derives our ability to exist in a certain place then we have every right to exist in Israel, as we have had a Jewish population in Israel for longer than any other group extending back thousands upon thousands of years.

Ok, get ready to share that land with heck of a lot of people. Cannonites, Israelis, Assyrians, Arabs, Christians, Greeks. Now obviously there's going to be some displacement to make room for all the biblical owners of Israel but, dont worry we'll find you a tent and access to well. :shock:

[Pareve]

skinn wrote: Pareve wrote: nrhy wrote: the sane voice wrote: nrhy wrote: Quote: ho now its sounds right.more or less.still its very obvious whats its says.
for the record.im a zionist-i will fight anyone who will come to fight me.
i have a right to exist.

couldn´t you have picked a better spot to exist?
no.couldnt you?

we happened to be there for thousands of years...european jews belong in europe.

The Europeans never seemed to think so.

jews belong everywhere, every human being has the right to exist anywhere.
but states don't follow the same logic. It's not moral to whipe out an entire population to form your own state.

You mean, Jews belong everywhere except where you don't want them. That liberal, big picture crap only goes as long as it is convenient for you, apparently.

[Pareve]

to_frankie wrote: superskippy wrote: Picking a better place to exist and then when asked why couldnt you pick a better spot to exist, you use the length of time your people were in Lebanon, so I make the same claim. If length of time is what derives our ability to exist in a certain place then we have every right to exist in Israel, as we have had a Jewish population in Israel for longer than any other group extending back thousands upon thousands of years.

Ok, get ready to share that land with heck of a lot of people. Cannonites, Israelis, Assyrians, Arabs, Christians, Greeks. Now obviously there's going to be some displacement to make room for all the biblical owners of Israel but, dont worry we'll find you a tent and access to well. :shock:

Well, it's a good thing there aren't anymore Assyrians or Canaanites, and the Greeks already have Greece all to themselves. That leaves the groups that area already well established in Israel, and the Christians don't mind sharing because they already have a whole lot of their own countries...

Oh wait, we're back where we started.

[tyro]

skinn wrote:
i talked about rightful claims (detainees and shebaa farms)

Detainees? Do you mean the criminal murderer Samir Kuntar, or one of the other THREE Lebanese prisoners Hezbollah says is still in Israel.

As per the UN, the Shebaa farms is not part of Lebanon, if you have a problem with that you should take it up with the UN / Syria.


Got anymore “rightful claims” for allowing a terrorist organization to reside within your borders?

[skinn]

Pareve wrote: skinn wrote: Pareve wrote: nrhy wrote: the sane voice wrote: nrhy wrote: Quote: ho now its sounds right.more or less.still its very obvious whats its says.
for the record.im a zionist-i will fight anyone who will come to fight me.
i have a right to exist.

couldn´t you have picked a better spot to exist?
no.couldnt you?

we happened to be there for thousands of years...european jews belong in europe.

The Europeans never seemed to think so.

jews belong everywhere, every human being has the right to exist anywhere.
but states don't follow the same logic. It's not moral to whipe out an entire population to form your own state.

You mean, Jews belong everywhere except where you don't want them. That liberal, big picture crap only goes as long as it is convenient for you, apparently.

i usually viewed your posts as very objective, but here i really don't know what u are saying.

[superskippy]

Quote: Ok, get ready to share that land with heck of a lot of people. Cannonites, Israelis, Assyrians, Arabs, Christians, Greeks. Now obviously there's going to be some displacement to make room for all the biblical owners of Israel but, dont worry we'll find you a tent and access to well.

My point was that if length of time attached to a region is going to be defined as if you get a piece of land or not, then his own claim is voided by ours. And I suppose if you could find some Cannonites or remnants of the northern Phillistine kingdom decendents they would get some plots of land as well. But in majority we would trump the bulk of the claims, does that thus give us the right to the old Kingdom of Israel or Judea? No our right to Israel comes from deeper and more complex events than just that.

[nrhy]

bah...there is a dif between european jews, and jews from the levante.

[Venom]

Slitedeviance

Quote: Do you actually think in it's current state the US Military could effectively mount an invasion of Iran?

Yes I do believe the United States could effectively invade Iran. We are in both Afghan and Iraq so we already have airbases and land forces in a good position.

Quote: How do you think China and Russia would react to this attack on one of their major trading partners?
I think they'd get upset and not really do much other than try to run in weapons behind the scenes to Iran prior to the invasion.

Quote: What justification would you use for these attacks under international law? Or would you be in favour of the US "going it alone" and acting unlilaterally on an invasion that was legally questionable?
Well such justification could come from a failed deadline, supporting terrorists, military threats, their nuclear program, and also they have threatened our allies as well.

As for going in alone there would be other allies (as there are in both Afghan and Iraq).


Quote: How would the US Economy survive the MASSIVE increase in Gas prices following such an invasion Iran is not a major supplier of oil to the US and could be prevented from stopping the flow as well.http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Quote: How would you assess the reaction of the other nations in the ME, and would you think the US has the power to act alone in a war that could easily escalate into a full regional conflict?
Well I believe the ME would do as they do now... not a whole lot following the invasion of Iran. The US does have the power and as you seem to forget your UK brotheren are also in Iraq and Afghan so the United States would not be alone. Also there is a list at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm of what countries are involved in Iraq. More than the single United States.

Now I'm sure your point will be a lack of numbers put up by these countries, but is this different from any other modern conflict? No.

Also I'd argue that the region is in full conflict already. With all of the terrorism in that area, the countries involved, the nuclear program, etc. Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Afghanisan, and Iran is are a focus of conflict already.

Also your refering to Iraq when you talk about the "legally questionable" invasion obviously. Well I have a couple of points for that. A: Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.
B: Even if you do not agree that the chemical weapons found constitute being WMDs, it's proven he had military technology he wasn't allow to have
C: Iraq shot at UK and US planes on a consistant basis in the NO Fly Zone in Iraq after Desert Storm.
D: Well Saddam was a obvious monster but hey thats cool with some people I guess.

So what would you propose to the situation?[/quote]

[Saracen]

Pareve wrote: Saracen, I understand that you care about your culture and religion. I care about my culture and religion too. However, something is very, very, very wrong when you try to justify a defence of murder, even if the person to be murdered is allegedly a bad person. It is even worse when the idea is translated into real-world policy.

Pareve, the Zionists mentioned in the Hadith are not innocents. They are those who will fight alongside the anti-Christ. Therefore, they are combatants in war. Innocent Jews AND Zionists are not harmed unless they get in the way, but then again, there's no possible way of telling the future.

[Venom]

Saracen
Quote: Innocent Jews AND Zionists are not harmed unless they get in the way
Hey they are already in the way by not worshipping Allah. It's known that Islamic extremists will kill anyone that doesn't follow their beliefs.

[Saracen]

Venom wrote: Saracen
Quote: Innocent Jews AND Zionists are not harmed unless they get in the way
Hey they are already in the way by not worshipping Allah. It's known that Islamic extremists will kill anyone that doesn't follow their beliefs.

Allah = God. We worship the same God of Abraham that Jews and Christians worship. The only difference is how we see Him. And yes, you're right: Islamic EXTREMISTS tend to abuse or ostracize those who don't believe what they believe, even other Muslims.

[superskippy]

Quote: bah...there is a dif between european jews, and jews from the levante.

Thats the best you can come up with?


Also in general can we keep this off of religion? As I recall didnt almighty God command us to slaughter the Amalekites to the last man, woman, and child? Did we not comply? Did he not show anger when Joshua hesitated? As I understand it the quoted passage is both subtly different in Arabic especially the passage about the tree, and the entire passage is one of the Anti-Christ. As well as the fact that we must accept Islam is a young religion and in it's history passages and books have changed while the main message remains the same. We should not activly seek to find passages that incite or speak of violence, the same can be found in the Torah and Bible.

For example people claim that the Prophet Muhamed was a war monger and a conquerer. But they so easily forget and dismiss how the Old Tesitament is riddled with the tales of Joshua destroying Jericho and all it's people, David making his great marches to war and forging by the sword the Kingdom of Israel, our assaults and defences against the phillistines, the slaughter of the Amalekites.

But what we always ignore is the messages and main points, dont delve line by line paragraph by paragraph to find something. Because I guarentee I can find something equal in Torah and Bible.

As I have said before, at their very core they all preach the same thing. Tolerance, Equality, Kindness to thy fellow man, moral laws, peace, and the worship and thanking of almighty God.

[slitedeviance]

Venom wrote: The US does have the power and as you seem to forget your UK brotheren are also in Iraq and Afghan so the United States would not be alone.

A: Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution.
B: Even if you do not agree that the chemical weapons found constitute being WMDs, it's proven he had military technology he wasn't allow to have
C: Iraq shot at UK and US planes on a consistant basis in the NO Fly Zone in Iraq after Desert Storm.
D: Well Saddam was a obvious monster but hey thats cool with some people I guess.

So what would you propose to the situation?

(I assume we're talking about one of those fabulous "pre-emptive" wars) I would be massively suprised if the UK agreed to support an invasion of Iran. Whilst in the US it's only really becoming an issue recently, the Iraq war split this country and the government. There is no way that Blair could unite even his party enough to support the war. There is simply no will in this country to pursue a violent and destructive foreign policy based on pre-emptive actions.

Also, do not make the mistake of assuming that Iran's army is anything like Saddams or the Taliban. Iran has an extremely modern, well equipped fighting force, capable of turning this into an extremely costly conflict for the US. Also, Iran is not like Iraq sociologically. Iraq was rife with division before the invasion, so naturally there was no rallying call for the entire population to take up arms against the US. Do not assume this is the case in Iran. From all the conversations I have had with Iranians regarding this the one thing they have in common is the belief that being Iranian is more important than any cultural or religous differences. There would be no cheering, no-one waving at the "liberators", there would be day after day after day of never ending bloodshed.

What would I propose to the situation? Dialogue, engagement, compromise, co-operation. People seem to forget on the whole Iran "nukes" nonsense that this is a country signed up to the NPT. Israel is not. So whats the problem with Iran developing nuclear power? Under the terms of the NPT inspections would be allowed, the content of the programs disclosed and it could be monitored. This is a hell of a lot better than having Iran withdraw from the treaty and developing nuclear technology in secret.

Whilst you may not agree with the politics of the Iranian governement do you honestly think that the best way to deal with this is a war which would cost thousands of american lives, thousands of Iranian lives, completely destabalise the region, promote the idea that the US wants to destroy Islam completely, drain the US economy, cause massive amounts of anger with china and russia, and potentially promote a new cold war?

Let me put it another way. If you disagree with someone in your own life, and don't trust them, would you go out and burn down their house?

[programmusic]

Saracen wrote: Pareve wrote: Saracen, I understand that you care about your culture and religion. I care about my culture and religion too. However, something is very, very, very wrong when you try to justify a defence of murder, even if the person to be murdered is allegedly a bad person. It is even worse when the idea is translated into real-world policy.

Pareve, the Zionists mentioned in the Hadith are not innocents. They are those who will fight alongside the anti-Christ. Therefore, they are combatants in war. Innocent Jews AND Zionists are not harmed unless they get in the way, but then again, there's no possible way of telling the future.

The fact that your religion names jews specifically as those who will fight with the "anti-christ" :roll: is troubling, and worrying. The fact that you have already given the name of these "bad jews" as zionists is also troubling. And that you said "they are combatants in war" as in present tense, is also troubling.