Nuclear facilities

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by Amber

Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

-Expelling the Jews from Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans was a "mistake."
-Constructing anti-semitic pathologies about the Jews to conceal Christian hypocrisy was a "mistake."
-Frequently executing pogroms against the Jews was a "mistake."
-Attempting to wipe out the population of them was a ... "mistake."

Finally giving back their home after how many years of overt discrimination?
Mistake towards Arabs?

No.
->Colonising the Middle East and Africa for years only to divide the land between feuding ethnic groups; leaving them to determine who'll win to rule the land or reduce them to gathering scraps of land here and there;
HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MISTAKE!!!!

Originally Posted by spyretto

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money.
Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

Holy shit! Have some fucking decency!
At least back your rampant anti-semitism with some logic, not some Nazi-sympathising bullshit!

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

If I say I want to kill you, even the police wouldn't do anything about it and if you try to disarm me when I don't have a weapon and you hurt me I can sue you and you can end up in jail. So it's not quite the same thing, is it? furthermore you wouldn't even know I told the truth if I said to you I'll get a gun tomorrow and kill you. There's no evidence or real intent just my words.

The police should take such a threat seriously. If they won't, I have the moral right to stop you getting a weapon. This isn't someone saying something like that in the heat of an argument, it's a calculated and verified threat, which many countries (including the members of the EU) take seriously, but the international community seems unable to agree on actually taking meaningful action. A reasonable jury wouldn't convict someone who told the police, but couldn't get the police to do anything, they would treat it as self-defence.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Not to mention that the Iran president did not not even say that all Israeli's should be killed. It's like me saying, "I have some petrol at home I'll get it tomorrow and go and burn your house". Then you'd try to hunt me down on the basis of me saying that? Or try to protect youself?

Of course I'd try to protect myself. If the threat was made seriously, I'd take it seriously.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Well, the Irani didn't even say that either, it's like he said that "your house deserves to be burned", because he said the Israel should be wiped off the map, correct? That's the equivalent of what he said. We got there at the end

Saying Israel should be wiped off the map is rather stronger than that. The Jews have been in this situation before. Adolf Hitler made rather similar threats, saying Europe should be free of Jews, and nobody did anything until too late. Six million Jews died. Israel is right not to want that to happen again. Once bitten, twice shy.

Originally Posted by spyretto

That's what you're proposing the U.S ahould be doing. Hunting me down = the cowboy way. Protecting youself = diplomacy. I guess you prefer strict measures. So maybe next time you get into a row with somebody for whatever reason, you'd take the law into your own hands, right? It's not a civilised way though.

So Israel should just wait for an Iranian nuclear attack? If someone makes threats like that, they should be stopped from carrying them out. Israel is letting the diplomatic process be carried out, but they've said that they won't let Iran acquire nuclear weapons if the international community fails to stop Iran peacefully.

[simon]

Originally Posted by Amber

Well, Iran's nuclear facilities are also civilian facilities, Israel would be killing civilians too if it destroyed those facilities. Israel has no rights whatsoever to destroy industrial facilities in another country, Iran is a sovereign country and Israel has no saying in what Iran does within its borders.

Iran's nuclear facilities aren't civilian, they're military. Many countries have civilian nuclear programmes, but Iran has been caught engaged secretly in activities preparatory to building a nuclear bomb. Israel is waiting to see what action the international community takes. If Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb, Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

Originally Posted by Amber

And Israel is just as careless about its targets as the Hamas, the difference is that when Israel attacks Palestinians, it's called an 'assassination' with some 'colateral damages'. The reality is that Israel does not hesitate to launch a missile from an helicopter just to kill *one* person in a Palestinian street, it doesn't care if 20 other people die in the explosion, no more than the Hamas cares who is killed in one of its attacks, both sides have plenty of blood on their hands.

There is a difference between going for a military target (such as a terrorist leader) and killing civilians by mistake, one the one hand, and deliberately targeting civilians as Hamas does. I think Israel is too indiscriminate, but there is a moral difference.

Originally Posted by Amber

Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

I condemn the way that Israel was created by driving Palestinians from their homes. But there are two sides to it. In 1948 the United Nations had a plan to partition Mandate Palestine more or less equally between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs didn't. Four Arab armies attacked the new Jewish state, saying they were going to "drive the Jews into the sea". There was a war, which Israel won, getting 78% of Mandate Palestine. Armistice boundaries were agreed with the Arab states in 1949 and accepted as legitimate borders of Israel by the international community. Israel was seen as the victim, the Arab states as the aggressors, particularly in the light of the recent Holocaust and the Arab threats against the Jews. Arab states from Morocco to Iraq expelled their oppressed Jewish minorities, who went to Israel. The Israeli population doubled within a year. There was a population exchange, with both sides creating and taking refugees. The Palestinian refugees were forced by the Arab states to live in camps for many years (they still are in Lebanon), the Jewish refugees in Israel were made free citizens. In 1967, the Arab states again threatened war to "drive the Jews into the sea", but Israel attacked before they were ready and occupied the remainder of Mandate Palestine. It was after 1967 that people began to stop seeing Israel as the underdog.

Originally Posted by Amber

If Israel had not been recreated, if Arabs had not violently been robbed of their lands, the Middle East would be a relatively peaceful region, Muslim extremism would be a marginal problem, and terrorism would have no desparation to thrive upon.

Islamic fundamentalism developed as a movement in Egypt in the 1960s as a reaction against the secularism of Nasser, it had nothing to do with Israel. It emerged as a serious political force in Iran, which of course isn't an Arab country, in the revolution of 1979 as a reaction against the secularism of the Shah, it had nothing to do with Israel. Osama bin Laden didn't go to fight the Israelis, he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein started two big wars in the Middle East, first invading Iran (and no, the Americans weren't behind it, he was a Soviet ally, initially armed by them and France) and later Kuwait. It had nothing to do with Israel. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism got going in the Lebanese civil war that began in 1975, it only began to see Israel as a target after the Israeli invasion of 1982. The existence of Israel has of course caused conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab states, but it's not true that without Israel the Middle East would be a peaceful region, there would be little Muslim extremism and terrorism would have no desperation to thrive on. Palestinian desperation has driven Palestinian terrorism, but Al Qaeda came out of Afghanistan and resentment of US troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the kingdom from Saddam Hussein.

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

That remark proves beyond doubt that you're an anti-semite - someone with a racist hatred of Jews. You're even justifying the Holocaust!

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Holy shit! Have some fucking decency!
At least back your rampant anti-semitism with some logic, not some Nazi-sympathising bullshit!

Yes, he's a Nazi sympathiser.

[xmad]

Originally Posted by simon

Iran's nuclear facilities aren't civilian, they're military. Many countries have civilian nuclear programmes, but Iran has been caught engaged secretly in activities preparatory to building a nuclear bomb. Israel is waiting to see what action the international community takes. If Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb, Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

There's NO evidence to prove that Iran's nuclear facilities are military.Israel,USA and others have no right to do anything about this.Does Iran ask them why they have those facilities?Does Iran say I have right to destroy those facilities(which are military)?

Anyway I think there's something else behind all these things that you dont know.

Well, Here comes a question:What's the connection between sport and politic?
I found this question over the net:
"Should Iran be banned from soccer's 2006 World Cup over its nuclear activities?"
And they let you to vote.
The source:http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me.../iran.nuclear/
I cant believe how they can say that.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by simon

That remark proves beyond doubt that you're an anti-semite - someone with a racist hatred of Jews. You're even justifying the Holocaust!

Really? and how did you deduce that from my statement above? Is that a justification of the Holocaust or maybe a possible underlying reason behind what the Nazi did? Just for the record I neither justify nor condone any attempt of aggression/terrorism/mass annihilation against specific ethnic groups. What the Nazi did to the Jews was one of the most despicable things that ever happened during the course of history, and an atrocity that goes beyond human understanding; and then you're telling me that I "justify" that? No I do not.

Stop putting words in my mouth

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by xmad

Well, Here comes a question:What's the connection between sport and politic?
I found this question over the net:
"Should Iran be banned from soccer's 2006 World Cup over its nuclear activities?"
And they let you to vote.
The source:http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me.../iran.nuclear/
I cant believe how they can say that.

I think, think its a ridiculous attempt to get the people riled up against the government.
I can't think of any other reason.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by simon

The police should take such a threat seriously. If they won't, I have the moral right to stop you getting a weapon. This isn't someone saying something like that in the heat of an argument, it's a calculated and verified threat, which many countries (including the members of the EU) take seriously, but the international community seems unable to agree on actually taking meaningful action. A reasonable jury wouldn't convict someone who told the police, but couldn't get the police to do anything, they would treat it as self-defence.

Where do you see that calculated act by the Iranian government? I'm not saying that their intention excludes the making of an atomic bomb but you're jumping waaaay too high in your conclusions to support your view that the U.S should commence a military aggression against Iran in the same way they did against Iraq. and there were no weapons before.

Of course I'd try to protect myself. If the threat was made seriously, I'd take it seriously.

There are ways to protect yourself that go beyond the use of physical violence. Physical voilence should be used as a last resort.

Saying Israel should be wiped off the map is rather stronger than that. The Jews have been in this situation before. Adolf Hitler made rather similar threats, saying Europe should be free of Jews, and nobody did anything until too late. Six million Jews died. Israel is right not to want that to happen again. Once bitten, twice shy.

The way I interpret it, he means what Amber explained above about the creation of the Israeli state, and that might be the sentiment of the majority of Arabs. He's not gonna go and wipe Israel off the map himself. Then you're saying that we should attack the country on the basis of that. Go figure.

[So Israel should just wait for an Iranian nuclear attack? If someone makes threats like that, they should be stopped from carrying them out. Israel is letting the diplomatic process be carried out, but they've said that they won't let Iran acquire nuclear weapons if the international community fails to stop Iran peacefully.

Why would Iran want to create a bomb to threaten Israel, have you thought yourself about that? What kind of purpose would that serve. They're not threathened by Israel are they? It makes no logical sense to me. Unless of course you share the view that all Arabs are evil and terrorists, they want to kill the Jews, they want to kill or "islamise" the western world and destroy our civilization. In that case I do pass.

It seems that some people can't let off their prejudices and personal beliefs and try to see things from a different perspective. I'm not saying that the U.S is responsible for everything, of course not. Everybody plays their part. But we're discussing different interpretations here. No, I'm sorry, I can't agree that the world is made in black and white terms like some - including Bush and the terrorists - want us to think they believe. Cause I don't believe that Bush or the terrorists believe that either But it serves their purpose.

Expelling the Jews from Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans was a "mistake."
-Constructing anti-semitic pathologies about the Jews to conceal Christian hypocrisy was a "mistake."
-Frequently executing pogroms against the Jews was a "mistake."
-Attempting to wipe out the population of them was a ... "mistake."

I propose we hand over the land the Brits took off the American Indians and the American immigrants kept for themselves.. That was a mistake too and it was taken off them by force. I also propose we re-establish the Byzantine Empire and get its capital back from the Turks in Istanbul. It was a centre of Christianity, and the descendants of the Byzantines were forced out. Some are still there. I'd also propose that we get Babylonia, Carthage and the other former empires rebuilt. Then lay back and see what happens...
And that would be more fair than what the westererns did with the creation of Israel. Jerusalem was an historically religious centre of the Jews, not the capital of an empire. It should be an independent cosmopolitan state in itself, allowing the peaceful coexistence of all its people, as it was historically. But that is never going to happen under the present status quo, the armament industry that is called Israel and the reaction of the Arab states.

Are the Jewish the only nation that didn't have a land? No, they're not, they're just the most powerful, the ones that matter to the Americans. The others don't matter at much...

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Really? and how did you deduce that from my statement above? Is that a justification of the Holocaust or maybe a possible underlying reason behind what the Nazi did? Just for the record I neither justify nor condone any attempt of aggression/terrorism/mass annihilation against specific ethnic groups. What the Nazi did to the Jews was one of the most despicable things that ever happened during the course of history, and an atrocity that goes beyond human understanding; and then you're telling me that I "justify" that? No I do not.

Stop putting words in my mouth

You wrote:

Originally Posted by spyretto

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

That is an anti-semitic comment, a racial slur. You know that very well. You even stated that Hitler "wanted to get rid of them for the same reason" that you hate Jews.

[simon]

Originally Posted by xmad

There's NO evidence to prove that Iran's nuclear facilities are military.Israel,USA and others have no right to do anything about this.Does Iran ask them why they have those facilities?Does Iran say I have right to destroy those facilities(which are military)?

Nuclear facilities kept secret from IAEA inspectors for 18 years, including a uranium enrichment facility hidden deep underground, black market centrifuges for enrichment sold by the same Pakistani gang that sold Libya them for its admitted atomic bomb project, manuals from the same source describing the technical details of how to make an atomic bomb. Surely that's evidence that Iran's nuclear facilities are for military purposes? And when Russia offers to provide them with nuclear fuel, they turn them down, insisting they must do their own enrichment. Highly enriched uranium is what you use to make an atomic bomb.

[haku]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Colonising the Middle East and Africa for years only to divide the land between feuding ethnic groups; leaving them to determine who'll win to rule the land or reduce them to gathering scraps of land here and there;
HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MISTAKE!!!!

Of course cutting up the former Arab empire into numerous artificial states was a mistake, i never said otherwise, recreating Israel was a mistake, and creating many Arab states was a mistake, because all of that is totally artificial. But you can't support one (the artificial recreation of Israel) and disagree with the other (the artificial creation of Arab states) because both were done by the same people during the same political circumstances (the end of colonization), it's precisely because European powers were in control of the former Arab empire that they were able to draw whatever borders they wanted, without that European control, there would have never been a new Israel state.

Personaly i think that only one big Arab state (from Marocco to Arabia) should have been created at the end of colonization, one state for all Arabs and of course no Israel.

No Israel, because like Spyretto said, if we go around recreating ancient kingdoms of the Mediterranean region, we have a lot of work! Why not recreate Phenicia or the Hittite kingdom? Or if it is about 'giving back' lands to people, why not give back to Greece the territories in Western Anatolia that were stolen from them by Turks? Prestigious Greek cities like Troy or Ephese or now in Turkey, how outrageous is that?
Or maybe we should start by expelling all people of European and African descent from the American continent and give back their stolen lands to American natives? After all if it is justifiable to give back to Jews territories that were lost 2000 years ago, surely it's even more justifiable to give back to native Americans territories that were lost only a few centuries ago.

Originally Posted by simon

In 1948 the United Nations had a plan to partition Mandate Palestine more or less equally between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs didn't.

Yeah, but the decision to split Palestine and give a part of it to the Jews was decided by the winners of WWII without the Arabs being consulted at all. It *was* Arab land and had been for centuries, so of course they did not agree to have a part of their land stolen from them! Who would?
It's Mister A and Mister B deciding that they should steal a part of Mister C's land to give it to Mister D, and surprisingly Mister C does not agree… What a jerk!

Arabs have said it many times, if Europeans felt so bad about what happened to the Jews, they should have given them a part of European land, not Arab!

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by simon

You wrote:



That is an anti-semitic comment, a racial slur. You know that very well. You even stated that Hitler "wanted to get rid of them for the same reason" that you hate Jews.

You can think whatever you want. I know for a fact that the neutral people who are reading these comments and they know me in this forum for years can see that I'm not anti-anything; I have no interest in being anti-anything.
And I do stand by my earlier comment 100%. You can find a million reasons why certain nations are not very sympathetic towards the Jews and I stated my own opinion about THAT. I absolutely stated no personal opinion about the Jews, because generalising like that that would be stupid. If you can't read between the lines , it's not my problem.
Then again, I can safely say that I can sense that you DO harbour a certain hatred towards ethnic groups on your own. The fact that you're proposing that the US. should preemptively attack Iran on the basis of mere speculations and things that their leader said is preposterous. The fact that you disregard that innocent people will most certainly die during the attacks is disgusting. So my conclusion is that although I do not harbour any anti-semitic views myself, you do indeed harbour some hatred-apathy-indignation towards the Iranian people. Which makes me wonder whether they have done anything to you personally.

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

Lets see now how this comment is not antisemitic in any shape or form - to make it clearer to you:
statement 1: I believe that the Americans did not promise a land for the Jews because they suffered - are they the first? - but because they control global commerce. You can see that in every big corporation the Jewish are on top. That means that they're very capable people when it comes to business. And "ruthless" refers to that indeed. They wouldn't care about anything else when it comes to business. That was the situation prior to WWII, that is the situation now.
statement 2: "It's always about their fucking money". That doesn't refer to the Jewish but to everybody. It's all about controlling the wealth in every conflict around the world. So that statement refers to everybody, got it?
The third statement expresses my personal opinion that Hitler used the racial facade to try and exterminate the Jews for the reason stated above. Hitler depended upon mindless racial hatred to achieve that goal. It could have been a religious one instead like others do. That time it was racial. But the underlying reasons behind the racial hatred were economical

Hating you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic origin is nonsense. Hating you because you deprive me of something is more common sensical.

Does it make more sense to you now?

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

You can think whatever you want. I know for a fact that the neutral people who are reading these comments and they know me in this forum for years can see that I'm not anti-anything; I have no interest in being anti-anything.
And I do stand by my earlier comment 100%. You can find a million reasons why certain nations are not very sympathetic towards the Jews and I stated my own opinion about THAT. I absolutely stated no personal opinion about the Jews, because generalising like that that would be stupid. If you can't read between the lines , it's not my problem.

You weren't generalising about the Jews? You wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

You're clearly generalising about Jews controlling global commerce and being ruthless.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Lets see now how this comment is not antisemitic in any shape or form - to make it clearer to you:
statement 1: I believe that the Americans did not promise a land for the Jews because they suffered - are they the first? - but because they control global commerce. You can see that in every big corporation the Jewish are on top.

It's completely untrue that Jews control global commerce and are at the top of every big corporation. These ideas are anti-semitic fantasies.

Originally Posted by spyretto

That means that they're very capable people when it comes to business. And "ruthless" refers to that indeed. They wouldn't care about anything else when it comes to business. That was the situation prior to WWII, that is the situation now.

You say you don't generalise about Jews, but you say that the Jews are ruthless about money, that's why Hitler really hated them. You're the one who identified your beliefs about Jews with Hitler's, not me, yet you try to deny you're anti-semitic!

Originally Posted by spyretto

statement 2: "It's always about their fucking money". That doesn't refer to the Jewish but to everybody. It's all about controlling the wealth in every conflict around the world. So that statement refers to everybody, got it?

You actually wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well.

There's no way that remark referred to people in general - "it's always about their fucking money". It referred to Jews.

Originally Posted by spyretto

The third statement expresses my personal opinion that Hitler used the racial facade to try and exterminate the Jews for the reason stated above. Hitler depended upon mindless racial hatred to achieve that goal. It could have been a religious one instead like others do. That time it was racial. But the underlying reasons behind the racial hatred were economical

You make anti-semitic comments and say that Hitler thought the same, but deny you're an anti-semite. It's laughable.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Hating you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic origin is nonsense. Hating you because you deprive me of something is more common sensical.

Hating Jews because you imagine that they have all the money is nonsense as well. It's an anti-semitic fantasy.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by simon

You weren't generalising about the Jews? You wrote:



It's completely untrue that Jews control global commerce and are at the top of every big corporation. These ideas are anti-semitic fantasies.


You say you don't generalise about Jews, but you say that the Jews are ruthless about money.

What I wrote is not a generilisation because I didn't say all the Jews. If I said that , THAT would be a generilisation. You like playing with words, don't you. You'd also like to read the history behind the rise of anti-semitism that led to the WWII and the situation in Germany prior to Hitler's ascentancy to power. People didn't follow Hitler because they're racist.

There's no way that remark referred to people in general - "it's always about their fucking money". It referred to Jews.

It was placed next to my previous sentence but it didn't specifically target the Jews. Having said that, it does read like it was, so the placement of the sentences together was a bit unfortunate. I don't have to justify myself to you if I were an anti-semitic, nor apologise or whatever. I'm just explaining what I meant when I wrote that paragraph. Even If I were an antisemitic it'd be my own problem. But I'm not. Then again, if you like to think so much about me being one, fine. I'm an antisemitic to you and a non-antisemitic to myself. I don't have to convince you, in particular. You're beyond convincing.
I also never said that Hitler thought the same as me and hated the Jews for the same reasons I hate the Jewish. I never said I hate the Jews. Go back and read again what I wrote. You completely made that up, and you contiue going in circles about it.

Hating Jews because you imagine that they have all the money is nonsense as well. It's an anti-semitic fantasy.

It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all. and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?

So what made you a hater of Arabs and the other nations in the region? Have you lived in the region to consider yourself an expert of the politics of the region? Or you do that in the comfort of your home in England?
You seem to be taking GW Bush's and the Americans stance: Israel are our allies and we will support them whether they're right or not. This is the wrong politics.

And this is the last time I will reply to you about this issue. I think I made myself crystal clear.

[freddie]

Okay, this discussion is getting a little heated. Chill you guys, okay? I'm sure spyretto didn't mean to sound anti-semitic, though I understand how one might percieve his statements as such. It's just a discussion. No need for unneccesary tension!

I'd just like to comment on the legitimacy of creating the Israeli state and it's comparison to possible revivals of old kingdoms or even giving native americans their land back. There are two sides of this (delicate) story. It's not like the jewish people just flooded the place after WW2, driving the Arabs out. The teritory that is today's Israel has always been at any point in time a native home to AT LEAST 10.000 jewish people which could trace their ancestors back 3000 years... the number was usually much higher than that. And furthermore - the influx of jewish migrations to Israel happened in two significant stages: 1800's and 1933+... so it wasn't strickly a matter of a country that came to be soley because of the holocaust.

I think that the main problem that will forever render the middle-eastern problem unsolvable is and will be unwilingness to compromise. From both sides. Both sides look at the matters very absolutely and ideologically (also religiously which is of course dangerous as hell). Arabs will always feel like they were "raped" by the forming of a jewish state. They'll forever feel the resentment because something that was theirs was taken away from them. Jewish people will forever claim they just rightfully took reign of something that was theirs since all eternity. The truth? Somewhere in the middle. There are no definite rights or wrongs. Both sides lost a great deal and both sides got huge injustices done to them... they were a product of an inefficient institution called the League Of Nations (though honestly... is UN any better?!) The fact is... Israel EXISTS. And nothing will ever change that. Arabs living in the area should come to terms with that. That's the way the historical dice rolls. It's futile discussing which ethnic group had a RIGHT to establish a counry and where it could establish it... because lets face it: most modern countries were gained by conquest, murder, deceit and manipulation. If we start playing that game it's better to just dissolve every national entity which forms a country because it's obviously been established in a non-moral way. Also... Jewish people living there were put there by a political circumstance... not God... that's something THEY should realize. Solution: compromise and understanding. So simple and yet so hard.

[spyretto]

Thanks, freddie. I was beginning to feel a little apprehended over here with people trying to force an opinion about me to me and to others. Even if I did mean exactly my comment about the money as it read - which, as i said, I didn't - it wouldn't be an antisemitic view; let alone a Nazi sympathiser view. Preposterous. But people have their own agendas and they weren't even willing to try and see the point I was stressing in the first place, even after I explain it 100 times; by that, missing the gist of the discussion. They prefer to easily dismiss a view that challenges their own as an "antisemitic dream" even when it's a valid one, without providing an alternative of their own. It's the easy way out to label someone as whatever and turn a discussion on the Israeli-arab conflict to a personal attack on the basis of simply presenting an alternative view to the one that suits them - about former historical events - while they can easily get away with presenting a much more dangerous view on how the world should move forward from now on; and ultimately missing the point of the discussion and turning it into something else.

[simon]

Originally Posted by spyretto

What I wrote is not a generilisation because I didn't say all the Jews. If I said that , THAT would be a generilisation. You like playing with words, don't you.

You're the one playing with words now. You wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well.

That's a generalisation about Jews. You don't have to say 'all Jews' to generalise about Jews.

Originally Posted by spyretoo

It was placed next to my previous sentence but it didn't specifically target the Jews. Having said that, it does read like it was, so the placement of the sentences together was a bit unfortunate.

It's sandwiched between the statement immediately before, which is anti-semitic itself, and the statement immediately after, about Hitler's view of the Jews, so it's a bit extraordinary to be told that it doesn't refer to Jews.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I don't have to justify myself to you if I were an anti-semitic, nor apologise or whatever. I'm just explaining what I meant when I wrote that paragraph. Even If I were an antisemitic it'd be my own problem. But I'm not. Then again, if you like to think so much about me being one, fine. I'm an antisemitic to you and a non-antisemitic to myself. I don't have to convince you, in particular. You're beyond convincing.

I don't want to think you're anti-semitic. I came to that opinion because you made statements that read as anti-semitic, as you admit yourself.

[quote=spyretto]I also never said that Hitler thought the same as me and hated the Jews for the same reasons I hate the Jewish. I never said I hate the Jews. Go back and read again what I wrote. You completely made that up, and you contiue going in circles about it.
You didn't directly hated the Jews, you just said they controlled global commerce, were ruthless about it and Hitler had wanted to get rid of them for it.

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all.

The belief that the Jews control the wealth and the destiny of the planet is a fantasy. It's a classic anti-semitic fantasy. You stated in support of the claim: "in every big corporation the Jewish are on top". I pointed out that isn't true. Look at a list of CEOs of the 100 largest corporations in the world. Are they all Jewish? Is Bill Gates, to take the most famous example, Jewish? You'll find that there are very few Jewish business leaders except in the movie industry.

Originally Posted by spyretto

and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?

Don't be patronising.

Originally Posted by spyretto

So what made you a hater of Arabs and the other nations in the region?

I don't hate Arabs or Iranians. I support the Palestinians, I think that they have been treated badly by the Israelis. I have criticised Israel, I think that expelling the Palestinians from their homes was terrible. What I did was point out that the Arab side was not blameless, they said they planned to "drive the Jews into the sea".

Originally Posted by spyretto

You seem to be taking GW Bush's and the Americans stance: Israel are our allies and we will support them whether they're right or not. This is the wrong politics.

I don't support the Israelis right or wrong. I regret the creation of Israel, but I agree with freddie that it can't be undone now. I think that the Palestinians should have a state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and financial compensation for the loss of the rest of their lands. But I think that faced with a not-so-veiled threat of a nuclear attack from a nutcase like Ahmadinejad, the Israelis have the right to protect themselves by bombing Iranian nuclear sites to stop him acquiring the bomb.

[spyretto]

The belief that the Jews control the wealth and the destiny of the planet is a fantasy. It's a classic anti-semitic fantasy. You stated in support of the claim: "in every big corporation the Jewish are on top". I pointed out that isn't true. Look at a list of CEOs of the 100 largest corporations in the world. Are they all Jewish? Is Bill Gates, to take the most famous example, Jewish? You'll find that there are very few Jewish business leaders except in the movie industry.

When I said that the Jews control global commerce did not mean that they dominate the list of the richest men in the world but I meant what I actually said: that they occupy vital top positions in big corporations and organizations around the world and the U.S in particular. Their lobby in the U.S is extremely powerful. For the ratio of the Jewish population/world population that is disporportionate. I didn't mean it as an anti-semitic comment but as an alternative look at the underlying reasons behind the hatred that other nations harbour towards the Jews ( other than the racial/religious ones, of course ).
And of course, the continuous turmoil and violence in the Gaza strip and the dispute of the other Arab states with regards to Israel complicates things further.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all. and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?

And this is the last time I will reply to you about this issue. I think I made myself crystal clear.

I hope it isn't the last time you discuss about this topic because there is so much more that needs to be explored. Sorry freddie.

I for one have always believed that it was in fact White people, not Jews, who control the wealth and the direction this world heading towards. So I'm really interested in your take on things, honestly. Though I have heard people ramble on about this, nobody has taken the liberty of actually elaborating how exactly the Jews control the world.
Of course, if I disagree with you I will let it be known.

Originally Posted by Amber

Of course cutting up the former Arab empire into numerous artificial states was a mistake, i never said otherwise, recreating Israel was a mistake, and creating many Arab states was a mistake, because all of that is totally artificial. But you can't support one (the artificial recreation of Israel) and disagree with the other (the artificial creation of Arab states) because both were done by the same people during the same political circumstances (the end of colonization), it's precisely because European powers were in control of the former Arab empire that they were able to draw whatever borders they wanted, without that European control, there would have never been a new Israel state.

It isn't that I support one over the other. I just realize that those are things that have been done and cannot be undone; like what Freddie said; it is all in the past. It's just that I'm quite baffled that of all the things you claim were mistakes not once do you mention the motivation behind the creation of the Isareli state; what made the Jews clamour for self-determination. You're decontextualising history trying to isolate the creation of Israel from how the Jews were treated in Europe before. Don't you think that had the Jews not have been unfairly persecuted for thousands of years they most probably would not have the need for an independent state?
The one thing Europe has done that was not for its own self-interest (colonisation) but for the benefit of another people and most of you regret it? Why?

Because you sold out the Palestinians?
Of all the people you sold out (and there were/are plenty) why are they so special?
Now don't get wrong I am in no way implying that Palestinians are worthless, I just don't get why they stand out among other disenfranchised people.
You guys aren't the only ones that sold them out... and you certainly aren't the last.
Turkey sold Palestinian land to the Jews despite the protesting of their Muslim tenants near the turn of the century when they ruled over it. They don't feel bad about it at all and nobody, including Muslims, are calling them on it.
Even Arabs sold out the Palestinians (though some for a good reason), nobody gave a shit when 2000 refugees were slaughtered with Israeli approval during the Lebanese civil war, they were more concerned about the World Cup. Besides Jordan, no other Arab nation welcomes Palestinians with citizenships. And if they do, they have been kicked out (Kuwait). Oman actually has a ban, barring any Palestinian from entering.
A common preconcieved notion about Arabs is that they are all united and fight for the right for Palestine to exist. They aren't and most Arabs in the Middle East genuinely hate Palestinians. It's only the ones outside the Middle East that do under some Muslim obligation.

Originally Posted by Amber

Personaly i think that only one big Arab state (from Marocco to Arabia) should have been created at the end of colonization, one state for all Arabs and of course no Israel.

I personally think people should just leave everything alone, as they should have done in the first place, and let everything come out organically rather than forcing it onto people. But then, even if properly functioning nations spring out nobody would recognize it without the West's approval; as is the case with Somaliland.

Originally Posted by Amber

Or maybe we should start by expelling all people of European and African descent from the American continent and give back their stolen lands to American natives? After all if it is justifiable to give back to Jews territories that were lost 2000 years ago, surely it's even more justifiable to give back to native Americans territories that were lost only a few centuries ago.

Shit, maybe you're right!
I'm a first generation immigrant and so are many people in Canada so really if the First Nations' People all of a sudden had a giant revolt all accross the Western Hemisphere people like me wouldn't exactly mind. They are the only people who have any authority to tell us "go back to where you came from!" Whereas if a white person said that, we normally all just have a good laugh.
African Americans on the other hand never really chose to be in the States, so I don't they'd really give a shit.
Which leaves us with white people... Amber, do you really want a sudden influx of people from Quebec who speak the language in a horrible accent (according to a French person I once knew) and Americans who have no idea how to speak it let alone be as obnoxious as an American could be? Please note that many Americans of French descendence are from the southern states.
"Does that croissant come with low-carbs?"

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

I hope it isn't the last time you discuss about this topic because there is so much more that needs to be explored. Sorry freddie.

I for one have always believed that it was in fact White people, not Jews, who control the wealth and the direction this world heading towards. So I'm really interested in your take on things, honestly. Though I have heard people ramble on about this, nobody has taken the liberty of actually elaborating how exactly the Jews control the world.
Of course, if I disagree with you I will let it be known.

What I'm saying is that I'm not willing to discuss the issue with regards to the statement I made about the Jews and Hitler and what I meant by it. I explained it enough and simon has quoted it enough. It's time to give it a rest.

Jews are historically linked with the rise of international trade. I'm copying from Yossi Schwartz's "The Origin Of the Jews; The Rise of anti-Semitism"

Throughout the ages the participation of the Jews in the evolution of commerce was far out of proportion to their numbers.

It goes on and on about the role of the Jews in monopolising global commerce during the Roman Times and well into the Middle Ages and thereafter. This is written by a Jew so there's no need to dispute it as propaganda.

http://www.marxist.com/History/origins_jews2.htm

On the rise of antisemitism:

The Jews living in feudal Europe dominated by the Christian ideology had more a difficult existence than the Jews living in Islamic states. They were excluded from most occupations except trading and the lending of money. Anti-Semitism was encouraged amongst the commoners who also believed a good deal of nonsense about the Jews. They held the Jews collectively responsible for Jesus' death since it was the Pharisees who had pushed the Roman government into executing him. Widespread rumors in the Middle Ages claimed that the Jews practiced blood sacrifices at their religious ceremonies and killed Christian children, poisoned wells, and spread disease. The Jews were subject to massive attacks during the Crusades and during the spread of the Black Death in the 1300s, when the European population went truly hysterical.

The key to understanding the origins of anti-Semitism in this period is the fact that the Church, as a part of feudal society, wanted to discourage the growth of the cities. The common feature of the Jews since the exile by the Babylonians has been their mode of living as city dwellers.

From the time of the Babylonian exile, Jewish communities were rarely established in the hinterlands. Jews have lived in ports, or along trade routes, or in administrative and industrial centers, rather than in the country-side as peasants living off the land. Feudal society was essentially a caste society. It was desired that everyone "should remain in his place." It was extremely difficult, if not impossible for bourgeois to enter the nobility, just as the noble who lowered himself to the practice of a trade or to engaging in business was disdained. Peasants were prevented from escaping to the cities, and the Jews for them were part of the dangerous city.

It goes on and on about the role of the Jews in global commerce prior to the Holocaust. I thought that was indisputable.

But I'm looking forward to reading your alternative explanation on why such "nonsense" was spread. The Trojan war was not made because of the chastity of Helen, you know