Israel to Strike Iran

[Greenline]

 

Free themselves from what? Development at the hand of a relatively friendly government (in relation to the hostile environment it is in?).

 

The Palestinians have been given many chances to 'free' themselves, conventions and attempts by the UN to give them certain portions of land (which they refused). But, stubbornness  will not get them far in this situation, and they've proven to be very stubborn when given simple solutions to the 'Zionist oppression'.

 

Oh, and regarding your history comment: Yes, but at the core, Israel (Judea) is a Jewish land. And denying that is - in your own words- laughable.

Your explanation sounds quite a lot like Imperialist calls for the 'development of Africa' or justification of subjugation as 'progress'. I very truly do hate to be sensational, and there is not much similarity here at all, but the analogy illustrates a rough point. Nevertheless, the smug assumption that Palestinians would benefit massively from the development of their lands by intruders is agonising to read as a serious argument. Palestinians are being developed how exactly? With lands of theirs being seized, disruption and civilian casualties being caused by the conflict, and constant bombings? By being walled in? These are partly by-products of violent protest and terrorism; but part of the situation caused by Israel.

 

I'd be stubborn too if my country was being offered half concessions in order to appear to be being treated fairly. Once more, you insist on dragging history back into it, despite my dismissal of it as trivial. Constantinople is a traditionally Christian city, perhaps we should expel all Turks and rename it from Istanbul? If you read carefully I stated I don't want resettlement of anyone, just a much fairer deal for the Palestinians, which is generally considered to be denied.

I'm just going to quote the PM I sent you here, as it fits quite nicely with both your PM and your post.

 

 

Again, if the Palestinian Arabs would accept to enter negotiations with Israel, this so called 'suffering' would end. Both on the side of the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. A good question is, would the Arabs give Palestine to the Jews if the tables were turned? Imagine the current Jewish state of Israel never existed, would they do that? Would the Arabs give Palestine to the Jews? Just like that? I doubt it, but the Israelis are expected to do so.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure the situation would be more violent if we were dealing with the Arab state of Palestine trying to quiet the Jews (if they were rioting like the Arabs are now). Governments based on strict Islamic principles don't tend to turn out well, as is the case with my own government. And the Israelis are being as friendly as they can.

 

I've edited the PM a bit so it's more suitable for public viewing.

 

Please read page 3 before replying.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Greenline

[sivispacem]

 

Palestine was not England property they conquer it when countries powerfull where taking over the world.

In the same way that other commonwealth nations that have not been granted independence/sovereignty are legally and technically still British territories, as was Palestine. It's you who argued that Israel had no right to the land- technically and legally, they did. You may consider that a travesty or illogical, illegitimate or whatever you want, but it's factually and legally accurate.

 

 

And you think Jews welcome Palestinians then go there see for your self.

I've spent a good deal of time in Israel, actually. It's best to discuss the issue in the context of "Israeli Arabs" and "Palestinians" separately, even though the real distinction isn't so concrete in reality. The "Israeli Arabs"- that is, those who have chosen to remain living in Israel are treated pretty exactly the same way that everyone else is in Israel- and I spent much of my time with Israeli Arabs, so it's not just having been only subject to Jewish families and customs. The West Bank is pretty safe, and has a semblance of normal life, but there's still some suspicion surrounding individuals from that area- not at all surprising given the current political state of Israel and the origins of the First and Second Intifadas. In fact, the last time I was in Israel was under the previous government, and relations between Israel and the West Bank were positively friendly. I never went to Gaza, nor will I; partially because it's basically impossible to go there, and partially because it's one of the least safe places on earth. I wouldn't wish life in Gaza on my worst enemy but that's not just the work of Israel. You should see what the Egyptian military are currently doing to the covert supply routes that bring basically all the raw materials required for daily life in Gaza in through the Sinai- and all because the same militant organisation who control Gaza have been conducting a small-scale limited war against Egyptian forces assisting Israel in enforcing the blockade.

 

 

When i went there for the first time in 5 years they had me stay 3 hours because they think i got something illegal in my bag which not just me but maybe like 30 more people.

And? I got cavity searched flying out of Miami because I'd just flown from Bogotá on what's commonly regarded as a drug route. I'd have much rather had a 3-hour interrogation.

[EgyptianStar]

Edited: Continue the discussion

Edited September 9, 2012 by EgyptianStar

[Greenline]

So are hoping Israel attacks Iran. ? why would you want World War 3 to begin.

Maybe you should read the topic before posting... The theory of WWIII happening through this conflict has been debunked, twice.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061673907

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061673910

 

Read the topic, then post.

[EgyptianStar]

So are hoping Israel attacks Iran. ? why would you want World War 3 to begin.

Maybe you should read the topic before posting... The theory of WWIII happening through this conflict has been debunked, twice.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061673907

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061673910

 

Read the topic, then post.

Alright I understand. This a very dangerous conflict if it were to happen. which would spark a new proxy conflict era for the next years. Lets hope the Aggressive Israelis stop wishing for dominance which they cannot achieve.

[Mike Tequeli]

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

 

With all that said I figure a huge war in the Gulf will be really bad for gas prices.

[Greenline]

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

This, this so much.

 

EgyptianStar: Saying that an Israeli attack on Iran is 'Israel seeking dominance', is wrong, big-time. It would be extremely complicated for Israel to invade Iran, and would absolutely not be beneficial for Israel in anyway. So, dominance is definitely far-fetched.

[EgyptianStar]

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

This, this so much.

 

EgyptianStar: Saying that an Israeli attack on Iran is 'Israel seeking dominance', is wrong, big-time. It would be extremely complicated for Israel to invade Iran, and would absolutely not be beneficial for Israel in anyway. So, dominance is definitely far-fetched.

Its Military dominance. Israel fears that if Iran with its self sufficient Military armed with a Nuke would change the power structure. No longer can Israel attack its neighbors at will if their armed with WMDs like Syria now cannot even be touched. that's why the west is funding a covert overthrow destroying and splitting Syria. I support Iran 100% in its nuclear ambitions. I support the Iranian people. Not the government thou.

[Greenline]

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

This, this so much.

 

EgyptianStar: Saying that an Israeli attack on Iran is 'Israel seeking dominance', is wrong, big-time. It would be extremely complicated for Israel to invade Iran, and would absolutely not be beneficial for Israel in anyway. So, dominance is definitely far-fetched.

Its Military dominance. Israel fears that if Iran with its self sufficient Military armed with a Nuke would change the power structure. No longer can Israel attack its neighbors at will if their armed with WMDs like Syria now cannot even be touched. that's why the west is funding a covert overthrow destroying and splitting Syria. I support Iran 100% in its nuclear ambitions. I support the Iranian people. Not the government thou.

If you do then you would know that the Iranian people (mostly) are on Israel's side and don't care much for the nuclear plan either.

 

Read Page 3, if you want to see the Israel-Palestine talk.

[EgyptianStar]

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

This, this so much.

 

EgyptianStar: Saying that an Israeli attack on Iran is 'Israel seeking dominance', is wrong, big-time. It would be extremely complicated for Israel to invade Iran, and would absolutely not be beneficial for Israel in anyway. So, dominance is definitely far-fetched.

Its Military dominance. Israel fears that if Iran with its self sufficient Military armed with a Nuke would change the power structure. No longer can Israel attack its neighbors at will if their armed with WMDs like Syria now cannot even be touched. that's why the west is funding a covert overthrow destroying and splitting Syria. I support Iran 100% in its nuclear ambitions. I support the Iranian people. Not the government thou.

If you do then you would know that the Iranian people (mostly) are on Israel's side and don't care much for the nuclear plan either.

 

Read Page 3, if you want to see the Israel-Palestine talk.

I wouldn't say the don't care about their nuclear power plants. They should be happy that their nation is highly educated to produce nuclear scientist, chemist, and engineers. You think the Iranian people would cheer Airstrikes against their country. Just curious you're Iranian what's your position having your country singled out and punished for pursuing new alternate energy means that every sovereign state is given ?

[Dingdongs]

Because they are doing more than pursue alternative energy. Please refer to the below:

 

 

They're enriching uranium beyond the point required for civil nuclear power, up to about 40% HEU (High-enriched Uranium, which is Uranium content above 20%) currently. 90-95% HEU is required for nuclear weapons, generally. They've also got plutonium reprocessing facilities and experimental, non-power-generation heavy water reactors which can breed plutonium. In short, their nuclear programme is at a point where they are still some years (probably) off producing enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, but there are no other necessary reasons to enrich above about 20% unless they're either building weapons or powering nuclear submarines (small reactors in submarines use much higher enrichment levels for more power generation in a smaller physical space).

 

 

[Greenline]

 

The war monger in me really wants to see the Iranian regime toppled. Iran is actually a pretty cool place, not particularly fundamentalist or anything like that which is why it is a shame to see them under the boot of Islamic theocracy. If Israel wants a war they should wait until after the election so that American support is more likely, then we can really destroy the regime completely.

This, this so much.

 

EgyptianStar: Saying that an Israeli attack on Iran is 'Israel seeking dominance', is wrong, big-time. It would be extremely complicated for Israel to invade Iran, and would absolutely not be beneficial for Israel in anyway. So, dominance is definitely far-fetched.

Its Military dominance. Israel fears that if Iran with its self sufficient Military armed with a Nuke would change the power structure. No longer can Israel attack its neighbors at will if their armed with WMDs like Syria now cannot even be touched. that's why the west is funding a covert overthrow destroying and splitting Syria. I support Iran 100% in its nuclear ambitions. I support the Iranian people. Not the government thou.

If you do then you would know that the Iranian people (mostly) are on Israel's side and don't care much for the nuclear plan either.

 

Read Page 3, if you want to see the Israel-Palestine talk.

I wouldn't say the don't care about their nuclear power plants. They should be happy that their nation is highly educated to produce nuclear scientist, chemist, and engineers. You think the Iranian people would cheer Airstrikes against their country. Just curious you're Iranian what's your position having your country singled out and punished for pursuing new alternate energy means that every sovereign state is given ?

First of all, Iran would not be singled-out if they were more cooperative with the IAEA and also, they would not be singled out if they weren't enriching their uranium to over 20%. And yes, most of us would cheer airstrikes against Iran because it will cause a deep blow to the Islamic Republic and finally, make toppling them a much easier task. After Syria falls, Khamenei's demise is inevitable. Also, even the Islamic Republic knows their end is near, the way they write their articles, you can tell.

 

It's in the air, the Islamic Republic won't see another 10 years of rule over Persia. And either the Prince or a new form of government will be reinstated.

 

 

Nah, they can self-implode after they fix us up. Contrary to what most may think, most of us are pretty happy about this. Although the future is uncertain, the chances of the Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi II returning - or a full secular democracy - coming to Iran are pretty high after this. So, in the end, most hope that although there will be casualties, we'll have a scenario that's similar to the Yom Kippur war (in length and civilian casualties) and we will possibly be freed from this regime.

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061673133

 

Also, I'm extremely Pro-Israel (like most Iranians), as you can see on page 3.

 

And no, we're not proud Iranian students are being (sometimes forcefully) pulled into the Nuclear field. Also, many universities outside Iran have denied Iranians access to all fields 'which could assist in the production of nuclear weapons'.

 

There is no pride in a bunch of terrorists (temporarily) ruling Iran getting access to WMDs.

 

Also, Iran had (and has) the right to enrich uranium if it would cooperate with the rest of the world, you know, like a country which has nothing to hide would do.

 

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

 

If there had been no revolution, Dubai would've been nothing compared to Persia. We were being so westernized that we would make Lebanon and Jordan look like Nepal. If the Shah and his heirs were on the throne up to the year 2000, things would've been different. But, alas, here we are.

 

And just for the sake of demonstrating, this was the beginning of the Shah's reforms:

 

 

NOTE: I have not seen the video myself.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Greenline

[EgyptianStar]

America overthrew Irans government in 1953 because he nationalized the oil companies and banned BP from the country. The CIA and MI-5 weren't having any of that. The Shah was a puppet of America. The Zionists want the middle east at their disposal and fear a strong middle east.

[sivispacem]

Partially true. In truth, the British security services (SIS in particular) had much more to do with the overthrow of the democratically elected government than the CIA did, and the reasoning wasn't as simple as the commonly used BP example. The fact that Iran was being used as a conduit for USSR supplies both during and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and it was the UK, not the US, who refused to sign the 1951 petroleum concessions splitting profits from Iranian oil fields 50/50 between AOIC and the Iranian government. Attempts by SIS to subvert the Iranian regime culminated in mid 1953 with the mass resignation of Parliamentary aides of Mossadegh, and the referendum which led to the dissolution of parliament and the instating of all legislative power in Mossadegh, the Prime Minister, was technically illegal in Iranian constitutional law despite a 99.9% public approval. The US had almost no involvement in the initial campaign to subvert the Iranian regime and only "joined the party" after being presented with evidence; some accurate and come dubious; by SIS that the Iranian nationalist sentiment was financial and strategically backed by the Soviet Union.

 

Since 1948, the "Zionist" movement has been relatively subdued and there's some academic debate over whether it exists at all. It's inaccurate to categorise Israel, her leadership and citizenry as "Zionist" because the fundamental goal of Zionism- the creation of a Jewish state in the biblical homeland- has been accomplished. It's also entirely inaccurate to say that a strong Middle East is a strategic threat to Israel- if anything, the opposite is true. One only need look at events in your home country since the revolution to see how important maintain a working relationship with a strong Egypt has been for Israel. Case in point, the continued military interventions by Egyptian security forces in the Sinai region. Don't believe the nay-sayers who feel that Israel is being sidelined and marginalised by the re-militarisation of the Sinai- it's a joint operation, using Israeli intelligence and logistical support, which enables the Egyptian military to conduct search and destroy operations in the region and it's to both states' strategic benefit. A strong, conservative-but-not-radical, bordering-on-nationally-secular Middle East is a vastly important resource for Israel purely because it offers a strategic counterweight for the economic and military growth of Iran- playing on the traditional vitriol and negative sentiment between Sunni/Sufi and Shia. Iran's Fasadi rhetoric and constant allegations of Kafir and/or Takfir against all other religions including alternate forms of Islam (including Sufi, Sunni, and Saudi Wahhabism), the funding of violent non-state actors in hostile or neutral Arab nations and the potential consequences of Iranian nuclear ambitions (including the threat of a nuclear arms race involving Iran and sworn enemies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE) is a far greater threat to peace and stability than even the most conservative and hawkish Israeli politicians.

[A J]

Thanks for the basic explanations of why they don't get a long and how Israel came to be.

 

What a sh*tty country we live in, The United Kingdom, f*cking up other countries for our own benefit, I'm ashamed to be British, poor Iranians are now suffering from a regime of stupid Muslims with dangerous and unknown intentions, supressing people's freedoms and ruining a beautiful country's world wide reputation. f*ck Khomeini. You know some Iranian's say if you lift the beard of a Mullah underneath it says ' Made in Britain' ..

 

I hope in my life time that Iran will return to a non Islamic state, invest money into improving it's country rather than it's military, and just show the world what truely kind and hospitable it's people are and true culture is.

 

 

 

 

[Iminicus]

 

 

What a sh*tty country we live in, Rome f*cking up other countries for our own benefit, I'm ashamed to be Roman, poor Britons are now suffering from a regime of stupid Legionaries with dangerous and unknown intentions, suppressing people's freedoms and ruining a beautiful country's world wide reputation. f*ck Ceasar. You know some Briton's say if you lift the skirt of a Centurion underneath it says ' Made in Sardinia' .. wink.gif

 

I hope in my life time that Britiania will return to a non Roman state, invest money into improving it's country rather than it's military, and just show the world what truly kind and hospitable it's people are and true culture is.

 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Of course, you can replace Rome with Mongolia if you want. Or Egypt, Mesopotamia, and numerous other countries throughout history.

[fgcarva1]

Oh, so this is how 12.12.12 is gonna happen? A strike into Iranian territory, one month of battle until the US joins in and we have a nuclear war? Sounds good to me.

[Johnny_Cash1983]

Palestine was not England property they conquer it when countries powerfull where taking over the world.

In the same way that other commonwealth nations that have not been granted independence/sovereignty are legally and technically still British territories, as was Palestine. It's you who argued that Israel had no right to the land- technically and legally, they did. You may consider that a travesty or illogical, illegitimate or whatever you want, but it's factually and legally accurate.

 

 

And you think Jews welcome Palestinians then go there see for your self.

I've spent a good deal of time in Israel, actually. It's best to discuss the issue in the context of "Israeli Arabs" and "Palestinians" separately, even though the real distinction isn't so concrete in reality. The "Israeli Arabs"- that is, those who have chosen to remain living in Israel are treated pretty exactly the same way that everyone else is in Israel- and I spent much of my time with Israeli Arabs, so it's not just having been only subject to Jewish families and customs. The West Bank is pretty safe, and has a semblance of normal life, but there's still some suspicion surrounding individuals from that area- not at all surprising given the current political state of Israel and the origins of the First and Second Intifadas. In fact, the last time I was in Israel was under the previous government, and relations between Israel and the West Bank were positively friendly. I never went to Gaza, nor will I; partially because it's basically impossible to go there, and partially because it's one of the least safe places on earth. I wouldn't wish life in Gaza on my worst enemy but that's not just the work of Israel. You should see what the Egyptian military are currently doing to the covert supply routes that bring basically all the raw materials required for daily life in Gaza in through the Sinai- and all because the same militant organisation who control Gaza have been conducting a small-scale limited war against Egyptian forces assisting Israel in enforcing the blockade.

 

 

When i went there for the first time in 5 years they had me stay 3 hours because they think i got something illegal in my bag which not just me but maybe like 30 more people.

And? I got cavity searched flying out of Miami because I'd just flown from Bogotá on what's commonly regarded as a drug route. I'd have much rather had a 3-hour interrogation.

You was in Israel (Jew side) in Palestine (Arab side) its dangerous there are dogs sent by Israeli army and those dogs are deadly with no tail (the army cut them) they attack on sight i don't how you are saying its not dangerous.

The Jews cut and burns the Palestinians olive trees so you cant have a tree far from your home don't tell me Israel treat Palestinians good because that's not true.

And i was not stopped because i was nervous it was because i was a Palestinian same goes to the rest 30 or so people.

Most country's got freedom but Why not Palestine its not England property its People who where born there, Its there property.

@Greenline

You don't now history don't you?

First it was Qanan was first in Palestine not Jews.

Jews Religion started in Egypt then they went to Palestine and then Christianity started when Jesus came and some of the Jews converted to Christianity, and then Islam came and some converted so there are no Jew land its Palestine.

 

[A J]

What a sh*tty country we live in, Rome f*cking up other countries for our own benefit, I'm ashamed to be Roman, poor Britons are now suffering from a regime of stupid Legionaries with dangerous and unknown intentions, suppressing people's freedoms and ruining a beautiful country's world wide reputation. f*ck Ceasar. You know some Briton's say if you lift the skirt of a Centurion underneath it says ' Made in Sardinia' .. wink.gif

 

I hope in my life time that Britiania will return to a non Roman state, invest money into improving it's country rather than it's military, and just show the world what truly kind and hospitable it's people are and true culture is.

 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Of course, you can replace Rome with Mongolia if you want. Or Egypt, Mesopotamia, and numerous other countries throughout history.

and your smartass point is?

 

That power changes hands, throughout time, and one country will always screw the other over?

 

Thanks for that mini history lesson, and for fixing my opinion on the matter .

[OriginalEaz]

Israel will undoubtably attack Iran sooner or later, hopefully not until Iran have developed nuclear weapons so that Iran can nuke the f*ck out of that dirty country Israel

[sivispacem]

 

You was in Israel (Jew side) in Palestine (Arab side) its dangerous there are dogs sent by Israeli army and those dogs are deadly with no tail (the army cut them) they attack on sight i don't how you are saying its not dangerous.

I don't quite understand what you're saying? I never once got mauled by a dog when in Israel, army attack dog or otherwise, nor did I experience anyone else getting mauled, including when in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

 

 

The Jews cut and burns the Palestinians olive trees so you cant have a tree far from your home

The actions of groups of settlers cannot be attributed to the government in this instance. The destruction of Palestinian property was not sanction by Israel, but carried out by settler groups who've also been on the receiving end of plenty of aggression from the Israeli security services. It has little to no bearing on the discussion at hand, and besides, I'm not claiming that everything done by the Israeli government is legitimate; far from it. My two fundamental points are according to international law the granting of the land of Israel to the Jews was perfectly legal, and legally there is no distinction between Arab Israelis and other Israeli citizens, though the West Bank and Gaza are autonomous regions anyway so are separate cases.

 

 

don't tell me Israel treat Palestinians good because that's not true.

I never did. I said that Israeli treated Israeli Arabs the same way they treat anyone else; I don't agree with much of what's been done in the Palestinian territories- Gaza in particular- but holding Israeli solely responsible for that is utterly moronic. If you are going to hold Israel accountable, then you must also hold accountable Egypt (who for too long allowed weapons and materiel to be smuggled into Gaza and used in attacks on Israel proper), and the militant organisations such as Hamas who have refused to acknowledge the idea of a two-state solution at all and conducted a campaign of irregular warfare against Israel. You also must hold partially responsible the nations of Libya, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iran and Libya, whose involvement in prolonged military and limited covert conflicts with Israel gave seed to the idea of Israel being under constant threat and have caused her to behave in an increasingly militaristic fashion.

 

 

Most country's got freedom but Why not Palestine its not England property its People who where born there, Its there property.

Like I said, I believe in a two-state solution. Also, birth does not equal identity, legally speaking. And what about all the various Jewish groups who tried to settle in small numbers in the Palestinian territories and were subject to terrible persecution, violence, poverty and anti-Semitism actively encouraged by the Ottoman empire? Did they not have a right to peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians?

 

 

Jews Religion started in Egypt then they went to Palestine and then Christianity started when Jesus came and some of the Jews converted to Christianity, and then Islam came and some converted so there are no Jew land its Palestine.

Actually, history teaches us that the first self-determinate post-Egyptian Yahweh kingdoms existed in what is now modern-day Israel in around 600BCE. That's the second self-determinate civilisation to live in the region as far as records have ever been able to identify, after the Canaanite period beforehand in which Judaism was first codified as a systematic belief system. The first "Arab" settlement of what is now Israel occurred with the Egyptians, after the Canaanite period; the first Arab Islamic settlements in Israel were in the mid-Byzantine period.

[Greenline]

 

@Greenline

You don't now history don't you?

First it was Qanan was first in Palestine not Jews.

Jews Religion started in Egypt then they went to Palestine and then Christianity started when Jesus came and some of the Jews converted to Christianity, and then Islam came and some converted so there are no Jew land its Palestine.

So? I'm assuming you're basing this off my comments about Israel. Also, I'm assuming that that means that because (some) of the Jews were converted during the course of history, it changes the fact that the lands of Palestine are not Jewish at their core.

 

So, the point you are making is that the Jewish have just vanished? They do not exist anymore? Because the Christians converted some and the Muslims forced others to convert? I think the 13,500,000 Jews want to talk to you about that. Sure, you could say that there are 1,000,000,000 Muslims in the world. But that would not change the fact that your argument is absolutely pointless. I've mentioned two things on page 3 and throughout my PM exchanges with El Zilcho:

 

1. The Jewish settlement of the lands of Palestine was beneficial to it. As before the lands were described as 'desolate' and 'where the earth is fertile but entirely given to grass'. If you knew the climate of the Levant, you would know that Israel shouldn't look like that. Here's what Mark Twain said about his visit to the lands in 1867:

 

 

a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds—a silent mournful expanse. . . . A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route. . . . There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

 

And, on page 3 I posted a report which you can go and read again. Today, the Jewish settlement has improved Israel in ways that one could not imagine, and after the lands were 'renovated', in a sense, the Palestinian Arabs suddenly want to have it back.

 

And 2, Such a scenario can be shown in a simple kindergarten scene: You have a toy, and it sits on the shelf collecting dust. But, when someone else starts playing with it you suddenly feel a sense of ownership and want to play with it too.

 

Here, it's the same, the Palestinian Arabs suddenly regained interest in their lands after the Jewish settlers began to create a relatively modern state out of it. And suddenly, there is a sense of pride among the Arabs, they begin to create (short-lived) 'republics' and dedicate themselves to destroying the 'oppressive lands' of Israel (i.e. Yom Kippur War etc.).

 

And, saying that a culturally and historically Jewish nation, currently hosting the largest amount of Jews (it beat the United States recently, I believe), is just as pathetic as your claims to the Persian Gulf. Something that has had a certain identity for thousands of years, even before the Arabs has an identity and then suddenly, claiming it.

 

So, again, the Jewish people are entitled to a land that is theirs. Imagine someone claiming Masjed al-Haram and saying that it's theirs because they converted all the people in the Mosque, and thus, the Mosque has no significance whatsoever to the Muslims and is now theirs.

 

And, finally, to prove my 'Forgotten Toy' statement, here are some statements by some contemporary Arabs:

 

 

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. . . . We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home. . . . We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other (emphasis added).

 

And here is the Guardian of the Islamic Places of Arabia, Sharif Hussein:

 

 

The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna’ihi-l-asliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor.

 

And now tell me that Palestine isn't that forgotten toy, that when the other kid pics it up, is suddenly important and everyone wants to play with it again.

 

@Iminicus And that means? This is absolutely not the same situation, the Mullahs of Iran can not be compared to situations that played out a thousand to a few hundred years ago.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Greenline

[Mike Tequeli]

Israel will undoubtably attack Iran sooner or later, hopefully not until Iran have developed nuclear weapons so that Iran can nuke the f*ck out of that dirty country Israel

Which will cause Iran to be promptly nuked into glass, everyone wins!

 

I mean do you really want a state sponsor of terrorism to get nuclear weapons?

[OriginalEaz]

Israel will undoubtably attack Iran sooner or later, hopefully not until Iran have developed nuclear weapons so that Iran can nuke the f*ck out of that dirty country Israel

Which will cause Iran to be promptly nuked into glass, everyone wins!

 

I mean do you really want a state sponsor of terrorism to get nuclear weapons?

That's pure American propaganda, I'd rather want Iran to develope nuclear weapons than Israel to possess any whatsoever...Israel has hundreds, and they're dictating the entire U.S to start wars in the middle east...I'd love if Iran once and for all nuked the state of terrorism Israel

[sivispacem]

That's pure American propaganda, I'd rather want Iran to develope nuclear weapons than Israel to possess any whatsoever...Israel has hundreds, and they're dictating the entire U.S to start wars in the middle east...I'd love if Iran once and for all nuked the state of terrorism Israel

Stop posting drivel, please. It's one thing to have legitimate grievances, and quite another to just post drivel. Case in point- labelling a state "terrorist" or "terrorism", without the caveat "sponsor". A state cannot be terrorist as that contradicts the definition of terrorism. But you'd probably have known that if you had the first clue what you were talking about.

[Luna Fortuna]

 

That's pure American propaganda, I'd rather want Iran to develope nuclear weapons than Israel to possess any whatsoever...Israel has hundreds, and they're dictating the entire U.S to start wars in the middle east...I'd love if Iran once and for all nuked the state of terrorism Israel

Stop posting drivel, please. It's one thing to have legitimate grievances, and quite another to just post drivel. Case in point- labelling a state "terrorist" or "terrorism", without the caveat "sponsor". A state cannot be terrorist as that contradicts the definition of terrorism. But you'd probably have known that if you had the first clue what you were talking about.

What exactly is the definition of terrorism you use? When I look up what the definition is the most common one is the "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" And under this definition a state could be a terrorist?

Edited September 10, 2012 by Personguy

[sivispacem]

What exactly is the definition of terrorism you use? When I look up what the definition is the most common one is the "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" And under this definition a state could be a terrorist?

The two technical definitions that get used the most are the ones enshrined in the United States Code:

 

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

 

and the UN Secretary General's accepted 2004 definition

 

"any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

 

The latter was enhanced by Kofi Annan's statement expressing directly that the definition of terrorism then accepted did not apply to state actors as the laws governing the use of force already regulated the actions of states; ergo indicating that only the actions of non-state actors can be considered terrorism proper:

 

'...it is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians.'

 

 

[Luna Fortuna]

What exactly is the definition of terrorism you use? When I look up what the definition is the most common one is the "use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" And under this definition a state could be a terrorist?

The two technical definitions that get used the most are the ones enshrined in the United States Code:

 

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

 

and the UN Secretary General's accepted 2004 definition

 

"any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

 

The latter was enhanced by Kofi Annan's statement expressing directly that the definition of terrorism then accepted did not apply to state actors as the laws governing the use of force already regulated the actions of states; ergo indicating that only the actions of non-state actors can be considered terrorism proper:

 

'...it is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians.'

I see thanks for clearing that up.

[Mike Tequeli]

 

Israel will undoubtably attack Iran sooner or later, hopefully not until Iran have developed nuclear weapons so that Iran can nuke the f*ck out of that dirty country Israel

Which will cause Iran to be promptly nuked into glass, everyone wins!

 

I mean do you really want a state sponsor of terrorism to get nuclear weapons?

That's pure American propaganda, I'd rather want Iran to develope nuclear weapons than Israel to possess any whatsoever...Israel has hundreds, and they're dictating the entire U.S to start wars in the middle east...I'd love if Iran once and for all nuked the state of terrorism Israel

Slow down there Hitler, I don't even think Godwin's Law applies when someone actually advocates nuking six million Jews. Once again nuking Israel will result in complete annihilation by the aggressor, so do you wish to see Iran destroyed?

[EgyptianStar]

You cannot deny that Jews lived in the holy land before 1948 saying that is historically inaccurate. Also saying Palestinans did NOT own the land or even live there is historically inaccurate. Fact is that Palestinian( Christians & Muslims lived in Palestine) Jews also lived side by side they got along great way before 1948 even to the point of inter-marriage. If you compare Arab and Israeli cultures you cannot find a difference they're both beautiful, ancient and historical. During the holocaust European Jews escaped persecution and sought refuge with their Arab counterparts who were the only ones to fully protect them. I know you can say the grand mufi pictured with Hitler is sign of hatred then you would also blame the catholic popes for talking with Hitler bottom line is that these leaders only met with Hitler because he was perceived as a powerful figure which he was. Moving on to the conflict. Zionism does play a major in hostilities. One is Zionism does not recognize any other faiths. It calls Non-Jews the slaves of Jews. Gentiles. Zionism from its beginning is a racist hateful movement built upon the quest of domination. Zionism and the Pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC not only is major player for war its the financier to the conflict. They never want peace. They want Money, Power, Dominance. That's why 6 billion dollar a year in military equipment is given to Israel each and every year. The conflict is not about land any more. Its become a money generating conflict that never has an end. The tension with Iran is overly hyped up. In reality 20% enrichment is NO where near the level of nuclear warhead. its needs to be about 70%. Peace in the middle east will only come when people realize this conflict is not driven by land, religion, or Pride. Its driven by a few money hungry warmongers radical right wing nut jobs on both sides who never wanna see peace and propriety. Lets be the few who preach for peace not war.