Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
History repeating...?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi all,
A worrying thing has popped into my mind today, prompted by a discussion over Iraq and Saddam's need to "save face" in spite of overwhelming odds.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a stand off of sorts between UN Weapons Inspectors and Saddam Hussein. We saw lots of rhetoric from Saddam and his minions saying "We have no WMD" and then flat out refusal to prove to the UN inspection teams that he did actually have no WMD. This is now commonly believed to have caused the invasion of Iraq, since intelligence organisations were saying that it was highly likely that Saddam was lying, and let's be honest, his track record went along with this. From Saddam's point of view, it was in his interest also (due to good old Middle Eastern face saving) that everyone believed he still had stockpiles of chemical weapons. He had after all, built his entire regime around being the big kid on the block. So, the west (mainly the US and UK) fell for it, believed he still had his WMD capability, and invaded.
Now we move forward three years, and we see Iran, a nation which publicly calls for the extermination of Israel (and remember that any mention of attacking the Jews rings the holocaust alarm bell right across the US), is run by a President who publicly claims that the holocaust was a lie invented in the name of furthering Zionism, and is by its nature, a fundamentalist Islamic state which makes no secret of its hatred towards America. We now have a situation where the Iranians are bent on developing nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes. They have abundant oil reserves, and are one of the main oil producers in the world so why on earth, when they possess enough energy reserves to sell massive quantities of oil to the world do they feel it is essential that they have nuclear power? They clearly don't need a nuclear power station, when they have enough surplus oil to burn (figuratively and literally).
Yet, they insist on going forward with this. They claim that their nuclear programme is purely peaceful, yet it is unnecessary!
So, we end up approaching a similar situation, with inspectors from the IAEA (I think that's the correct initials for them) wanting to confirm the use of the experimental reactor, and having to play a cat-and-mouse game yet again. I fear that the Iranians are probably just going through the whole exercise as an image-raising process, to show that they are now the big boys on the block, and they are going through the whole secrecy thing as a face saving job, just like Saddam with his WMDS. They are saying that it is purely "peaceful" research, since they are an Islamic Republic, and Islam is the religion of peace, yet at the same time, Ahmadinejad is spouting vile rhetoric about "wiping Israel off the map". My concern is that the same result will be the outcome. The Iranians will not back down since to do so would lose face, and is tantamount to political suicide in the Middle East, and the West will simply not allow Iran to become a nuclear armed state.
The outcome of this? My guess is either a pre-emptive strike by Israel, a full scale attack by the US, or a rather nasty nuclear "accident" which will then immediately be blamed (probably correctly) on American intervention. Either way, the situation looks remarkably similar to Iraq in the months leading up to the invasion in 2003.
Any thought folks?
DL -
Message 2
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
You wrote:
>So, the west (mainly the US and UK) fell for it, believed he still had his WMD capability, and invaded.< This explanation is just after-rationalisation and face saving on the part of the coalition partners. They knew of course very well that he was a treat to no one. It was just that the jewish organisations in America and Britain (working trough the converted Mr. Straw. He was allways just clutching at surname(s).
It is long overdue that theinternational community get together and forces through arab majority rule in Palestine, which will happen all by itself (the majority) when WE allow the palestinian refugees back, thereby at the same time solving the worlds greatest and longest running refugee-problem, and in the most beautiful way provide the most fair compensation imaginable for the plight of the palestinians through 57 years: Their beloved country, which they are named after, back to its rightful owners.
Freedom of Choice is something we value high here in the West. So the jews shall be granted absolute freedom to choose whether they want to stay put as the whites have done in South Africa since 1993, or they want to leave. But the initial enforcement shall be conducted by the international community for the sake of peace in the Middle East and the world. Its terrible weapons will be transferred to the US for scrapping and after a cooling-off period work will begin for the dismantling of the Dimona reactor.
Had we done it before 197O - no oilcrisis, the greatest economic setback since the 30'ties, no Munich Olympic City attack, no Archille Lauro attrocity(1985), No invasion into Libanon(1982) with its terrible toll in civilian sufferings and dead and no Sabra and Chatilla.
The world cannot stand this outlawed colony no more. It is the greatest source of terror that the world have ever seen, yes it came into being by terror. -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Firstly
What the hell has my original thread got to do with Palestine?
Nothing. Kindly stay on topic.
Secondly, your take on the Israeli/Palestinian problem is greatly one sided. It takes no account of the fact that the creation of the state of Israel was by UN Mandate at the end of the British mandate to rule. The neighbouring states surrounding Israel figured that they weren't going ot acknowledge the UN Mandate, and promptly attacked it. I do not agree with many actions the Israelis have done in their brief history, but they are a nation recognised by the UN, and therefore have the right to exist. Palestine as a separate state was also covered under the same mandate, but that was obviously not good enough for the likes of Syria, Jordan and Egypt at the time, they figured that they'd just attack them using military force. The result? The Israelis gave them a kicking. This act of aggression doomed the Palestinian state as previously mentioned, since the Israelis took over the land in the various wars that have occured since.
A very one sided view on your part, Nick, countered with a very one sided defence.
Do some research, and try to be open minded instead of spouting your "the evil Jews", it's boring and should be kept on the pages of Der Sturmer where it belongs.
DL -
Message 4
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
And almost certainly no 9/11, since US support for Israel is cited' every now and again as being the chief motivating factor for the perpetrators. As anybody who have travelled in the mideast or otherwise spoken to muslims can testify, hostility towards Israel is something that they all share. It is true that american troops stationing in Saudi Arabia after 1991 was an offence that also was a motivating factor. Now it is interesting to what extent jewish organisations pressed for the american troops to stay in Saudi, that is something I will have to study, because then you can say that Israel also is envolved in this motivating factor. However it is anybodys guess which of the 2 factors range highest.
') The official 9/11 report (google, download, open and search the word: Israel) mentions Israel 26 times. The leaders came from a Cairo suburb and South Libanon respectively. The latter having witnessed israelis in his land first hand, the latter raised with much hatred over Israel from his father, who (it is a guess) very well could have lost a war to Israel. -
Message 5
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
You asked what the tread-starter had to do with Palestine? It has got everything to do with Palestine being taken over by alliens, something that is detested by all arabs and a good deal of persians as well as well as many others. The iranian president is absolutely right when he says that the pretext of Holocaust was used to establish a east-european white colony in the heart of arabia.
Had we forced arab majority rule through in 1970 for example, then we would have had no Irak war in 2003, because this was an israeli(with their stooges in Washington) orchestrated event intended to take out an old enemy of Israel and at the same time remove the greatest friend and benefactor of the poor palestinians. That Iran now want the weapon has got everything to do with the occupiers of Palestine who was the first to introduce this terrible weapon in the ME, where it would have been better if they fell under the american umbrella. -
Message 6
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Sorry, but if you sincerely believe in the lunatic President of Iran being "right" and "justified" in his comments that Israel should be wiped off the map, then you are a genocidal idiot. Just like him.
Take your religious hatred elsewhere, it is sad.
As I said, there are two sides to every argument, but you don't seem to appreciate that.
I posted this thread as I wanted peoples opinions on the similarities between the situations in Iraq pre2003 and Iran now. Not so some Jew-hater could post hate-filled rubbish. -
Message 7
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
So am I correct in presuming that like Ahmadinejad you believe the holocaust was a fiction? After all, you seem to accept everything else he comes out with!
-
Message 8
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
He has later said it should be moved to Europe or US-Canada. I think he should only have said the US since it is obvious how great a responsibility this Israels one and only ally has had throughout its existence.
It is interesting how the medias now only refer to his earlier statement about i being wiped out, and you swallow it rough, without reflecting about the great injustice that was done to the arabs by placing an alien colony right in their midst, yes around their holyist scrine after Mecca and Medina.
I want to point out that my approach is entirely peaceful as stated on numerous occasions: The international community should enforce arab majority rule in Palestine, just as black ditto was introduced in south africa in 1993. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
You wrote
"Had we forced arab majority rule through in 1970 for example, then we would have had no Irak war in 2003, because this was an israeli(with their stooges in Washington) orchestrated event intended to take out an old enemy of Israel and at the same time remove the greatest friend and benefactor of the poor palestinians. That Iran now want the weapon has got everything to do with the occupiers of Palestine who was the first to introduce this terrible weapon in the ME, where it would have been better if they fell under the american umbrella."
Funny, I thought the roots of the 2003 war were down to the fact that we didn't get it right first time, and remove Saddam from power in 91? Or was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a Jewish plot too?
Iran is a dangerous reactionary regime in anyone's eyes, and the fact that they hate Israel has more to do with their irrational religious hatred of all things non-Islamic than their sympathies for the Palestinians. If the Arab world's hatred was born out of sympathy with the Palestinian refugees, then I could understand it. However, you will find that none of these nations have aided Palestinians. Jordan kicked them out by force, Egypt closed its border (only just reopened) and Iran's only contribution to Palestinian well-being has been to keep a steady supply of semtex body-warmers heading to them. Perhaps if they gave them useful assistance instead of using them as pawns in their game of religious hate, and convincing them that blowing up a cafe full of kids guarantees a place in Paradise I might be convinced. As it is, your argument is intensely flawed, and shows little understanding of what is indeed a complex problem.
Remember that Iran invented the suicide bomber, and raised their status to "martyr", so who is to say that they aren't going to invent the nuclear suicide bomber?
Hardly a stable, just regime, suitable in the eyes of the world to be trusted with nuclear weapons. -
Message 10
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
You also ask about the holocaust. I dont know much about it. It seems you just have to swallow the full version rough or else you are a &&%%%""££
**shole. Look what happened to David Irving because he dared question certain aspects of it. I think the whole thing cries for a throughough investigation about what really went on, ie. how many died as a result of the turmoil of war, where civilians allways are caught out, deliberate targetting of their villages, decent resistencefight, and among those who went to camps: How many was it, and how many of these died of malnutrition, inproper clothing and diseases such as typhus, where alied bombardment in the final months of the war, meant in-adequate food distribution and a sore lack of typhus vaccines. -
Message 11
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hello DL,
Perhaps the main purpose of the nuclear program is to preserve the grip of the conservatives, by antagonising the West they provoke a confrontation of sorts and create a siege mentality that strengthens them politically.
I think and hope that the Nuclear program would have to be tolerated, I'm sure there's little threat of them using it and there's not the justification there was with Saddam in that he broke the terms of his ASBO and so different rules applied to him.
If I were in the Israeli govt I'd be worried but see it as less of a threat than Saddams nuclear program in that Iraq was one of many Arab close neighbours that might act in concert while Iran is more distant and has fewer dangerous allies.
I am a bit worried but more so about North Korea. -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
You wrote " by placing an alien colony right in their midst, yes around their holyist scrine after Mecca and Medina."
The Jewish perspective could be " by placing an alien colony right in their midst, yes around their holiest shrine, the temple mount, which an alien religion has built a mosque on top of".
As I said, your argument takes in only one side. Incidentally, some history. Jerusalem was taken by Israel in the Six Day War, where they pre-emptively attacked an Arab army of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these armies massed on the Israeli border with the aim of destroying Israel. As they prepared for war, Israel attacked and defeated them totally. Had these armies not been mobilising for war, then Israel wouldn't have attacked them. It did, and for the first time Israelis had access to their holiest shrine (which the Palestinians had always denied them). So who is to blame? The aggressor? Who was the aggressor? Those who fired the first shot? Or those who were preparing to invade.
Both sides are equally to blame. You are just too full of hate towards the Jews to realise that.
Your approach is totally peaceful? You have stated that Ahmadinejad was right in saying that Israel should be wiped off the map! Very peaceful.
As long as the two sides are so filled with hate towards each other, no peace is possible. You have demonstrated enough hate in your posts to know that I am correct. -
Message 13
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi Mr P,
At last! Someone addressing the topic I posted on!
Your first paragraph makes perfect sense IMO. if the general population believe that the west is "out to get them", and the hardliners then say "Look we have a nuclear weapon" then they will win massive political support.
On your second paragraph, I'm not so convinced that it will either be tolerated or be a purely defensive project. This doesn't mesh with the statements coming out of Tehran these days.
I do like the description of Saddam's ASBO though! Perhaps they should have tried electronic tagging instead? Or maybe community service?
The Israelis are a paranoid nation at the best of times (although that is a little unfair-they think all their neighbours are out to get them, and they are correct!), but Iran may be distant geographically, but its ideological reach extends way beyond its borders, just look at Hezbollah, they are based in Lebanon and have been backed both financially and militarily by Iran for decades. If Iran has the bomb, all it takes is some reactionary government (which they already have) to transport the bomb to Hezbollah or some other group, and you have the world's biggest ever car bomb, a terrorist attack which would make 9/11 look like nothing. Remember that Iran is an Islamic Fundamentalist country, and they sincerely believe that to die killing non-Muslims is not only right, it is their duty. Particularly where Israelis are concerned.
Much more worrying than North Korea, they will eventually implode under the weight of economic failure which they are currently living under. Stalinist Communism doesn't work as an economic system, this is proven fact, and they will cave in sooner or later.
Cheers
DL -
Message 14
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I dont know that feeling: hate. I come from Denmark, and we are one of the few who can fuly match the intellectual capabilities of the ones in question. If I was german they would mass against me with you know what. If I was russian they would also find something less favourable to say, I am sure. But they cannot acuse Denmark for any wrongdoing towards the jews.
P:S: Incidentially the danes that helped the 6000 jews in safety in sweden in 1943 did so, not because they were jews, but because they reckoned it unfair that a certain
group should be selected for persecussion. Also the unique geography with a neutral country just a few miles acroos the water willing to take them, whereas other prominent neutrals such as Switzerland and Portugal turned them back. -
Message 15
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Dennis Lester, you will not adress the fundamental problem: That the jewish homeland is misplaced. You say it is a member of UH, so was South africa under Apartheid, I believe, yet it succumbed to international pressure and transformed itself.
Madagasger would also have been a blatant mistake and injustice towards the indigeneous, just as Palestine is. The whole idea of crating homelands in somebodys elses should have been a dead idea by the end of WW2 and the new world order that followed, dominated by american altruistic ideals about self-determination. As a result of The United staes emerging as the vicor, all colonies were abolished in the years that followed, yet this one has been allowed to continue, but it is just a matter of time until the american taxpayer says stop. I have great faith in ordinary people and in the aMERICAN PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. -
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Nick,
Bigotry has no nationality.
It doesn't matter where you come from, or what your nation's past is, taking a one sided view of a complex dilemma like the Palestinian/Israeli debate is just plain wrong. Nothing is as simple as that. The comments made by Ahmadinejad are inexcusable, whether he made them about the Jews, the Inuit or the nomads of Outer Mongolia. A leader of a nation-state cannot go round saying that another nation-state and member of the UN (Regardless of anyones opinion of the legitimacy of the state of Israel) should be wiped off the face of the earth. It is tantamount to a declaration of war. He is the head of state of Iran. His comments simply underline the fact that Iran is a nation too unstable, too volatile and too reactionary to be trusted with nuclear weapons!
No one can accuse Denmark of any wrongdoing towards the Jews, that is perfectly true, but that has no bearing on your earlier comments, and does not excuse them.
DL -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Nick,
Firstly, who is Dennis Lester?
The territory now known as Israel wasn't anybody's "homeland" strictly speaking, it was a territory being governed by the BRitish under UN mandate. You will find that the population in the area was divided between Muslim Arabs, Jews and Christians at that time (I don't know the figures off the top of my head). What you also don't seem to realise is that there is a significant population of Arabs and Muslims living quite happily and peacefully in Israel. where do they come into it?
Now you say "all colonies were abolished". If you are referring to the British Empire, then most of its colonies were granted independence (but they chose to remain members of the British Commonwealth). That is hardly abolition. Israel, however, is no ones colony, it is a sovereign state. Not a US colony, as you seem to believe. As to US aid to Israel, that will never stop, since the US has few allies in that region, and will not stop supporting its strongest ally in a region so filled with anti-US feeling.
Madagascar? You are now talking about Nazi plans for the "relocation" of the Jews in WW2!!! They decided, as did you, that Madagascar was a bad idea too, so they decided to kill them all!!!
What would you suggest next?
You are digging a deeper hole for yourself here, both on your "Jewish relocation" policies and your rather unusual knowledge of history!
DL -
Message 18
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Yes there are about 1 million arabs currently living in the outlawd colony. It has all he characteristics of a colony at least the West Bank, and here I am sure you agree. The rest can be said to be a colony of the New Yorker jews, if you will. A colony is defined by someone alien living in somebodys elses land and dominating the original inhabitants. In this sense this colony has all the hallmarks of a colony.
Look at all the wars and terror-campaigns launched in reaction to its creation. The fact that the partition plan got 33 votes for , 13 against and 7 abstained (incl. UK), really doesn't mean anything to the arab states, most of which werent even a member of the UN. As you now UN means United Nations, the united, allied nations that won WW2 (plus a few others). So power makes right, is this your view? The vicors of WW2 had power so this make them right to create this colony in the middle of Arabia?
I can tell you that today they would never have got it, thats for sure. There would never have been an Israel had the world known rthe extend of violence that have comed out of it, that is for sure. This is atestimony that the enterprise was wrong, and thus the arabs and persians have a point. -
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Exactly which part of the expression "Sovereign State" do you not understand?
It is not an "outlawed colony" it is a country. Like it or not.
The West Bank is an occupied territory, and is one that Israel has plans to withdraw from (and I might add, it would have done so sooner, had idiots with semtex strapped to them not blown up kids in cafes on a regular basis)
Sorry, but your true Jew-hating colours are coming out now. "A colony of New Yorker Jews"??
Just read your own posts!
Look at all the wars and terror campaigns launched since the creation of Israel. How many of them were launched by the Israelis? Can you answer that? So in your view, if a group of nations attack something, does that make it wrong?
Now, your terminology describing Israelis as "aliens". Given that Israel is now over 50 years old, most of these aliens will have been born there. Then you go on to say that Israel is a colony in the middle of Arabia. So not only is history not your strong point, geography isn't either. The location of Israel can only be compared to Arabia if you class the entire middle east as Arabia. Granted they were both part of the Ottoman Empire until WW1, but this area has never been "the middle of Arabia".
Your last paragraph, I doubt that when the UN ruled on the creation of Israel, and then recognised it as a country, they believed that the surrounding countries would have been filled with so much hate for the Jews, and I doubt that they would have thought that the minute Israel was created, all its neighbours would attempt to destroy it in an act of blind religious hate!
Yet again, just because some people hate something enough to make war on it, it doesn't make it wrong. Hitler decided he wanted to invade your nation of Denmark, and he did so (with I might add, remarkable ease). Does that mean that Denmark has no right to exist?
A final point on the UN. The United Nations is not a group of those who won WW2, or Germany and Japan would not be members. It is an organisation of the UNITED NATIONS OF THE WORLD. Sorry, but if you remove hatred of the Jews from the Israel problem, there is no more problem. Granted there have been atrocities on all sides, but if the Arabs felt so sorry for the Palestinians, why do they not accept them into their countries until a settlement is found, instead of keeping them in refugee camps? Because they couldn't really care less. The Palestinians are merely pawns to Iran, to be used against the Jews. There have been many mistakes made in Israel on all sides, but you just don't see that. You think that it is all the Jews' fault, and they should "go away". Sound familiar? It should, it was Hitler's line in the 1930s. Am I comparing Ahmadinejad with Hitler? Damn right I am. Both were ideological fanatics, who advocate the destruction of the Jews. Both rule a country with an iron rule-Hitler's based on racial theory, Ahmadinejad based on religious fanaticism. Neither of them you would want to see armed with nuclear weapons, and both of them hate Jews.
As a final note on whether the Palestinians hate Jews, in the 1940s, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (another Islamic cleric) was a great admirer of Hitler's Jewish policies, also, there was an SS division fighting for Hitler composed of Muslim troops. -
Message 20
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
DL,
Its the even-handedness and maturity of vision that one has to admire in your colleague on this discussion. I can see we all have a lot to learn, and here is one who can show us the light!
Enjoy
Elistan -
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Sorry Elistan,
Am I starting to rant a bit?
hang on
ahhh that's better.
Oh hang on, no it's not.
Bring it on....
DL -
Message 22
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
A brief explanation.
Basically, we used to have a regular poster on here, who would come on here and blame practically everything in the world on "Jewish conspiracy", and we had many an argument before myself and Richie finally defeated him. He was a Jew-hater of the highest order, and used practically the same terminology as Nick here. He gave up, after having his argument destroyed by the board members, but seeing similar rubbish posted on here has really made my blood boil (and totally trashed my thread despite the best efforts of Mr P to return it to topic).
Cheers, and signing off shortly.
DL -
Message 23
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
It is hardly surprising if some arabs hate jews. they have been humiliated at least 4 times in war, which they were legitimatingly launching to correct the wrongs that were made by the victors of WW2(plus a few friends), the 53 nations that made up the UN in 1947, and decided to give the jews significantly more than the less than 10 percent that the owned. This is blatantly unfair, and the arabs will continue to resist it until it is corrected.
Have you ever thought about that among those attacking US troops in Iraq are several revenging the plight of the palestinians? It is a continuation of the palestinian resistance fight by other means, this time attacking Israels sole ally and benefactor.
What you say about the worlds oldest Kingdom, Denmark, is really not worthy of any comment, since surely it will not have to justify itself, and whether its people have any right to live there. Right to a land is gained over generations, by use of the land. This is how it should be decided who have the right to any given land. And it is a fact that arabs have lived in Palestine considerably longer than jews have. They have been living there since at least 633, before that many lived there without referring to themselves as arabs. Jews have only been holding out for some 80 years in numbers bigger than say 20.000. In the 19 th century and right back to the destruction of the tempel only very few jews were living there, no more than a thousand people. No it is the zionist violent acquisation of land by the means of terror that is fascist. -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
OK,
This is getting very boring now, so I will just point out some more false statements in your post and then call it a day.
You wrote
"In the 19 th century and right back to the destruction of the tempel only very few jews were living there, no more than a thousand people."
So, back when the temple was destroyed the population of Judaea was no more than a thousand?
Rubbish.
"And it is a fact that arabs have lived in Palestine considerably longer than jews have. They have been living there since at least 633, "
I seem to remember Biblical times being considerably before 633 AD (think about it).
The Arab conquest of the Palestine region dates from post-Islamic days, when the "peaceful religion" of Islam swept across the region killing those who would not convert, so does that give it legitimacy? So if we are saying "who was there first" gives legitimacy, then you are out by about 3000 years. Again, poor historical knowledge.
" No it is the zionist violent acquisation of land by the means of terror that is fascist."
In what way is this "fascist"? Look up fascism, it is not race related, unlike nazism.
"It is hardly surprising if some arabs hate jews. they have been humiliated at least 4 times in war, which they were legitimatingly launching to correct the wrongs that were made by the victors of WW2(plus a few friends), the 53 nations that made up the UN in 1947, and decided to give the jews significantly more than the less than 10 percent that the owned. This is blatantly unfair, and the arabs will continue to resist it until it is corrected."
The truth? It is hardly surprising that Arabs hate Jews, their religion tells them to. It states that Jews are "pigs and apes", and tells the follower to "kill them wherever they are found". Enough said really.
Yes they have been humiliated four times in war, and if they attack again they will be humiliated again. Considering they first attacked the Jews just after the formation of Israel, what did they expect? That a bunch of armed holocaust survivors who had just seen their families slaughtered in numbers we can barely comprehend were going to roll over and let someone else put them in camps and kill them? Grow up! They were going to fight for their survival, and they did. Successfully.
As I have said again, the land which is now called Israel DID NOT BELONG to the Palestinian Arabs, I suppose you could say it belonged to the UN (since it was under British rule by a UN Mandate), so it was entirely up to them to do what they wanted with it!
The mandate also wanted the creation of a Palestinian Arab state also, but since the Arabs decided that wasn't good enough, they weren't going to tolerate these infidel Jews having an inch of ground, they blew that one by attacking Israel, and losing. As I have said all through this thread (WHICH YOU HI-JACKED SINCE IT WAS NOT ABOUT PALESTINE), you are only looking at one side of the argument, and you are not being objective, since your head is full of hatred for Jews. THe Jews have a right to exist, Israel is a country, not a colony (whether you like it or not), and since the UN agrees, unlucky.
Lastly,
"Have you ever thought about that among those attacking US troops in Iraq are several revenging the plight of the palestinians? It is a continuation of the palestinian resistance fight by other means, this time attacking Israels sole ally and benefactor."
My my, you have been well indoctrinated haven't you! Or, have you ever thought that they are just terrorist idiots who think killing Iraqi civilians is doing God's will. Their attacks mainly kill civilians, not troops, since they don't have the guts to fight openly. They are basically al-Qaeda idiots who think that the US is the nation of Satan (as their religious leaders have programmed them to) and they believe that if they "martyr" themselves (back to that great Iranian invention-the suicide bomber) they will live in paradise with rivers of wine, and countless virgins to entertain them (although how no one spots the hypocracy in a religion which believes in drinking no alcohol and has a sexual morality code straight out of the middle ages). Again, you are just seeing one side. So I suppose, that you believe that 9/11 was justified on these grounds too?
Not that I'm expecting an answer, I haven't had any answers to any questions I have put to you Nick, just more "Jews are evil" rhetoric time and time again. Try answering my questions, or can't you do that for fear of exposing your level of religious hate further?
Enough. -
Message 25
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
)/11 was a political manifestation, either because of US support of Israel, or US troops staying on in Saudi arabia after the initial deployment in 1990-91. I am very interested to knowing whether jewish lobbyists in Washington pressured for the US troops to stay. Given that they control the US ME policy, and given the troops stayed put( for a future 'excuse' to topple Saddam that old enemy of Israel and the palestinians greatest friend and benefactor) I guess I have just answered my own question: Yes indeed it was in the (jewish) neo-con interest to have the troops to stay on.
That they damn well knew it would be creating anymosity, apparently they could not care less about. For them having the west in a clash with Islam is nothing that apparently worries them, after all this have been the position Israel have been in for years.
So my dear Watson, by deducting what I have layed before you , you will see that 9/11 was brought about by Israel and the US mid east policy, which is controlled by jewish lobby organisations.
***
P:S: With regard to terror in Iraq, it should be said that foreigners participation in the insurgeny only account for 10 percent of the total. The rest is purely homegrown. Among those 3000 foreigners, Zarqawi has been named as a leader. Allthough one should not overemphasize one mans role - because another will soon take over after him ,this is exactly what the US have been doing- but he is actually palestinian, brought up in Jordan. And I bet that when he avenges something he thinks of the homeland that he havent got. You see, what goes around, comes around.
****
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ NEWS Thursday, 17 November 2005, 23:12 GMT
New study details Iraq insurgency
Iraq's insurgency boasts thousands of committed fighters
Up to 3,000 foreign insurgents may be fighting in Iraq, but they remain a small part of the overall rebellion, a US military analyst has suggested.
****
-
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Nick,
Either you are trolling to cause arguments on here, or you are a totally deluded freak.
"Saddam that old enemy of Israel and the palestinians greatest friend and benefactor)"
ARE YOU SERIOUS????
FOR GOD'S SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE GENOCIDAL MASS MURDERER!!!!
Do you honestly think Saddam Hussein gave a toss about anyone other than Saddam Hussein?????
You have now convinced me that you don't know anything about this subject. I also see that you are now trying to subvert one of the other threads on "Hitler and the Russian Revolution" and turn that into a Jew bashing argument.
You are a fool and bigot.
You are quite clearly a neo-nazi, and intent on attempting to blame the Jews for all the ills in the world, so I suggest you get an education, throw away your copy of Mein Kampf and stop spouting your idiotic lies.
Saddam Hussein, benefactor. My arse.
DL -
Message 27
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Yes he had a strong feeling for the plight of the palestinians, as has all people in the ME, but only in Saddams Iraq and in Iran and in Saudi Arabia and a few others, the leaders are saying what most think. In Jordan and Egypt and the small green zone in Bagdad, they reflect the israeli-US view. But this little green zone will soon have perished too, and the palestinians will be getting a new ally.
-
Message 28
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 13th January 2006
The current Iranian situation's more dangerous than was the Iraqi one in 2003 - the mass of the Iranian people don't loathe their leaders as the mass of Iraqia did Saddam. I can't see the mad mullahs being toppled by another invasion.
-
Message 29
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
I'm going to sum up your views now Nick.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003, a Jewish plot.
The first Gulf War, instigated by Jewish lobbyists in the US.
Saddam Hussein, benign friend of Palestinians (great description for a man who used nerve agents on his own people).
9/11 justified response to US activity in support of Israel (instigated by Jewish lobbyists).
The Russian Revolution. A Jewish conspiracy.
Israel. An illegal colony despite what the UN says (because the UN is just an organisation of the winners of World War Two, dominated by the US, and therefore instigated by Jewish Lobbyists).
The Arab nations of the Middle East naturally hate the Jews because they have been humiliated in battle by them (when they started the battle-obviously the Arabs were forced into it by....you guessed it... A JEWISH PLOT!)
There seems to be a recurring theme here Nick. I wonder what it is?
Oh yeah, that's it- you're a Jew-hating bigot! -
Message 30
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Hi DrkKtn,
Many thanks for your attempt to try to salvage this thread onto the original topic, but I fear it is doomed. I wonder if that was a Jewish conspiracy too? Nick obviously thinks so....
Cheers
DL -
Message 31
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Yes Dennis Lester, you actually got it quite right, with the exception of this:
>The first Gulf War, instigated by Jewish lobbyists in the US.< It was the resolute will of Brent Scowcroft, an independent minded mormon, who I have high regards for. -
Message 32
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Danish Racist,
I wonder why you were put on Pre-mod on your other user ID? Was it for posting inflammatory rubbish about Jews, or maybe you were having a pop at the Swedes again? Grow up. -
Message 33
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
But off course it was tallying with the beliefs of the neo-cons, who are more than happy to step in the background, as long as their ideas is followed. And it was their idea that after the end of the cold war, the UniteD States should re-assert itself as a force to be reckoned with, not to let itself be bullied by thugs etc. etc.
Long down the road I can understand this view*, but it becomes highly problematic when a mix of interests and loyalties gets apparent, as when dictators on Israels perimeter are to be taken out one after the other..
*) But dont you see how cunning it is. You and I can go for the first, but since they are leading, we have to swallow the last bit as well... -
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Caution!
Do not feed the Troll!!!
Words I seem to have forgotten on this thread!
Schoolboy Error! -
Message 35
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 13th January 2006
DL,
It has been so satisfying watch you take this clown apart. You are poetry in motion my friend. I can’t believe I used to have the gall to take you on. Now that you have de fleshed him with fact and logic, please don’t nibble at his bones as he is totally outclassed.
Cheers. Matt. -
Message 36
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Yes DL you realy got him! Good Job, DL. Just trust into the bugger, then twist the bajonet- then slowly pull it out. Yeahhh!!! Aren't we trilled!!
-
Message 37
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Thanks for the support Matt,
I must admit it is getting boring now. I must admit he did surprise me when he revealed he was the same poster who was having a pop at Hasse ("That Swede" indeed, Nick, Hasse is worth fifty of you.)
Feel free to have a good rant, we've not seen one of yours for a while!!! -
Message 38
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
I see!
Just had a quick look on the thread which got Nick's alter-ego Alf banned from the FiveLive boards. Surprise surprise, it was a nice anti-Jewish rant about Israel being an illegal colony, and if only the Jews would go away, the world would live in peace harmony....
Well, what a surprise. -
Message 39
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Yes this has been my message for app. 3 years on primarily the world discussion board, which is now closed. Mind you I never talk about any violence, but a peacefull introduction of arab majority rule. I know that some jews probably will leave reluctantly. However the jewish people are the one of the 2 peoples best suited for a life in exile. Many hold for the same reason extra passports and nationality. What is important now is that the palestinians get the most fair compensation for 57 years of suffering: The land back, that they are named after.
-
Message 40
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 13th January 2006
<quote user='Nick-Rowan' userid='2517576'>...the jewish people are the one of the 2 peoples best suited for a life in exile. quote>
Who are the others? -
Message 41
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Friday, 13th January 2006
There is as you know 2 peoples in the israeli-palestinian conflict wanting the same tracts of land, even the same City as their capital. We had James Baker forcing Yithak Shamir to the negociating table in june 1991 --one begins to understand why they should be forced ---there is no solution to the conflict, and they are the first to know!!
-
Message 42
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 13th January 2006
DL,
Reply to #1.
Your post does ring a chord. If I can be a bit of a George Galloway, the Iranians have been quite public about their intent. They have broken the seals upon their Nuclear Facilities quite openly, in the face of UN inspectors.
Now, seeing as I am a suspicious bastard, I can read a lot into it. I am left with these conclusions.
1. They are a reasonable people who wish too develop Nuclear Power as an alternative too burning precious hydrocarbons, of which they are abundant, in order to save the planet from global warming and expand their economy. (Nuclear Power as I'm sure that you will understand is a medium term solution to the problems of burning hydrocarbons).
2. They are untrustworthy infidels, their only motivation is too destroy the other infidels.
Too be honest, having read about the British Empire, WW2 and Nazism, the Crusades then I say, the UN is the least worst organisation on the planet at this time.
The UN employs some very intelligent people. Far more intelligent than the average Politician.
Cheers AA. -
Message 43
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Yes DL you realy got him! Good Job, DL. Just trust into the bugger, then twist the bajonet- then slowly pull it out. Yeahhh!!! Aren't we trilled!!Β
A bayonet is too good for you. I would much rather smother your worthless ass in pig crap, but then again that would be too much of an insult to the pigs. -
Message 44
Posted by Coeur_de_Lion (U2789688) on Friday, 13th January 2006
Just read this thread and Nick seems to be some sort of Anti-semitic deluded person who is labouring under the illusion that the jews do not have a right to live. No point in replying to the idiots abysmal thread. Ignore him completely.
DL, i thoroughly enjoyed watching you take Nick apart piece by piece.Excellent posts. -
Message 45
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 13th January 2006
AA,
Is it a case of the worst possible system, until you consider the alternatives?
E -
Message 46
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 47
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
I beg your pardon! It does not breach any rules! You better publish it straight away or I will have to author it yeat agin from memory - and I do know what I wrote, allthough it will be a little cumbersome to do it again. What you as moderators should take offence against is the language that Expat32 uses above. THIS posting should be hidden, not mine.
-
Message 48
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 14th January 2006
Elistan,
I agree, I called it the least worst, please forgive me for torturing the English language.
Cheers AA. -
Message 49
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
Thanks all for your supportive comments!
I must admit that I don't see arguments such as this thread became being a victory for anyone. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth I'm honest, since I should know better than to be drawn into such a pointless argument, which only achieved the sad result of drawing the board's members attention to Nicks ahem... views (which was no doubt his intention all along).
So, apologies to all for getting drawn into such a slanging match (with the exception of Nick, no apologies there.)
AA,
Cheers my friend for attempting to re-ignite the thread (along with DrkKtn-with the somewhat sinister name! Like it) However this one is well and truly dead, in fact there is more chance of Leeds overtaking Sheffield Utd in the promotion spots than this thread going back to its original topic!
I will re-post it in a few days when all has calmed down (including me!)
Cheers
DL -
Message 50
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 15th January 2006
DL,
Thank you, you are quite correct in a lot of your assumptions. For instance LUFC has as much chance of overtaking SUFC in the promotion spot as a snowballs chance in Hell.
I'm sure that you will wish us well in our match on Saturday the 21st.
I am still researching the Chemical Weapon WW2 debate and so will rise like PaulRyckier from the ashes.
Cheers AA.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.