Islam allows rape & torture?

Could you please explain how you come to the conclusion that the actions of the Zionists is not comparable to that of the Nazis?

The Israelis employ State sanctioned, Gratuitous murder of civilians, beatings, curfews, false imprisonment, denial of humanitarian aid, personal harassment, enforced colonisation, destruction and theft of personal dwellings and public infrastructure. (I could go on, but I think I have made my point)

The only difference at the moment between the behaviour of the Nazis of 1930-40s is the scale of these crimes, and that is increasing as the Israelis slowly push the boundaries. To my way of thought the Israelis are playing a game whereby they are implementing all off the policies of the Nazis, but they are patient enough to be doing it in "Penny lots"

They bleat that they are trying to negotiate a peace, yet while this is all going on their government is still sanctioning the building of more "settlements" on Palestinian land.

I cannot see how anyone who is aware of what is going on cannot see the similarities,... especially those who have the gall to tell us that they are "christians"

I stated it already (did you se the Wannsee thingy in my post?) but you probably missed it:

The big and fundamental (and this is not a "scale" or quantitative thing, it is a qualitatively different and truly perverted attitude) difference of "Nazis" to (what you call) Zionists:

- Israel for all I know does not employ deliberately calculated (by functionaries assinged by state to do just that) *cost optimized* genozide measures (what is cheaper?: 1.2 bullets per corpse - that is the question that started to arise when it turned out that it was too expensive to kill 12 million ppl like that - , electrocution - at what voltage? Gasoline cost per electrocution? Electrocutions per generator? Maintenance cost? -, gassing, etc. in conjunction with cost for disposal of corpses and cost for retrieving marketable issues from corpses like gold teeth, etc.)

- Israel for all I know has not built an *industrialized* genozide machine, where - based on above calculations - a maximum profit at minimum cost needs to be achieved from genocide by extracting maximum profit of the individual and by time and cost optimizing the genozide process.

All that you describe "making your point" is a quantitative scale issue of the methods any other rouge state and/or dictaorship applies right this moment in many spots on the planet, but Israels actions have in no way made the qualitative jump to the two points above that the Nazis decided upon at Wannsee ff. and which is what made them completely different.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
- Israel for all I know does not employ deliberately calculated (by functionaries assinged by state to do just that) *cost optimized* genozide measures (what is cheaper?: 1.2 bullets per corpse - that is the question that started to arise when it turned out that it was too expensive to kill 12 million ppl like that - , electrocution - at what voltage? Gasoline cost per electrocution? Electrocutions per generator? Maintenance cost? -, gassing, etc. in conjunction with cost for disposal of corpses and cost for retrieving marketable issues from corpses like gold teeth, etc.)

- Israel for all I know has not built an *industrialized* genozide machine, where - based on above calculations - a maximum profit at minimum cost needs to be achieved from genocide by extracting maximum profit of the individual and by time and cost optimizing the genozide process.

All that you describe "making your point" is a quantitative scale issue of the methods any other rouge state and/or dictaorship applies right this moment in many spots on the planet, but Israels actions have in no way made the qualitative jump to the two points above that the Nazis decided upon at Wannsee ff. and which is what made them completely different.

Rattler
Rattler even you posted a quote from my earlier post saying "Other than the Death camps", yet almost all of the dissimilarities you have quoted above were connected with the death camps. I regard the things like the selling of assets etc., that happened in the death camps to be part of that system.

As I said the similarities are blindingly obvious. I won't retype my "short list" of crimes again as I'm sure that you read them before,... or did you? Can you tell me any one of these things that I listed that did not have it's direct equivalent with Nazi persecution of the Jews, from 1933 onwards?

Regarding Wannsee Conference. This was a very late event in Germany, not until 1942, but systematic persecution of the Jews had been in place as a matter of State policy since the adoption of the Nuremberg laws which were enacted on 1st April 1933. The Jews were in fact persecuted long before this but this is the date when it became policy.

As for what the Israelis have decided as matters of policy we have no idea, as I'm sure that they would not make their decisions on a matter like this open to world wide scrutiny. All we have as evidence is the current murder theft and generalised bloodshed among the Palestinian population to form our opinions on.
 
Last edited:
Rattler even you posted a quote from my earlier post saying "Other than the Death camps", yet almost all of the dissimilarities you have quoted above were connected with the death camps. I regard the things like the selling of assets etc., that happened in the death camps to be part of that system.

And this ("other than the death camps") is exactly what I am recriminating: That you obviously cannot see the qualitative difference the death camps make (or do not want to acknowledge it as fundamental), from all the other stuff that is just quantitatively different from other dicatorship states (and in this lattter I subscribe your analysis, it just does not qualify for the comparism to the Nazi fascist system, because it is a polemic word, you could also say Chinese - Tibet!- or someone else - rather long list I guess - but you chose that special word for rather - I suspect - demagogic reasons).

As I said the similarities are blindingly obvious. I won't retype my "short list" of crimes again as I'm sure that you read them before,... or did you? Can you tell me any one of these things that I listed that did not have it's direct equivalent with Nazi persecution of the Jews, from 1933 onwards? -snip-

And I say the similarites are not obvious. While some things coincide with the Nazi methods of persecuting jews, they also coincide with the methods Mobuto employed to persecute the Lumumba follwers, or with what the Chinese do in Tibet, or what the serbs did in Kosovo, Bosnia etc. (Srebrenizca?!), just to name a few.

To say its the same methods like the Nazis ignores the qualitative difference of their final solution methods and as such is used for demagogics (sorry if I repeat myself).

I would not protest if you say they employ the same methods as the Chinese or the Serbs, but by using the "Nazi" designation you downvalue one of the most perverted things that ever have happened on this planet to something every dictator does. You can say they "behave like a fascist state", and I might even agree, but if you say they "behave like the Nazis" (which in this context implies the Holocaust) then I must say: No, factually they don´t.

That is probably my last word about *this* part of the overall issue, I think I have made myself clear enough and if you cannot see it, welll: Nobody is perfect...

Rattler
 
Last edited:
And this ("other than the death camps") is exactly what I am recriminating: That you obviously cannot see the qualitative difference the death camps make (or do not want to acknowledge it as fundamental), from all the other stuff that is just quantitatively different from other dicatorship states (and in this lattter I subscribe your analysis, it just does not qualify for the comparism to the Nazi fascist system, because it is a polemic word, you could also say Chinese - Tibet!- or someone else - rather long list I guess - but you chose that special word for rather - I suspect - demagogic reasons).
I would guarantee that those killed, harassed and who have had their possessions stolen by the Zionists could not see the qualitative difference, as there is no such thing as a qualitative difference in these things. eg If you were murdered by, for instance, a state sponsored organisation like the KGB or whatever it's equivalent is at the moment, I'll guarantee that you would be just as dead as if you had been murdered by the Nazis or Zionists To state that there is a qualitative difference in these things is a "cop out". I guarantee that neither you nor anyone else could tell the difference.

And I say the similarities are not obvious. While some things coincide with the Nazi methods of persecuting jews, they also coincide with the methods Mobuto employed to persecute the Lumumba follwers, or with what the Chinese do in Tibet, or what the serbs did in Kosovo, Bosnia etc. (Srebrenizca?!), just to name a few.
What you say here is very true, and supports my point precisely,... but unfortunately that is not the subject at hand, I thought that we were discussing the Zionists in Israel. However I will gladly agree with you should you feel that it warrants discussion in a new thread on other States employing similar methods around the world.

To say its the same methods like the Nazis ignores the qualitative difference of their final solution methods and as such is used for demagogics (sorry if I repeat myself).
You keep referring to "The Final Solution" and I must keep reminding you that it is nothing to do with my original statement that I said "Except the Death Camps" (and their associated apparatus). There is nothing demagogic about stating the obvious truth about a murdering regime that is not only falsely occupying the land of another people, but is harassing and murdering women and children because their menfolk are resisting. All of these acts are direct equivalents of those policies carried out by the Nazis.

I would not protest if you say they employ the same methods as the Chinese or the Serbs, but by using the "Nazi" designation you downvalue one of the most perverted things that ever have happened on this planet to something every dictator does. You can say they "behave like a fascist state", and I might even agree, but if you say they "behave like the Nazis" (which in this context implies the Holocaust) then I must say: No, factually they don´t.
You have answered my statement, you say that you would not object to me stating that the Zionists are behaving like a Fascist State, Well, That is exactly what I am saying, and the particular fascist State that they are behaving most like is that of the Nazi party. The term "Holocaust" implies the whole policy, whereas I specifically said, and I repeat, "With the exception of the death Camps" This is merely a straw man argument.

That is probably my last word about *this* part of the overall issue, I think I have made myself clear enough and if you cannot see it, welll: Nobody is perfect...

Rattler
"Nobody is perfect",

Here we are talking of state sponsored policy of organised theft harassment and murder of the civil populace, and all you can say is that these people are not "perfect". I feel that this severely under thought statement is truly indicative of your whole argument, "it certainly lacks an honest qualitative assessment".

If you feel that my statements make me a demagogue,... so be it, but I am also equally demagogic regarding those other mentioned "Failed States" who employ similar policies around the world. Which rather takes the sting out of being called a demagogue.
 
That is probably my last word about *this* part of the overall issue, I think I have made myself clear enough and if you cannot see it, well: Nobody is perfect... Rattler

"Nobody is perfect",

Here we are talking of state sponsored policy of organised theft harassment and murder of the civil populace, and all you can say is that these people are not "perfect". I feel that this severely under thought statement is truly indicative of your whole argument, "it certainly lacks an honest qualitative assessment".

Well, you made me answer one more time:

You are twisting my words to your liking and claiming statements I quite obviously didn´t make (actually, I think you already understand the words you read in the way you want to understand them through your personal ideological filter *when you read them* instead of capturing what they actually state - which is, btw, perfectly human), I was (quite clearly expressed btw, highlighted for you this time) not talking about "these people" but about *you*.

Where in the above do you read it otherwise? Stuff like that makes discussions impossible and clearly marks a demagogue.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Because the land in question is not "Israel" it actually belongs to the Palestinians. As has been previously pointed out, No country or group of countries has the right to just give away someone else's land, those people are honor bound to reclaim their land.
senjo how would you like it if the aboriginals used this argument to reclaim australia?

i was just thinking hmmm
 
Because the land in question is not "Israel" it actually belongs to the Palestinians. As has been previously pointed out, No country or group of countries has the right to just give away someone else's land, those people are honor bound to reclaim their land.
senjo how would you like it if the aboriginals used this argument to reclaim australia?

i was just thinking hmmm
I don't think that "thinking was the operative word, you just bashed off the first stupid thing that came into your head didn't you? Why don't you ask some aboriginals if that is what they want? Do you actually know any,... do you have any idea of what they actually think other than the few "set up" half castes from the slum suburbs of our cities who are fed leading questions by those with a second agenda?

They know as a race that if we were to go, tomorrow, they would be Indonesian, or less likely, Chinese subjects the moment we closed the door behind us.
 
does that include family?
i wasn't suggesting that aboriginals want that i was testing whether your argument would be applied
universally
half-caste are we allowed to use such derogatory terms on this forum?
 
Last edited:
Where in the above do you read it otherwise? Stuff like that makes discussions impossible and clearly marks a demagogue.
Rattler
OK, I misread your answer, and the reason I read it like that was that it was the most likely meaning of what you had written in view of the facts.

Of course I am not a demagogue, I have merely pushed you into a corner with no place to go, so out come the names, we've already disproved the Anti semite label, now I'm a demagogue, because I dare to point out the truth and won't back down.

You talk of me being a demagogue, yet you just overlook all of the evidence and obvious similarities I have posted. Now that,... is what most people would call being a demagogue....

If you like we can go through them one at a time. Let's start somewhere near the top. The video posted showing the shooting of a Palestinian Farmer working in his fields by Israeli troops. There is any amount of backing for this incident. Would you care to explain why this is not behaviour similar to that Nazi troops, as I think it is.

We can work our way down through the remainder at your leisure. The beatings of civilians, all the good stuff like forced evictions, relocations,.... you know the list I have put up previously, and it grows by the day.

Denials without evidence and then name tagging, I really expected better of you Rattler.

does that include family?
i wasn't suggesting that aboriginals want that i was testing whether your argument would be applied
universally
half-caste are we allowed to use such derogatory terms on this forum?
Don't be a smart @rse, you are not up to it, believe me. Answer the question as I answered yours.

Half cast is a perfectly acceptable term for description a person of half mixed blood, there is nothing derogatory in it.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE

Don't be a smart arse, you are not up to it, believe me. Answer the question as I answered yours.

Half cast is a perfectly acceptable term for description a person of half mixed blood, there is nothing derogatory in it.[/QUOTE]

that largely depends on context and if you have a look at what you had said it did not appear all to freindly
 
that largely depends on context and if you have a look at what you had said it did not appear all to freindly
This is how people get into serious disagreements here, you are reading far too much into my answers, just read what's there, and take it at face value. It is neither friendly nor unfriendly, it is an accurate descriptive term in common use. Simple as that.

If you want to debate the correctness of this term, I suggest you do it with someone far better qualified than myself, people like my long time friend Noel Fullerton. (quarter Afghan, quarter Aboriginal and half White). I think that he would set you straight fairly smartly on the matters of race concerning Australian Aboriginals. Especially the political correctness aspects of this matter.
Noel.jpg

This photo is on the front of a audio cassette he sells to anyone who is interested, detailing the shortcomings of political correctness in relationship to the way that Aboriginals and others are treated in Australia.

But I digress, I think we had better get back to the topic.

In answer to your question, ... Yes, it does apply unilaterally.
 
Last edited:
-snip- ...because I dare to point out the truth and won't back down

People that claim to know "the truth" in my world are generally becoming tyrants and dictators if they additionally feel an urge to "convince you", and if you give them just the faintest chance to impose their view of the truth on the "ignorants"...

Also, they usually are not great discussion partners as they do not know doubt which in turn would be necessary for progressing in one´s personal intellectual development, they usually are going blind as they *know the truth*...: "If the young poeple knew, and the old people could, earth would be a different place" as our ex chancellor Helmut Schmidt used to say.

-snip- Let's start somewhere near the top. The video posted showing the shooting of a Palestinian Farmer working in his fields by Israeli troops. There is any amount of backing for this incident. Would you care to explain why this is not behaviour similar to that Nazi troops, as I think it is.

I never doubted the incident (in fact I was one of the first to report on it on another forum) and I find it abhorrent, so no discussion about facts there.

In response to your question (again a demagogic classic: google "logical fallacies", debate):

Would you care to explain why this is not behaviour similar to that what Serb troops did in Bosnia, or what Chinese do in Tibet, as I think it is? If it is so, why insist on dubbing it "nazi" behaviour instead of "serb" or "chinese" behaviour or instead of chosing a generic term (the way to go, IMHO)?

-snip- ...you are reading far too much into my answers, just read what's there, and take it at face value.-snip-

ROFL: That from you! :)

OK, I misread your answer, and the reason I read it like that was that it was the most likely meaning of what you had written -snip-

ROFL again :p, words do have a determined meaning, assigned by the author, not a "most likely one" assigned by the reader...

Your argumentation cycles are, frankly and with all due respect, bordering on the hilarious.

Rattler (definitely out now)
 
Last edited:
Would you care to explain why this is not behaviour similar to that what Serb troops did in Bosnia, or what Chinese do in Tibet, as I think it is? If it is so, why insist on dubbing it "nazi" behaviour instead of "serb" or "chinese" behaviour or instead of chosing a generic term (the way to go, IMHO)?
I have answered this previously. Is your argument failing so badly that you must resort to Del Boy's "Circular Argument strategy" not providing any evidence or proofs, but merely reiterating previously asked questions?

To answer it again,... Yes, it is behaviour similar to that exercised in those places, but it is particularly like the behaviour of the Nazis in pre war Germany, this is especially pertinent in this debate considering the past relationships between The Zionists and the Nazis.

I would rather not have to post an endless stream of comparative photo evidence to support my case, as it is well known to all and I am sure that even you are aware that I can do it very easily. It is this ease with which I can defend my views that makes me wonder why you would even bother trying to challenge my statement.

Giving "Generic" answers, is a typical diplomat's way of softening the distasteful truth, and I feel that this is no time or place to try and put a pretty face on this matter. Pussy footing all around the truth is the type of behaviour that leads people to make dangerously incorrect assumptions. Neville Chamberlain 1939, being a classic example.

ROFL: That from you! :)
When people laugh at my answers there are two possibilities, either it was humorous or they are unable to counter it. In this instance, I know, (having written the original statement), that it was not humour. So it is obviously the written equivalent of a nervous laugh. Remember,... "ROFL again :p, words do have a determined meaning, assigned by the author, not a "most likely one" assigned by the reader..." Does this phrase sound familiar? You have been caught in your own trap here, you can't have it both ways.

Your argumentation cycles are, frankly and with all due respect, bordering on the hilarious.
Your "nervous giggle" and incorrect assumption of humour, again demonstrates the attitude that has led to your lack of objectivity here, and consequently this undermines your rather baseless argument, that this behaviour is not similar to that of the Nazis. (With the exception of Death camp apparatus). You are not being even vaguely serious. You have never been serious from the outset making your argument somewhat ridiculous. I can offer video, photographic and textual evidence to support my claims, you can do no better than to say that you disagree, and then start on either name tagging, or now just dismissal with your "nervous laugh".

However if you wish, I will gladly start another thread relating purely to this debate where I can give you evidence as above, to disprove your opinions on these acts, one by one.

So, in deference to 03USMCs earlier request to "keep it down" I will "let you go", as I figure that the moderators have given me a fair go to state my case, which has adequately shown your lack of "evidence' to the contrary. That's all I need.

I will also withdraw, and agree to disagree on this matter. However if you should ever find any evidence to support your argument, I will gladly rejoin perhaps in a purpose made thread.
 
Last edited:
Please don't drag me into your failures E , you have sought to avoid those questions you cannot deal with by constantly using these tactics. You can't even start to establish your claims, you fall every time at the 1st hurdle by crying 'foul - cyclic'!

As for example, your repeated erroneous anti-semitism definition claims; as for Nazis, you dismiss the Hitler regime's record very lightly, quite disgusting, such as :-

Death camps !!! 11,000,000. That's all !!! Mass systematic gassing and burning- that's all!!! Hordes shot into pits. Slave labour - masses !!! Heinous unspeakable inhumanities against women prisoners under surgery; same against kids - twins sewn together; eyes injected to try to change colours; tortures on them just for autopsies; shot with poison bullets experiments. Measuring kids with the equivalent of yardsticks, those under the yard immediately exterminated; the little kids would try to stretch to make the exclusion grade; these are just from quick memory; there is so much. much more horror. I have seen the mountains of spectacles, artificial limbs,etc., etc. The deliberately and boastfully attempted wiping out of a people. And when many of the perpetrators escaped to lairs in Arabia etc., they determined to foster and develop the same attitudes wherever they could. After all, they had sworn to destroy the Jews, who the Nazis claimed as their greatest enemy.


Perhaps worst of all, the genocidal propaganda from 1933 to demonise and de-humanise the Jews to ready them a target for annihilation, and carefully passed on the Arab regimes in order to continue the Nazi campaign to eliminate Jews. This is the same propaganda promulgated today, and this is why Iran and the Arabs DENY THE HOLOCAUST.



And all this when Germany was NOT under threat from the Jews; not being bombed or attacked, under no threat of annihilation.


Antisemitism in the Arab world refers to discrimination against Jews.
While Arabs are also a Semitic people, the modern meaning of the English term "antisemitism" refers exclusively to discrimination against Jews. Anti-semitism is believed to have expanded since the 19th century. Jews, like other minority groups within the Muslim world, were subject to various restrictions long before that.
Antisemitism in the Arab world has increased greatly in modern times, for many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs; Nazi propaganda; and the rise of Arab nationalism.
Matthias Küntzel has suggested that the decisive transfer of Jewish Conspiracy theory took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda targeted at the Arab world. According to Kuntzel, the Nazi Arabic radio service had a staff of 80 and broadcast everyday in Arabic, stressing the similarities between Islam and Nazism and supported by the activities of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni (who broadcast pro-Nazi propaganda from Berlin). The Nazi regime also provided funding to the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, which began calling for boycotts of Jewish businesses in 1936.
Bernard Lewis also describes Nazi influence in the Arab world, including its impact on Michel Aflaq, founder of the Ba'ath movement (which later dominated Syria and Iraq).

After the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler received telegrams of congratulation from all over the Arab and Muslim world, especially from Morocco and Palestine, where the Nazi propaganda had been most active... ... Before long political parties of the Nazi and Fascist type began to appear, complete with paramilitary youth organizations, colored shirts, strict discipline and more or less charismatic leaders.
While anti-Semitism was certainly heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were pogroms against Jews prior to the foundation of Israel, including Nazi-inspired pogroms in Algeria in the 1930s, and attacks on the Jews in Iraq and Libya in the 1940s .


DEFINITIONS include ANY ONE of the below- listed :-

Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;

Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;


Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.



Recognised anywhere here ????
 
Last edited:
Death camps !!! 11,000,000. That's all !!!---snip---

Here we see a really good example of what I have been talking about. My answer only having been read very selectively.

How many times do I have to tell those trying to defend the indefensible,.... My statement has said quite clearly right from the outset:

"With the exception of the death Camps" and their associated apparatus,... and been repeated at least 3 times now..

Talk about thick.:roll:

I'll leave to the judgement of the readers to work out why these persons continually refuse to read what is actually said and put up straw man arguments.

[shakes head]
 
Last edited:
Oh no, no.no. Nobody missed that classic quote!! I have quoted it at least once which you have selectively missed.

That ludicrous statement left me nauseated; "WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEATH CAMPS"! Utterly and unforgivably disgusting. That's the only little difference eh? A little matter of at least 11,000,000 souls snuffed out under unbelievable terror. Taken from their homes in various countries like cattle, subjected to untold tortures, their goods and homes confiscated, even their artificial limbs etc. All by deliberate programme of hatred, and planned world-wide.

I drew attention to it the absurd quote, but you just don't get it. You seem quite proud of it!


As it happens, it is also so obviously untrue, because the Nazis were horrific in so many areas of inhumanity, terrible things, some quoted by me and completely ignored in your response.

Now that is what you call selective reading!
 
Last edited:
Del Boy:

As a descendant of people killed by said Nazis during World War II, I have absolutely no love for them or any of their supporters. But I think you're taking it too far. We are, really, turning a bit of a blind eye to what the Israelis are doing because we feel we owe it to them. Now, we definitely owe them something, and while I accept that there were Israeli settlers in Palestine before Britain's postwar reformation, there is the basic fact that the area had been majority Arab for almost a thousand years. And, when a minority comes in and takes control of things, no matter how legally it's done, the locals are NOT going to be happy. I agree that there were much calmer and saner ways to approach things than the Arabs did, but can you at least understand their frustration?

We can not reverse the past, but we can learn from our mistakes. And right now in order to make up for the past we are trying to favor those that were wronged, which in turn is wronging others. It's getting us nowhere. Now, I can see where Israel may deserve its own state, but its establishment was dreadfully executed. The best thing we can do is move forward from this and try to learn from our past mistakes and unify the place, and that involves concessions to the Arabs.
 
Del Boy:

As a descendant of people killed by said Nazis during World War II, I have absolutely no love for them or any of their supporters. But I think you're taking it too far. We are, really, turning a bit of a blind eye to what the Israelis are doing because we feel we owe it to them. Now, we definitely owe them something, and while I accept that there were Israeli settlers in Palestine before Britain's postwar reformation, there is the basic fact that the area had been majority Arab for almost a thousand years. And, when a minority comes in and takes control of things, no matter how legally it's done, the locals are NOT going to be happy. I agree that there were much calmer and saner ways to approach things than the Arabs did, but can you at least understand their frustration?

We can not reverse the past, but we can learn from our mistakes. And right now in order to make up for the past we are trying to favor those that were wronged, which in turn is wronging others. It's getting us nowhere. Now, I can see where Israel may deserve its own state, but its establishment was dreadfully executed. The best thing we can do is move forward from this and try to learn from our past mistakes and unify the place, and that involves concessions to the Arabs.

But now you have run into the problem of obtaining peace from a situation where neither side actually wants it, basically Israel only wants a peace that lets them carry on taking whatever land they want without the other side fighting back and the Palestinians want Israel without the Israeli's so much like Somalia the Arab/Israeli thing is just not fixable so if you really want to be fair nuking them both is probably the fastest way to world peace.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Israeli aspect of the argument, I understand it that about 10-11 million people died in concentration camps id we take the Jewish element out of that we are down to 4-5 million (gypsies, mentally retarded, intellectuals, homosexuals etc.) where is there home land?

I would suggest that if people are going to use the holocaust as a justification for a Jewish homeland then then pretty much everyone else that survived the concentration camps has equal claim.
Perhaps Del Boy could send a list of under utilised sections in his neighbourhood we can redistribute (they don't have to be empty just under used).

I understand the figures as you do. However, as I recall I have not used that particular argument yet, and therefore I cannot understand why you have targetted me in this instance.

As the proposition is yours, perhaps you would care to comply with your own suggestion. After all, you have plenty of spare land, taken from the indiginous people in spite of no claim to the land whatsoever, using your own measure.

But in reality MontyB, my stance for peace is exactly that of President Obama, as it was at election time, has continued to be, and is now. He is a Christian of mixed race, I am a Christian of mixed race; how does the promotion of peace in the region make us racists?

And as for your last post, well, in fact Israel has returned vast areas of land taken in defensive conquest and held as defensible positions - the Sinai to Egypt, Southern Lebanon, Gaza, where they destroyed their own settlements - so much for only wishing to grab more and more. The objective of Israel obviously is to achieve a defensible situation against the problem after agreemnent has been reached, of being surrounded by hostile regimes.

On this one, I reject your nuking solution in favour of the stand taken by President Obama, Bob Menedez, and myself; for peace.

If by chance I have failed to respond to any of your posts to me, I will return to cover them, as I find time.


AND TO THE OTHER GUY ; I like your last post a lot; a very good post; we are in agreement in principle. I will respond to that in my next post.
 
Last edited:
I drew attention to it the absurd quote, but you just don't get it. You seem quite proud of it!
Tell us all how it is an "absurd" quote Del Boy. I'd try to find where you drew my attention to this, only it would mean going through all of your totally unrelated "padding" that you have posted. I couldn't face that again.

It was a condition of my answer, without which my answer would not have been correct.

Here's an example of a similar condition:
"I usually like to debate matters of importance to me,... except with idiots, who don't read my answers or don't have any idea the meaning of what is being said". That is called a conditional answer, and there are very good reasons for answers being given in this manner.

In the case of most persons, it more accurately delineates the statement, and focuses the pertinent point(s) for the reader, hopefully preventing them from misinterpreting the statement. On this forum there are some persons who make this style of answer absolutely obligatory, but it appears that not even this works with them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top