[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Looger

standards like WMDs. chemical, biological, nuclear horrors. only israel can have them, only israel can devlop the infrastructure.

Of course India and Pakistan have none of those. Israel is not the only country with nuclear weapons.

how aboot the express purpose of the ability to defend itself? two neighbouring countries with oil interests have been invaded. i'd be pretty freaky if that were me.

Iran's President has anounced to the world that the reason Iran wants the bomb is to destroy Israel - not protect it from the US or coalition forces in Afganistan.

let's put aside documentaries on it on the american history channel, hundreds of personal accounts, and the historical record.

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order "prepare to abandon ship."This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched.

the amount of information available on the USS liberty is totally prolific, i'm shocked that more people don't know aboot it - it's a big deal.

I knew about the incident - the part regarding firing on the inflated boats was news to me. That is a good source - If only the rest of your comments were backed up this way.

israel has a huge history of false flag operations, and not just the king david hotel bombing and abu nidal.

Like this one. The bombing of the King David in 1948 was an operation undertaken by the Irgun - a non sanctioned milita (which was disarmed by the Israeli government shortly after they sunk an Irgun ship loaded with arms in the Tel-Aviv harbour.) The King David hotel was the headquaters of the British Army in 1948 and is considered by some to have been a military target. (I won't hide behind generalizations)

do you have a source on germany invading poland in 1939? because that's at the same stage of accepted information as the USS liberty attack. books, documentaries, historical record, personal accounts, veterans organizations, war crimes documents, geez even dean rusk, the US secretary of state at the time was vocal aboot it.

Vocal about what? Germany going to war in 1939?

Jabotinsky wrote in The Iron Wall:

There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such an event has never occurred.


this isn't a straw man. Jabotinsky was right there with Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann as the zionist frontmen.

You are working off two different things - Yes, Jabotinsky wrote that and he was a radical. BUT, his writings and influence came well after the First Zionist Congress (Jabotinsky was 17 and still in Russia at the time.)
My quote and the ideals still stand.

the arab countries declared war for the same stupid reasons all countries declare war - selfish agendas, resources, nationalism, etc. jordan actually invaded syria in the same war!

"the arab countries" - ha!

doesn't change the fact that zionism is colonialism, doesn't change anything.

Zionism is the term for the National asperations of the Jewish people to live in their ancient homeland as the Jewish Nation.

this high-level cooperation is cited in many books on the subject, most notably "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by shirer. it is fact.

i get it. SOME jews sell out others, so suddenly it's anti-semitic rhetoric. ah.
you are really sick.

No, sick is taking a single incident and turning it into proof of an entire peoples attitudes.

Again from the general to the specific:

The incident in question - The Zionist leaders of Budapest Hungary (a group of about 20) did make a deal with Eichman that they would be allowed to leave Hungary if they did not inform the general Jewish community of Budapest of the Nazi intentions.

You interpret that as "The Jews and Zionist leaders were in cahoots with and helped out the Nazis"

I interpret it as desperate people just trying to survive. By your interpretation, then, I guess the Jews who had to prep those going to the gas chambers, or account for peoples belongings were really Zionist Nazis.

Who's sick?

so bulldozing 500 year old homes isn't ethnic cleansing? unreal. totally unreal.

Homes that old get torn down in Europe all the time.

But, I guess I'm ignorant - please explain how demolishing 500 year old homes is ethnic clansing?

I thought ethnic cleansing was one ethnicity removing another ethnicity by any means nessascary from a country. Last I checked there were multi-faiths and multi-ethnicites throughout Israel.

Most of those homes would have been demolished in Palestinian areas, right? Well, you could make the case that those areas were ethnically cleansed - NO JEWS!

You could also make a case about the village of Lod (the area where Ben Gurion Airport is). Those homes were demolished to make way for the airport. Some homes were paid for, some were confiscated by the government and yes - no Arab (or Jew, or Christian, etc.) will live there again - it is now an airport. But that is government and progress, happens often, especially in North America when a city wants a road built - not ethnic cleansing.

i'm not defending saudi arabia - in fact do a search on my posts involving saudi arabia. results may surprise to all those that view the world through a black/white filter.

Didn't say you were defending them, just using them as examples.

bosnian muslims hid tens of thousands of jews form croat-nazi death squads during the war, and have received citations and monuments for their efforts. what's your point?

Israel was there for them while their Muslim brothers were not.

syria, saudi arabia, and iran are run by some sick regimes. i'm not defending them.

Again, didn't say you were, just examples.

i'm going to leave this to the other board members to see for themselves.

your post makes accusations that are very serious. i'd advise you to watch it, lest i return the favour.

Calling Jews Nazis is anti-semetic. Period. Saying Jew collectively participated and aided the Nazis in the Holocaust is the same as calling Jews Nazis.

Doing so is not calling into question any policy of the Government of Israel.
Is the IDF using too much force? Should they have stopped by now? SJould they be the first to stop? Are they justified in their actions? Those are debatable questions and one who argues against Israel can be called anti-Israel but not anti-semetic. Accusations of ethnic cleansing can even be anti-Israel withoput being anti-semetic.

Trying to call Jews Nazis and warmongers does not call into question and policy. It has malisious intent and can rightly be called anti-semetic.