It seems the U.S. is...

[j2k4]

...ginning up false evidence regarding Iran's nuclear intentions.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19740

[Ava Estelle]

So what's new? They 'ginned' up plenty of 'evidence' with regards to Iraq's nuclear weapons program, so they've had plenty of practise. :)

[Busyman™]

So what's new? They 'ginned' up plenty of 'evidence' with regards to Iraq's nuclear weapons program, so they've had plenty of practise. :)

Well one stark difference is Saddam saying he doesn't have them versus Ahmadinedjad (whateverthefuck) saying they are getting nuclear 'capability' and adding that they'll wipe Azrael off the map.

I guess if Saddam had just said that he was using ricin to make milk shakes he'd have been left alone.

[peat moss]

A big difference here : Iran claims to have fired its first rocket into space.

"The rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence," the head of Iran's aerospace research center, Mohsen Bahrami, told Iranian TV.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_004983_Iran_Sends_Rocket_Into_Space.html

[Ava Estelle]

Well one stark difference is Saddam saying he doesn't have them versus Ahmadinedjad (whateverthefuck) saying they are getting nuclear 'capability' and adding that they'll wipe Azrael off the map.

Two mistakes there busybody; first, Iran claims their nuclear ambitions are peaceful, including uranium enrichment, they have never claimed to be acquiring nuclear weapons; and second, they have never 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

Apart from that ... :lol:

[j2k4]

they have never 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

Did you break your google at all (at all).

[Ava Estelle]

they have never 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

Did you break your google at all (at all).

Why don't you prove me wrong?

[Ava Estelle]

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

Today it’s the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the “wipe Israel off he map” fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Dav’s, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to “wipe Israel off the map” or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word “map,” instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word “map” used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word “map” used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word “map” seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

“The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of “the regime occupying Jerusalem” - with the fall of the Shah’s regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 80’s he surely did not favor Iran’s removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out,” writes Steele.

“It’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, “they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.”

Source (http://www.davidduke.com/general/1746_1746.html)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Is that David Duke, the white supremacist, didn't he used to be high up in the KKK. Wasn't he also a holocaust sceptic.

Or is it a different David Duke.

[GepperRankins]

the US should go round the world building people nuclear power plants if they don't trust people to make their own :dabs:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Is this the guy, he seems charming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

[j2k4]

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

Today it’s the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the “wipe Israel off he map” fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Dav’s, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to “wipe Israel off the map” or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word “map,” instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word “map” used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word “map” used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word “map” seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

“The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of “the regime occupying Jerusalem” - with the fall of the Shah’s regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 80’s he surely did not favor Iran’s removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out,” writes Steele.

“It’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, “they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.”

Source (http://www.davidduke.com/general/1746_1746.html)

Well, then.

You've just forfeit any credibility you ever had, as well as any you might accrue, for the rest of your life.

I can't believe you just did that.

Oh, almost forgot-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: -a pause for much needed breath-:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW-

The-

He just burned the rest of your credibility as well.

[bigboab]

the US should go round the world building people nuclear power plants if they don't trust people to make their own :dabs:

:lol: I like the idea.

Could be a money maker.:)

[j2k4]

I can't stop-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's all I'm allowed in any one post.

[Ava Estelle]

Can you prove him wrong j2?

Or are you just clutching at straws to hide your glacier humiliation? :)

[j2k4]

Can you prove him wrong j2?

Or are you just clutching at straws to hide your glacier humiliation? :)

Oh, please stop...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Billy, Billy, Billy now I know you have form for this. However quoting a former prominent member of the KKK, published anti-semite, convicted tax fraudster, holocaust denier, whose former wife runs an internet sight dedicated to white supremacism, which he posts on, is pushing it a bit, even for you.

He's hardly a reliable source one would have thought.

Or like I said, is it a different one.

[Ava Estelle]

Being a member of the KKK does not make him wrong, he quoted sources.

[j2k4]

Being a member of the KKK does not make him wrong, he quoted sources.

There are other sources of this as well.

The New York Times admitted it had misquoted him too.

j2 has just been humiliated again, and still refuses to supply proof to his laughable assumptions, that's why he jumped on this, you won't see him prove Duke wrong though, that's not his style. :)

I have no need to prove him wrong.

The boat is full, huh?

The NYT, David Duke, and YOU!

Oh, Lord, here we go again-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gee whiz, The, what do you say?

Wanna jump into the swamp and save your boy?

[Ava Estelle]

Have you finished laughing yet j2?

When you do, go and check who wrote that piece. :)

[Ava Estelle]

Waiting .... :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Being a member of the KKK does not make him wrong, he quoted sources.



That and the other things in his past sort of suggests an agenda tho'. Mayhap he is a wee bit selective in what he choses as his sources. Oh and how he interprets them.

I take it you have no problem with the tax fraud and anti-semitism bits.

[Ava Estelle]

I take it you have no problem with the tax fraud and anti-semitism bits.

I take it you have no problem with the Inquisition?

[Biggles]

It could be argued that Prison Planet is a fairly interesting source in its own right. My own experience is that is was popular with individuals on another board who were very much into conspiracy theories. They held some truly remarkable views, not least that the Royal Family are aliens - but that is perhaps another thread :)

However, my understanding is that Ahmadinejad does not always please the senior Mullahs regarding all his views and statements and that his recent seminar on the Holocaust was not all that warmly received by a number of Iranian conservatives.

There is bluster and sabre rattling on both sides of the fence. My own view is that it would be folly to attempt anything military at this point. That doesn't mean that Bush may not be tempted to folly but the mood of the Pentagon appears to be against him on this one.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I take it you have no problem with the tax fraud and anti-semitism bits.

I take it you have no problem with the Inquisition?

:lol: I have a great problem with it, absolute disgrace. Fortunately it was centuries ago so I don't really feel responsible.

Now can you answer, or are you doing the deflection thing again.

Wait I remember, on the other forum. Where you said the holcaust had been a good thing. Imagine how many Jews would be about just now if it hadn't happened. You don't really need to answer do you, you already have.

[GepperRankins]

please to be telling me how i burned my credibility. kthx



Being a member of the KKK does not make him wrong, he quoted sources.

There are other sources of this as well.

The New York Times admitted it had misquoted him too.

j2 has just been humiliated again, and still refuses to supply proof to his laughable assumptions, that's why he jumped on this, you won't see him prove Duke wrong though, that's not his style. :)

I have no need to prove him wrong.

The boat is full, huh?

The NYT, David Duke, and YOU!

Oh, Lord, here we go again-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gee whiz, The, what do you say?

Wanna jump into the swamp and save your boy?
i don't really feel like putting effort into this. i might say some mental things sometimes, but unlike some people, i don't go taking what partisan hack bloggers say as gospel. especially without even doing so much as a google search to research what i'm quoting.

[Busyman™]

Well one stark difference is Saddam saying he doesn't have them versus Ahmadinedjad (whateverthefuck) saying they are getting nuclear 'capability' and adding that they'll wipe Azrael off the map.

Two mistakes there busybody; first, Iran claims their nuclear ambitions are peaceful, including uranium enrichment, they have never claimed to be acquiring nuclear weapons; and second, they have never 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.

Apart from that ... :lol:

I said anything about nuclear weapons so that's not a mistake.

To my last I defer to the distinguished j2k4's post.


Ha! I got all of you. I quoted the great David Duke and proved all you wrong. You are all in my pocket. Ahmadin...whatever only meant that he wanted dismantle Israel's infrastructure therefore bringing a downfall to the country....that or he would gather up every map in da whold wide whuld and erase the name Israel....yeah that's it. You guys are just jealous because I'm smarter than you.:snooty:

:blink:

[Ava Estelle]

I quoted the great David Duke

Check again Busybody, the piece was written by Paul Joseph Watson, it has nothing to do with Duke.

But then again, facts never were your strong point.


Where you said the holcaust had been a good thing. Imagine how many Jews would be about just now if it hadn't happened. You don't really need to answer do you, you already have.
Just keep on misquoting JP, it seems to be a hobby of yours.

So what about the Catholic Church's complicity in the holocaust, the Vatican 'pipeline' helping war criminals to escape to Latin America, that wasn't centuries ago, or the denial of condoms to tens of thousands dying of AIDS, the refusal to allow women in danger of their lives to get an abortion, the backing of right wing dictatorships in Latin America, the moving of paedophile priests from one place to another?

You call yourself a catholic, therefore you must agree with their policies. You can't have it both ways, if quoting a third party article on a site you don't agree with is complicit, so are you.

[Busyman™]

Check again Busybody, the piece was written by Paul Joseph Watson, it has nothing to do with Duke.

Ok it's on his website (to which I'm sure you get regular updates).

Now you can fuck around with your interpretation and say "wipe Israel off the map" isn't in it but you are shit on context.

However, there are interpetations that have map in it. I love to hear folks with this, "Nooo we are talking about the government not the people" shit.

"When they say, 'Death to America' ' Death to Israel' they mean the government and not the people."

Well many muslims seem to have missed that little tidbit.:dry:

They stress having a world without America or Zionism.

"the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map”

"erased from the page of time"

Big fucking deal when consider the context.

Do you get David Duke RSS feeds too, Billy?

Also how the fuck is it that if you're Catholic that you agree with all their policies?

You are an idiot.

I'm an American and don't agree with all of America's policies. If the leaders of a group make some bad decisions then you should drop out of the basic belief system?

Shut the fuck up, you trolling mashed up turd.

[Chip Monk]

Check again Busybody, the piece was written by Paul Joseph Watson, it has nothing to do with Duke.

But then again, facts never were your strong point.


Where you said the holcaust had been a good thing. Imagine how many Jews would be about just now if it hadn't happened. You don't really need to answer do you, you already have.
Just keep on misquoting JP, it seems to be a hobby of yours.

So what about the Catholic Church's complicity in the holocaust, the Vatican 'pipeline' helping war criminals to escape to Latin America, that wasn't centuries ago, or the denial of condoms to tens of thousands dying of AIDS, the refusal to allow women in danger of their lives to get an abortion, the backing of right wing dictatorships in Latin America, the moving of paedophile priests from one place to another?

You call yourself a catholic, therefore you must agree with their policies. You can't have it both ways, if quoting a third party article on a site you don't agree with is complicit, so are you.

I'm not misquoting. You said that the holocaust was a good thing and that the Nazi's had done the World a favour. You pondered what mess the middle east would be in if there were millions more Jews. It's not a mis-quote, it was in my sig for long enough and the reason that sam4 created the smillie with your face and the archetypal "Jewish hat". Lie to these chaps if you feel you must but everyone who was a member there knows it's true, that includes you and lieing about it makes you all the more pathetic. You don't even have the courage to admit having said it.

How am I complicit in acts which happened before I was born, that's just nonsense and an attempt to deflect from yourself. I'm not complicit in the fire-bombings of Dresden either, or the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Those things are much more recent than the inquisition and I don't feel even remotely to blame for them.

With regard to the condom thing, the catholic Church is wrong and it's policy is wrong. Condoms should be allowed to anyone who choses to use them.

With regard to denying abortions to women whose lives are at risk, I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Thro' personal experience I know that isn't true, however you may have something specific you are talking about.

With regard to protecting paedophiles. That is wrong, whatever the organisation or group which does it. I am personally ashamed when the Church does it, I think it is a disgraceful and appaling way to behave.

None of that changes anything about you tho'. Nor does it change what you have posted. Nor does it change what you use as sources of information. Nor does it change your bigotry. Or your personal attacks on anyone who takes an opposing view. Like I always say, the posts are there for people to read and make up their own minds.

[Ava Estelle]

I'm not misquoting. You said that the holocaust was a good thing and that the Nazi's had done the World a favour.
As I said, this is a mischievous misquote, something you do often, if I said that, post it. Put up or shut up.



You pondered what mess the middle east would be in if there were millions more Jews. That's right, which is far different from your first misquote.




It's not a mis-quote, it was in my sig for long enough and the reason that sam4 created the smillie with your face and the archetypal "Jewish hat". Lie to these chaps if you feel you must but everyone who was a member there knows it's true, that includes you and lieing about it makes you all the more pathetic. You don't even have the courage to admit having said it. So where is it? You seem to think because you claim to be religious everyone will believe your every word, well you're a liar, nothing unusual there, your religion allows you to lie.




How am I complicit in acts which happened before I was born, that's just nonsense and an attempt to deflect from yourself. I'm not complicit in the fire-bombings of Dresden either, or the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Those things are much more recent than the inquisition and I don't feel even remotely to blame for them. You claim to be Catholic, that's what the Catholic church is all about, so that makes you as guilty as the church, you said so yourself ... you can't have it both ways.




With regard to the condom thing, the catholic Church is wrong and it's policy is wrong. Condoms should be allowed to anyone who choses to use them. Have you made your views known to your church? Or did you not bother because you know they don't give a fuck what you think?




With regard to denying abortions to women whose lives are at risk, I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Thro' personal experience I know that isn't true, however you may have something specific you are talking about. The official Vatican edict is that no-one gets an abortion .. full stop. If a woman dies it childbirth it's the will of god.




With regard to protecting paedophiles. That is wrong, whatever the organisation or group which does it. I am personally ashamed when the Church does it, I think it is a disgraceful and appaling way to behave. But you still support them don't you? Monetarily as well as spiritually, that makes you as guilty as they are.


No wonder you lot aren't allowed to be the monarch. can you imagine having a head of state who is complicit in church sponsored paedophilia?

[Chip Monk]

There is no need for me to comment on any of that. Anyone who reads it can make their own judgement on who the liar is. Indeed the other people who read your filth already know what you said and that the Nazi's had done a good thing. If memory serves you likened Israel to a modern Sodom.

Still haven't answered about whether you have a problem with tax fraud and anti-semitism. Not really surprising, as that is normally the reason you start these attacks on other people's beliefs. That way you deflect from the point or question.

The only really questionable thing about this forum is why you (really only you, in my experience) are allowed to post things like;

"No wonder you lot aren't allowed to be the monarch. can you imagine having a head of state who is complicit in church sponsored paedophilia?"

quite astonishing.

[GepperRankins]

please to be telling me how i burned my credibility. kthx




I have no need to prove him wrong.

The boat is full, huh?

The NYT, David Duke, and YOU!

Oh, Lord, here we go again-

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gee whiz, The, what do you say?

Wanna jump into the swamp and save your boy?
i don't really feel like putting effort into this. i might say some mental things sometimes, but unlike some people, i don't go taking what partisan hack bloggers say as gospel. especially without even doing so much as a google search to research what i'm quoting.



i feel like putting effort in today, but i know j2 won't play :(

it's not about saving people or anything like that. you see, in the restoftheworldland people have their opinions rather than strict bipartisan alignments.

i can agree with different people on different things. for example with billy, i believe everything about the holocaust that's taught in school is true. i am unsure about what destroying zionism is meant by ahmedidithingy, tbh i think he is too.

i agree with billy on the global warming thing. i also see that without obfuscation or spin, his comments were clearly in alignment with what the scientists say. yours were clearly contradictory. it's fair for me to point this out rly

[Mr JP Fugley]

Sorry if anyone thinks I was misquoting Billy, I was doing it from memory so I may have got it wrong, not the sentiment tho'.

Anyway, as luck would have it here's the whole thing


I'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.

You decide what it means. I'll be concentrating on Billy posting "Catholics are all cunts".

Rafi, hope that explains why he treats you the way he does.

[Snee]

Hey, J2 (or someone else), is that site a Fox-type of thing, or do they seem to be unaffiliated with any political entities otherwise?

Never read anything off there before, I assume you reckon it's not entirely on the level, but have they been known to take liberties with the truth or something, before?


To be honest, after Iraq, I'm feeling rather sceptical when the US starts talking about weapons in the Middle East.

And on another note: Some days it seems very odd that the US has issues with someone else's weapons program, to me, given their own arsenal. Almost seems like hypocrisy :idunno:

"We already have nukes, so we can have them if we want. You don't have them/you're not us, so you're not allowed."

:blink:

[j2k4]

Hey, J2 (or someone else), is that site a Fox-type of thing, or do they seem to be unaffiliated with any political entities otherwise?

Never read anything off there before, I assume you reckon it's not entirely on the level, but have they been known to take liberties with the truth or something, before?


To be honest, after Iraq, I'm feeling rather sceptical when the US starts talking about weapons in the Middle East.

And on another note: Some days it seems very odd that the US has issues with someone else's weapons program, to me, given their own arsenal. Almost seems like hypocrisy :idunno:

"We already have nukes, so we can have them if we want. You don't have them/you're not us, so you're not allowed."

:blink:

I don't know whether it has an affiliation or not, frankly.

I felt I had to post it, because there are those here who would swear up-and-down Fox News would never tell a story like that, but my conscience dictates I reveal I saw it on Fox News first...figured if it showed up elsewhere (and it did; lots of places) I'd post it - you can call it bona fide if you like, and I imagine you would, given your general view of the U.S.

The U.S. has the attitude it does precisely because it is the only country which has used nukes in war, and I think you have to admit that gives us a perspective others do not have; after all, what would propagating our point-of-view entail?

You see my point.

In any case, you are correct that the situation fits no definition of "fair" that I am aware of, but I will claim a logicality that springs from my previous point.

Guilty knowledge, so to speak.

Do you think Iran should North Korea should have nukes?


Sorry if anyone thinks I was misquoting Billy, I was doing it from memory so I may have got it wrong, not the sentiment tho'.

Anyway, as luck would have it here's the whole thing


I'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.

You decide what it means. I'll be concentrating on Billy posting "Catholics are all cunts".

Rafi, hope that explains why he treats you the way he does.

I await his denial/justification/deflection/qualification/accusation of contextual malfeasance without 'bated breath.

[GepperRankins]

if i was playing pass the parcel with nukes i'd rather it was america or some western european country that the music stops on, if you know what i'm saying :dabs:

[Snee]

I don't think anyone should have them, that's what I think.

As far as the rest goes, I'd not call something bona fide just 'cos it happened to be in line with what I thought.


I was mostly wondering about this bit, btw:

Most US intelligence on Iran inaccurate: report

Most US intelligence on Iran shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency has proved to be inaccurate and failed to lead to discoveries of a smoking gun inside the Islamic Republic, The Los Angeles Times reported on its website Saturday.

Citing unnamed diplomats working in Vienna, the newspaper said the US Central Intelligence Agency and other Western intelligence services have been providing sensitive information to the IAEA since 2002.

But none of the tips about Iran's suspected secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear arms arsenal, the report said.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," the paper quotes a senior IAEA diplomat as saying.

Another official described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out," The Times reported.

US officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove, the report said.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran.

In November 2005, UN inspectors discovered a 15-page document in Tehran that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb, The Times said.

Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.

However, diplomats working for the IAEA were less convinced in 2005 by documents recovered by US intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran, the paper said.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research into uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment.

The Times said IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Farsi.

Did Fox and others have all that? :unsure:

It's the bit that really caught my eye.


And also, for the record:

I don't have a problem with the US as a whole, it's only most of the people in charge, and some attitudes, that bother me :P

[j2k4]

I don't think anyone should have them, that's what I think.

Yes, me too, but then the toothpaste doesn't go back into the tube, does it?

I'm curious that no one (and I mean no one) ever even mentions the part played by the U.S.S.R. in the process.

I was mostly wondering about this bit, btw:

Most US intelligence on Iran inaccurate: report

Most US intelligence on Iran shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency has proved to be inaccurate and failed to lead to discoveries of a smoking gun inside the Islamic Republic, The Los Angeles Times reported on its website Saturday.

Citing unnamed diplomats working in Vienna, the newspaper said the US Central Intelligence Agency and other Western intelligence services have been providing sensitive information to the IAEA since 2002.

But none of the tips about Iran's suspected secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear arms arsenal, the report said.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," the paper quotes a senior IAEA diplomat as saying.

Another official described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out," The Times reported.

US officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove, the report said.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran.

In November 2005, UN inspectors discovered a 15-page document in Tehran that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb, The Times said.

Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.

However, diplomats working for the IAEA were less convinced in 2005 by documents recovered by US intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran, the paper said.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research into uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment.

The Times said IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Farsi.

Did Fox and others have all that? :unsure:

It's the bit that really caught my eye.

Yes, Fox News had it all, as did the others I saw.

[Snee]

Yes, me too, but then the toothpaste doesn't go back into the tube, does it?
I sort of see your point there, I guess.

But then again...they are intended to be a deterrent for people trying to use them against you (and by you, I mean anyone who has them), at least that's my take on the situation.

But then (yet) again, any one who sees you as their enemy, is going to want them as a deterrent to you using the stuff against them, so in having them, you make others want them and...it's a right mess.

The soviets made you boost your arsenal sure enough, btw, I'm well aware of that :dabs: (And they were really stupid about it too, at that, the muppets.)




Yes, Fox News had it all, as did the others I saw.

I'm impressed, maybe they aren't always as bad as they seem :01:

[j2k4]

As a stand-alone proposition, then, what do you feel the world-at-large ought to be prepared to do to prevent, say, a loony like Kim Jong-Il from acquiring nuclear weapons (never mind he already has them)?

[Snee]

:idunno:

But you having nukes won't stop him from having them, that's the thing.
If anything, you having nukes is an incentive for him to keep them.


To be honest, it's beyond me how this can be solved. But I don't think things are working now.

I'd like to say that you should set a good example and get rid of yours first, make some kind of treaty with every other nutter, but...:idunno:

EDit: a noone-can-have-them kind of treaty, I mean.

The Israelis wouldn't agree to it, tho', to mention one nation.

[j2k4]

:idunno:

But you having nukes won't stop him from having them, that's the thing.
If anything, you having nukes is an incentive for him to keep them.


To be honest, it's beyond me how this can be solved. But I don't think things are working now.

I'd like to say that you should set a good example and get rid of yours first, make some kind of treaty with every other nutter, but...:idunno:

EDit: a noone-can-have-them kind of treaty, I mean.

The Israelis wouldn't agree to it, tho', to mention one nation.

Well, with the dirty-bomb-terrorist thingie, even SDI/Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense.

The nation/kooks right now are doing all they can to demonstrate a predilection for dealing with terrorists in order to make a strike...terrorists as a delivery vehicle, rather than a MIRV, for example.

It works for them, and destabilizes our foreign policy into the bargain.

That last makes us (the U.S.) real popular right now, doesn't it?

Knock Bush all you want, but a democrat would be similarly flummoxed.

[Busyman™]

The "we get rid of ours, they'll get rid of theirs" won't work for obvious reasons.

It's quite silly to think all countries have the best intentions.

Let's face it, the reason that people don't want Islamic countries with the bomb is due to the nutjobs we see blowing themselves up along with 30 others in a mosque.

So when we hear Ahmadinejad say anything about wiping out Israel, it doesn't help his case.

People can talk all they want about what is fair. The "we have them, they should be able to have them" bit doesn't fit the real world and it's a typical liberal attitude (not as in party) that I don't share.

Those liberal attitudes will get a nuke in your ass but alas you were being....fair.

[Snee]

:idunno:

But you having nukes won't stop him from having them, that's the thing.
If anything, you having nukes is an incentive for him to keep them.


To be honest, it's beyond me how this can be solved. But I don't think things are working now.

I'd like to say that you should set a good example and get rid of yours first, make some kind of treaty with every other nutter, but...:idunno:

EDit: a noone-can-have-them kind of treaty, I mean.

The Israelis wouldn't agree to it, tho', to mention one nation.

Well, with the dirty-bomb-terrorist thingie, even SDI/Star Wars doesn't make a lot of sense.

The nation/kooks right now are doing all they can to demonstrate a predilection for dealing with terrorists in order to make a strike...terrorists as a delivery vehicle, rather than a MIRV, for example.

It works for them, and destabilizes our foreign policy into the bargain.

That last makes us (the U.S.) real popular right now, doesn't it?

Knock Bush all you want, but a democrat would be similarly flummoxed.

True, anyone would have a hard time dealing with it. But it doesn't help that Bush is one scary motherfucker (and not in a good way from anyone's perspective).

As for fanatics, I don't reckon having nukes as a deterrent will work on them. It might work on people who would arm them, and send them off. But really, to the wrong sort of person, impending retaliation just means more martyrs for the cause.

And then there's the problem of proving that one particular nation is reponsible for that particular act. In the worst case possible, you get nuked, retaliate and end up blowing up the wrong nation, thus antagonizing (what's left of) the rest of the world, and messing up a good chunk of the planet in the process.

And then there's the ethics involved in wielding such weapons against a dictatorship (the favourite scene for any self-respecting nutjob in the business), where like 90% of the population had no say in hitting you in the first place.

From that perspective it seems nigh on insane. Millions of us get killed, so we'll kill millions who had nothing to do with hurting us, just to get even.



Really, the way I see it, there are weapons that will devastate nations, used to scare off a minority currently inside of large populations.


That's just the way I see it tho', I have no solution.

I just had to type this all out twice, 'cos I had a wee crash, and it wasn't any fun at all, so it feels like I'ma call it a night, now.

[j2k4]

Aye - me, too. ;)

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

....run by a retard.

in the words of forest gump........"thats all I have to say 'bout that"

...and hell, I live here. Great country tho......run by a retard

[Busyman™]

Sorry if anyone thinks I was misquoting Billy, I was doing it from memory so I may have got it wrong, not the sentiment tho'.

Anyway, as luck would have it here's the whole thing


I'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.

You decide what it means. I'll be concentrating on Billy posting "Catholics are all cunts".

Rafi, hope that explains why he treats you the way he does.

Funny that that quote seems to have slapped Ava with a smathering of STFU in this thread.

[Ava Estelle]

Funny that that quote seems to have slapped Ava with a smathering of STFU in this thread.
That MISquote have done nothing of the sort, and I have no need to answer, again and again, someone who supports an organisation that spirited Nazi war criminals out of Europe and covers up the crimes of paedophiles.

I could post anything here and claim JP wrote it, it would prove no more than his crap does. :)

Now, busybody, take your own advice and STFU! :yup:

[j2k4]

Sorry if anyone thinks I was misquoting Billy, I was doing it from memory so I may have got it wrong, not the sentiment tho'.

Anyway, as luck would have it here's the whole thing



You decide what it means. I'll be concentrating on Billy posting "Catholics are all cunts".

Rafi, hope that explains why he treats you the way he does.

Funny that that quote seems to have slapped Ava with a smathering of STFU in this thread.

Well, if you stir shit with a short-handled spoon, you are bound to get it all over yourself. :whistling

[Ava Estelle]

Well, if you stir shit with a short-handled spoon, you are bound to get it all over yourself. :whistling Still reeling over your humiliations these past weeks Kev?

If you didn't have such an over inflated ego these setbacks wouldn't have hit you so hard.

You've built up a persona on here of someone who resorts to ridicule and personal attacks against anyone who opposes your right wing, Fox News, views.

If you hadn't been so cocky, and taken the time to check your sources, you wouldn't be in this position now. :)

[GepperRankins]

Well, if you stir shit with a short-handled spoon, you are bound to get it all over yourself. :whistling Still reeling over your humiliations these past weeks Kev?

If you didn't have such an over inflated ego these setbacks wouldn't have hit you so hard.

You've built up a persona on here of someone who resorts to ridicule and personal attacks against anyone who opposes your right wing, Fox News, views.

If you hadn't been so cocky, and taken the time to check your sources, you wouldn't be in this position now. :)
to be fair, you laughing with yourself and associating JP to crimes committed by people who happen to share some theological beliefs with him is more predictable :mellow:

[Ava Estelle]

to be fair, you laughing with yourself and associating JP to crimes committed by people who happen to share some theological beliefs with him is more predictable :mellow:

You miss the point. I Googled for an article I read some time ago, I found it on a site belonging to someone I never heard of. JP then decides this person is a racist. The article has nothing to do with the person who runs the site, it was just reproduced there. Had I looked around I could have found it on a dozen other sites, including The Guardian.

JP then claimed that I be held to account for the views expressed by the owner of the site I lifted the article from, and that I was responsible for this person's views. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of this, and parralled it with the views and actions of the catholic church, an organisation with a centuries old tradition of the most heinous crimes imaginable. If, as he contends, I have any responsibility for the views of that person, then he does also with regards to the Vatican ... he can't have it both ways.

[GepperRankins]

to be fair, you laughing with yourself and associating JP to crimes committed by people who happen to share some theological beliefs with him is more predictable :mellow:

You miss the point. I Googled for an article I read some time ago, I found it on a site belonging to someone I never heard of. JP then decides this person is a racist. The article has nothing to do with the person who runs the site, it was just reproduced there. Had I looked around I could have found it on a dozen other sites, including The Guardian.

JP then claimed that I be held to account for the views expressed by the owner of the site I lifted the article from, and that I was responsible for this person's views. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of this, and parralled it with the views and actions of the catholic church, an organisation with a centuries old tradition of the most heinous crimes imaginable. If, as he contends, I have any responsibility for the views of that person, then he does also with regards to the Vatican ... he can't have it both ways.
i didn't miss the point, i understood all that. i was just saying that you're predictable :dabs:

[Chip Monk]

Nonsense, I described your source as questionable. I didn't decide he was a racist, the fact that he was a prominent KKK member decided that. He's also an anti-semite, I didn't decide that either, he did.

I also didn't claim you were responsible for his views. You're just talking bunkum now.

Oh and the quote is a direct quote, lifted from the forum. Not by me by someone else. Read by others at the time.


I'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.


Denying it any more just makes you look even more pathetic.

[Ava Estelle]

... i was just saying that you're predictable :dabs: Is that good or bad? :blink:

[Barbarossa]

... i was just saying that you're predictable :dabs: Is that good or bad? :blink:

For weather patterns - good.

For horse races - bad.

[GepperRankins]

... i was just saying that you're predictable :dabs: Is that good or bad? :blink:
in this case it's bad.


you always resort to the catholic-peadophile thing. now you're saying it's to point out the hypocrisy of JP pointing out using david duke as a source (or middleman as it seems).

you also claim to have never heard of him, which means that this is the first time which means the last 500 times weren't to point anything out

[Ava Estelle]

you always resort to the catholic-peadophile thing. now you're saying it's to point out the hypocrisy of JP pointing out using david duke as a source (or middleman as it seems). That's your interpretation ... I've taken years of shit from JP, and I reserve the right to give as good as I get, and if that means hitting a nerve, that's what I'll do ... he knows how to stop it, but he has no desire to do so, because he's a vindictive twat.


you also claim to have never heard of him, which means that this is the first time which means the last 500 times weren't to point anything out I have no idea what that means, but the 500 is a clue that you're talking bollox. :)

[Chip Monk]

What shit, what was it you said "put up or shut up". I proved your anti-semitism, using your own words. What shit have you put up with from me exactly. You've said this a lot now but I don't actually know what you mean.

Oh and it doesn't hit a nerve, other than you being allowed to do it so frequently, that kind of surprises me.

I know that there have and continue to be priests who are paedophiles. It makes big news. The same goes for scout leaders or youth leaders or pretty much any group of people.

Like I said I also find the Catholic Churches record on the subject appaling and those who protect the paedophiles should be prosecuted for it as well. However that is the vast minority. In the same way as it is for all of the other organisations. It's just that 99.9999% of Policemen not being paedophiles is hardly big news. 1 being caught is, his force closing ranks or moving him, bigger still.

[Ava Estelle]

You 'proved' my anti-semitism? You did no such thing, being anti-Israel, and\or anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.


What shit have you put up with from me exactly.Haha, are you kidding?

When I came back here I made an effort to be civil to you, swapping pleasantries, talking football, etc.. The first couple of times you had a dig, about things from years ago, I ignored it, but there is no way I'm just gonna sit back and take your shit.

[GepperRankins]

That's your interpretation ... I've taken years of shit from JP, and I reserve the right to give as good as I get, and if that means hitting a nerve, that's what I'll do ... he knows how to stop it, but he has no desire to do so, because he's a vindictive twat.


you also claim to have never heard of him, which means that this is the first time which means the last 500 times weren't to point anything out I have no idea what that means, but the 500 is a clue that you're talking bollox. :)
500 is a blatant exaggeration, obviously :dabs:


you have done it before. everybody that's posted in this thread with the possible exception of microsoulV has seen you do it.


in this case you claim to be saying it was to point something out about you and david duke. you also say you've never heard of him.

now this means you have a habit of quoting racists and never learn from your mistakes so always have to go for the desperate catholic-peadophiles attack. or it means you're obsessed with bullying JP using the catholic-peadophiles attack and this time you just happen to have an excuse.


which is it?

[Ava Estelle]

you have done it before. everybody that's posted in this thread with the possible exception of microsoulV has seen you do it. Done what? Had a go back at him, so what? Are you saying I shouldn't? If you are you can STFU and mind your own business.



in this case you claim to be saying it was to point something out about you and david duke. you also say you've never heard of him. Again, I have no idea what this means, as usual you rant away with no purpose.


now this means you have a habit of quoting racists and never learn from your mistakes so always have to go for the desperate catholic-peadophiles attack. or it means you're obsessed with bullying JP using the catholic-peadophiles attack and this time you just happen to have an excuse. What a load of bollox, if you're gonna pick an argument at least find some sensible subject matter, this attempt is pathetic. :lol: :lol: :lol:



which is it? Tails?

[GepperRankins]

you're enough to make me think i'm always right :ermm:

[Busyman™]

You 'proved' my anti-semitism? You did no such thing, being anti-Israel, and\or anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.


What shit have you put up with from me exactly.Haha, are you kidding?

When I came back here I made an effort to be civil to you, swapping pleasantries, talking football, etc.. The first couple of times you had a dig, about things from years ago, I ignored it, but there is no way I'm just gonna sit back and take your shit.

Talking football and saying hi doesn't preclude you from being a twunt stain.

Saying you wish Azrael destroyed means you've proven you're anti-semitism, dumbass. You can flounder around like a fish all you want about this or that. (I await you to tell me that everyone in Azrael isn't Jewish:1eye:)

At first you said it was a misquote. I think it would be kinda hard for GayPaul to come with all o dat unless....wait for it....it was a C&P.

There's only a small amount of room for certain members to be ridiculed and I'm already here so fuck off, you overtly racist idiot.

[Ava Estelle]

Get a life busybody, no-one on here, including JP or myself, has ever come up with the shit that spews from your mouth.

You are, without doubt, the nastiest piece of filth ever to stalk this forum.

You attack people's family in the most disgusting manner, every time someone proves what an arsehole you are.

Your opinions are worth less than a discarded dog turd. :lol:

[GepperRankins]

You 'proved' my anti-semitism? You did no such thing, being anti-Israel, and\or anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.

Haha, are you kidding?

When I came back here I made an effort to be civil to you, swapping pleasantries, talking football, etc.. The first couple of times you had a dig, about things from years ago, I ignored it, but there is no way I'm just gonna sit back and take your shit.

Talking football and saying hi doesn't preclude you from being a twunt stain.

Saying you wish Azrael destroyed means you've proven you're anti-semitism, dumbass. You can flounder around like a fish all you want about this or that. (I await you to tell me that everyone in Azrael isn't Jewish:1eye:)

At first you said it was a misquote. I think it would be kinda hard for GayPaul to come with all o dat unless....wait for it....it was a C&P.

There's only a small amount of room for certain members to be ridiculed and I'm already here so fuck off, you overtly racist idiot.
there really is a huge difference between thinking israel, especially including the occupation of palastine and plans to occupy more is illegitimate, and hating jewish people :dabs:

i'd also like to ask where the racism is. where does a european caucasian get miseducated about european caucasians?


also, who can't tell the difference between http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ and http://www.arza.org/ :pinch:

[Busyman™]

Get a life busybody, no-one on here, including JP or myself, has ever come up with the shit that spews from your mouth.

You are, without doubt, the nastiest piece of filth ever to stalk this forum.

You attack people's family in the most disgusting manner, every time someone proves what an arsehole you are.

Your opinions are worth less than a discarded dog turd. :lol:

Fuck yo mama!

[Mr JP Fugley]

You 'proved' my anti-semitism? You did no such thing, being anti-Israel, and\or anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.


What shit have you put up with from me exactly.Haha, are you kidding?

When I came back here I made an effort to be civil to you, swapping pleasantries, talking football, etc.. The first couple of times you had a dig, about things from years ago, I ignored it, but there is no way I'm just gonna sit back and take your shit.

:lol: It's awesome, you never, ever answer things.

The quotes there, people who have read it have already made up their minds what you are. There really is no space for spinning it Billy. Watching you try is amazing entertainment but.

[j2k4]

Get a life busybody, no-one on here, including JP or myself, has ever come up with the shit that spews from your mouth.

You are, without doubt, the nastiest piece of filth ever to stalk this forum.

You attack people's family in the most disgusting manner, every time someone proves what an arsehole you are.

Your opinions are worth less than a discarded dog turd. :lol:

Now this, this is a work of absolute single-mindedness.

Nary a word or syllable written with any intent save to insult.

No point whatsoever beyond salving your own perceived slight.

Apart from crazy old Zardoz, I can't recall anyone in the history of this forum (aside from you in your sundry prior incarnations) who would go to such lengths to indulge himself.




Wow.

A whole post without insulting you.

There's something, huh?

[Snee]

I tried be serious-ish, in here.

Pfft.


Screw you guys, I'm going to the lounge.

[Ava Estelle]

It's awesome, you never, ever answer things. There's nothing to answer. You asked some absurd question about anti-semitism and tax avoidance by someone I already told you I hadn't heard of, there is nothing to answer, you're just being facetious.


The quotes there, people who have read it have already made up their minds what you are. Where are these quotes? You post something, claim it's from me, but you post no source. I already told you it is a deliberate misquote and out of context. But you keep on trying, the Inquisition would have been proud of you.


Wow.

A whole post without insulting you.

There's something, huh?

Still reeling from your humiliations Kev?

That's what comes of an inflated sense of self worth.

If you didn't spend so much time looking down your nose at people, and trying to convince them of your superiority, it wouldn't have hit you so hard.

You still haven't replied in those threads, to anyone, even to admit you were wrong, that's the type of person you are, so you shouldn't be surprised that when a gloater like yourself gets caught out, people are gonna gloat. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: etc..


Fuck my fat, ugly, thieving mama!

Fixed!

[Mr JP Fugley]

Billy it's a cut and paste from an old Moderation, as you know.

The forum doesn't exist anymore, as you know. So I can't post a link to it. That doesn't change the fact that you posted it.

It's a direct quote, cut and pasted and it really is pathetic you keeping trying to deny it.

You haven't answered whether you have any problem with the chaps tax fraud and anti-semitism. What's difficult to understand about that. You would appear to have a problem with his white supremacism, what about the tax fraud and anti-semitism, any problems with those.

[Ava Estelle]

Billy it's a cut and paste from an old Moderation, as you know. No, I didn't know.


The forum doesn't exist anymore, as you know. So I can't post a link to it. That doesn't change the fact that you posted it. How convenient. And why would I know it was gone? I seem to remember being banned.


It's a direct quote, cut and pasted and it really is pathetic you keeping trying to deny it. If it's a direct quote where is the rest of it? Or have you just taken what you wanted and ignored the rest, and the context? Typical!


You haven't answered whether you have any problem with the chaps tax fraud and anti-semitism. What's difficult to understand about that. You would appear to have a problem with his white supremacism, what about the tax fraud and anti-semitism, any problems with those. I've answered this, if you want to keep asking until you get the answer you want instead of the one you got, be my guest, I'm not easily bullied.

So, another nasty post from the christian, as you'd expect, but don't stop, I find your annoyance extremely amusing. :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Where did you answer it.

[Biggles]

I tried be serious-ish, in here.

Pfft.


Screw you guys, I'm going to the lounge.

Your noble attempt did not go unnoticed :dabs:

[Marconis]

Just read this thread, seeing someone link to David Dukes website gave me a good laugh. Considering that you constantly attack people for not apologizing and admitting faults, I think you should admit you were wrong to link to a KKK leaders website. Perhaps you should find a different article to support your points. Otherwise, it comes across quite hypocritical when you constantly attack people.

Not that I'm going to convince anyone but I think it's quite naive to think that Iran is doing their nuclear research and firing missiles for peaceful reasons.

And yes, being anti-Israel does not make you an anti-semite. However, I find it amazing that someone can be so anti-Israel and then have such positive views of Iran. Just my two cents.

[Ava Estelle]

Just read this thread, seeing someone link to David Dukes website gave me a good laugh. Considering that you constantly attack people for not apologizing and admitting faults, I think you should admit you were wrong to link to a KKK leaders website. Wrong for what? I linked to an article that had nothing to do with Duke, who I'd never heard of, I posted part of the article and linked to the rest. The same article is on countless other sites. For someone who just joined you seem to know a lot about what I 'constantly' do.



Perhaps you should find a different article to support your points. In the words of busybody, perhaps you should STFU and mind your own business. :)




I find it amazing that someone can be so anti-Israel and then have such positive views of Iran. What positive views are they? That they have done nothing illegal? Do you have another opinion then, or are you just a negative commentor?

[Chip Monk]

Stating that one wishes to see the end of Israel as a nation is anti-Israeli. I have no problem with that, that's your opinion and desire. Whether I agree with it or not, I fully support your right to have and express the view.

Saying that the Nazi's taught them well and that one dreads to think what it would be like if six million of them hadn't been murdered is anti-semitic.

How many of the Jews murdered were Israeli. Anyone other than Billy to answer obviously, as he won't.

[Ava Estelle]

Saying that the Nazi's taught them well and that one dreads to think what it would be like if six million of them hadn't been murdered is anti-semitic. After the the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the annexation of their country in 1947, the Jewish terrorist groups took the law into their own hands, and set about clearing as much of the country of Palestinians as possible. Sound familiar?

They went from village to village, burning houses and killing thousands of men, women and children. Sound familiar?

In some cases they made the villagers dig their own graves and then shot them. Sound familiar?

In Dayr Yasin the terror gangs of Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern Gang, headed by the former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, murdered 230 mostly women and children in cold blood, 25 of the survivors were paraded in West Jerusalem as trophies, then taken back to Dayr Yasin and murdered. Sound familiar?

Stories like this come from all over Palestine, thousands murdered, over 800,000 forced to flee. Sound familiar?

If you can't see that these people did to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them, you must be blind.

[Chip Monk]

How many of the Jews murdered were Israeli. Anyone other than Billy to answer obviously, as he won't.

[Mindfukced]

How many of the Jews murdered were Israeli. Anyone other than Billy to answer obviously, as he won't.


Im guessing IBM would know how many jews were killed in total, seeing as they helped in the process.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/


Just finished reading this book, and found it interesting....

sorry for intruding on the heated debate...i'll get out the way now...

peace,

Mindfukced

[Ava Estelle]

How many of the Jews murdered were Israeli. Anyone other than Billy to answer obviously, as he won't.

Totally irrelevant, as large numbers of the terrorists came from Germany and other parts of Europe, and many of them were survivors of the concentration camps. Out of the camps and murdering Palestinians ... where did they get the idea from?

Not that a catholic has any right to comment on the holocaust. In the years preceding the war, when the harassment of the jews first started, the Vatican signed a deal with the Nazis that they wouldn't interfere or comment on their treatment of the jews. When it became apparent that they were being exterminated the Vatican said nothing, and catholic churches were locked and guarded to stop jews from seeking asylum. After the war the Vatican set up RATLINE to aid in the escape of Nazi war criminals to South America, where they were looked after by the catholic church in those countries. The chief instigator of this was Bishop Alois Hudal, who oversaw, among others, the escape of Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Mueller, and Franz Stangl. This is an organisation that you support, and help finance ... so how's you conscience ... clear, I bet!

[Chip Monk]

So it's a Jewish thing, not an Israeli thing. All Jews are terrorists are they. Are all Muslims terrorists as well.

The classic Catholic deflection thing as well. Double cool.

AUTOMERGED HERE

A Jewish Anti-Zionist Writer

The Truth at Last About Pope Pius and The Holocaust

By Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal

May/June 1998, pages 28-31


In its March 18, 1998 editorial “The Vatican’s Holocaust Report,” The New York Times hails Pope John Paul’s repudiation of anti-Semitism, but calls on him to take the next step by pointing to the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against Nazi atrocities. The Times concludes that a “full exploration of Pope Pius’ conduct is needed.” At the same time Jewish organizations and the chief rabbi of Israel blasted the Vatican apology as “too little, too late.”

The full and complete story of Pius XII’s activities brings to mind Gilbert and Sullivan’s “HMS Pinafore”: “Things are seldom what they seem. Skimmed milk masquerades as cream.”

The media, particularly the printed, have persistently and consistently gone out of its way to bring to its readers any and all references to Nazi genocide against the Jews of Europe. The incredible and incessant number of references, often on the front page, to the Swiss withholding of deposits of Holocaust victims is but the latest “looking back” with guilt to the European tragedy.

The tempo of the Holocaustomania has most recently been stepped up in order to induce deep feelings of guilt, particularly on the part of Christians, at a time when Israelis and Palestinians are very much deadlocked in their negotiations and Tel Aviv could use renewed public sympathy.

Accusations in the New York Times ’ editorials and in its letters to the editor, also appearing elsewhere in the media, that Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) did nothing during World War II to help Jews prove factually to be a total perversion of the truth. This aged canard has been advanced in support of the demand that the Vatican now issue a further and fuller apology to the Jewish people as the bishops of France have already done.

A close examination of the historical record reveals the very many positive actions of the wartime pope on behalf of endangered Jews. In 1934, as papal secretary of state, Pacelli had urged Pope Pius XI to open the doors of Vatican City to Italian and German dissidents. Shortly before his election, the pope-to-be demonstrated his concern for Jewish intellectuals by sending a letter (dated Jan. 12, 1939) to the four cardinals of the U.S. and Canada, begging them to try to remedy the “deplorable reluctance” of Catholic universities in those countries to accept more German Jewish professors and Jewish thinkers on their faculties.

As pope the following year, he founded the Catholic Refugee Committee in Rome and put in charge of this activity his own secretary, Father Robert Leiber, and his housekeeper, Mother Pasqualina. According to Monsignor G. Roche’s well-documented study Pie XII Avant l’Histoire, this committee paved the way for tens of thousands of German Jews to enter America as Catholics, providing them with a regular and efficient service documentation, baptismal certificates, financial aid, and arrangements abroad. This French historian estimated that by 1942 over one million Jews, on Vatican directives, were being housed in convents and monasteries throughout Europe.

The Holy Father himself set an example by taking care of some 15,000 Jews at Castel Gandolfo, as well as several thousand in Vatican City, where the refugees of all faiths included such famed diplomats as the future Christian Democratic Prime Minister Alcide de Gas peri and Socialist leader Pietro Nenni. By 1943 these refugees were overflowing into the papal apartments themselves. Chief Rabbi of Rome Israel Zolli subsequently became a Catholic convert, reportedly in gratitude for Pius’s wartime protection, and took as his given name, Eugenio, Pius XII’s given name.

Meanwhile, under the personal authorization of Pope Pius, Monsignor Angello Roncalli, the future Pope John XXIII, was working assiduously at his Istanbul post to help many hundreds of thousands of Eastern European Jews on their way to Palestine. In France the pope’s deputy, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, and his Joint Distribution Committee were doing everything in their power to facilitate Jewish emigration under the very nose of the government of Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain.

An underground printing press at Nice, protected by the archbishop and the mayor of the city, produced 1,895 identity cards, 1,360 work permits, 1,230 birth certificates, 428 demobilization letters and 950 baptismal certificates before it was discovered. And as far as Hungary was concerned, the Holy Father, through personal correspondence with Regent Miklos Horthy, won guarantees that the country’s 800,000 Jews would not be deported if they submitted to mass baptism.

Because of his show of concern for the Jewish plight, often in a spectacular way, Eugenio Pacelli might rather have been accused of pro-Zionist sympathies. As a cardinal coming into New York harbor in October 1937 aboard the Conte di Sa voia, he asked the ship’s captain to fly, alongside the papal flag, the six-pointed star of the future state of Israel in honor of the 600 Jewish refugees then on board. And just prior to the entrance of the German army into Rome in 1943, the pope ordered the Papal seal to be prominently engraved on the main Roman synagogue for its protection.

The famed, highly successful play “The Deputy,” by Rolf Hochhuth, which ran on Broadway in 1964, nevertheless was an exposition of the theme that Pope Pius lacked compassion and could have saved many Jewish lives. The main condemnatory evidence against the pope was his reluctance to go along with President Roosevelt’s suggestion that the pope publicly condemn the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz. The pope always had to face the possibility that such an open condemnation of the Nazis could lead to the seizure of Vatican City.

Did that reluctance to take up the Roosevelt suggestion spell out anti-Semitism? As Jesuit Father Robert Leiber, his secretary, wrote, “The Pope sided very unequivocally with the Jews at that time. He spent the entire fortune he inherited from his family as a Pacelli on their behalf.”

The Holy Father had similarly been silent on any condemnation of the multifold illegal actions and cruelties of the Communist regime, which was fighting the Hitler horde. That silence, however, had been in accordance with a specific promise extracted from him by the U.S. and Britain, who had, meanwhile, become allied with the Soviet Union.

The necessity for the utmost secrecy in the relations between the Vatican and the Allied Powers as the Nazis spread their hold on Europe was further emphasized in British documents. The 1972 release of British Foreign Office papers showed that Pope Pius XII had learned of the Nazi plans for invading France and the Low Countries in May 1940, and had then tipped off the British. According to Jesuit historian Reverend Robert Graham, the pope’s information about the impending assault had come from a German spy, who was in fact a double agent. The invaluable information was forwarded to 10 Downing Street in a coded cable from the British minister at the Holy See. The Holy Father was at the same time involved in negotiations with certain anti-Hitler officers seeking a British guarantee for non-humiliating peace terms in the event that their planned coup d’état should be successfully staged. After the fall of France, the pope asked the British to destroy any record of the Vatican’s involvement in abortive negotiations with the anti-Hitler resistance.

It is true that the release by the Vatican of its own documents for 1943 showed that Rome had been deeply disturbed by the growing possibility of a Jewish state in the Middle East. But opposition to statehood did not vitiate the quiet diplomacy carried on in behalf of the European Jews, as these papers revealed. The Catholic leadership had long insisted that refugeeism be distinguished from statehood. Cardinal Luigi Maglione, then secretary of state, suggested “other territories which would be more suitable” for a Jewish entity, while Pope John, even when as papal nuncio in Istanbul he was helping Jewish refugees reach Palestine, was expressing fears that his efforts might lead to the “realization of the Messianic dream.”

Monsignor Domenico Tardini, deputy secretary of state, wrote to the papal legate in London, Monsignor William God frey, that “the Holy See had never approved the plan to make Palestine a Jewish homeland.” This followed in a clear line the traditional Vatican opposition to the objectives of Zionism, expressed guardedly by Benedict XV in 1921 and forthrightly by Pius X to Herzl himself in 1904. This was only changed with the Vatican’s full recognition of the Israeli state and exchange of diplomatic representations in December 1993 in the wake of continued, enormous Zionist pressures exerted particularly on Cardinal O’Connor in New York.

But this same 688-page volume contained documents that the Vatican protested strongly the mass arrest of 1,027 Jews in the Rome ghetto and their transportation to death camps north of Italy. Cardinal Maglione summoned the German ambassador to the Holy See, Baron Ernst von Weizaecker, and in the strongest language (according to the introduction to the volume) indicated that the raid on the Jewish quarter “was painful for the Holy Father, painful beyond words, that in Rome itself, under the very eyes of a common Father, so many persons are made to suffer simply because they belong to another race.”

“What would the Holy See do if things were to continue like this?” asked the German envoy.

“The Holy See would not like to be faced with the necessity of voicing its disapproval,” the cardinal replied, indicating that the pope might make a public protest, the first of the war. “For now the Holy See hopes not to say anything that the German people might consider an act of hostility during a terrible war, but there are limits.”

The ambassador indicated that the raid in Rome had been made on orders from Berlin and Hitler. He asked whether he could keep the protest to himself and not report it to Berlin, and the cardinal agreed.

“Your Excellency has told me that you will do something for the poor Jews,” the cardinal said. “I thank you. I leave the rest to your judgment. If you think it more opportune not to make any mention of our conversation, so be it.”

Secretiveness was maintained because mention of the conversation was deemed to be “dangerous and counterproductive.” Of the 1,027 Jews arrested on Oct. 6, 1943, only about 15 returned alive. But, as British Minister to the Holy See Sir Francis Godolphin D’Arcy Osborne noted in the British Foreign Office documents, the Vatican’s intervention “seems to have saved a certain number of Jews,” and, as importantly, there were no further mass arrests after the Vatican’s move. The 22,000 Jews who remained in Rome went into hiding as of that day, often helped by local Catholic clergymen, including the famous Reverend Marie Benoit, a Cappucine, who became a legendary figure in rescuing Roman Jews.

Perhaps the best summation of Pius XII’s efforts on behalf of the Jews was contained in the book Three Popes and the Jews, by the Israeli journalist and diplomat Pinchas E. Lapide:

“The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000, Jews from certain death at Nazi hands...these figures exceed by far those saved by all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined.”

This history of most constructive efforts by Pius XII certainly should not be shrouded by the prevailing Holocaustomania spun by The New York Times and other segments of the media.

1 Lapide, Pinchas E., Three Popes and the Jews, (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967), pp. 214-15.

Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal is the author of The Zionist Connection, What Price Israel? and other major works.

http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/popepius.htm

[Ava Estelle]

So it's a Jewish thing, All Jews are terrorists

No answer then ... I didn't think so, a bit above you. :)

[Chip Monk]

So it's a Jewish thing, All Jews are terrorists

No answer then ... I didn't think so, a bit above you. :)

Indeed, you didn't answer.

It's the anti-semitism, anti-catholicism, bile mate. You just get so clogged up with it you can't think straight. Reading propoganda and conspiracy theories from mentalists doesn't help either.

[Biggles]

We could play the blame game all day about who killed who and who stole whose land but is it directly pertinent to the bellicose noises from some (not all) in the current US administration towards Iran :)

[Ava Estelle]

Indeed,
Wassup JP, don't like your own medicine? Why don't you answer?

I thought it was rather ironic that you quoted an anti-Israeli to 'prove' your point about the catholic collusion with the Nazis, did you actually read it?

Did you also know that Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal also claims that European jews have no right to be in Palestine because they are not descended from the ancient hebrews, and are not, in fact, semitic?

I take it then, seeing as you quoted him, that you agree with all he has to say. :)

[Chip Monk]

Indeed,
Wassup JP, don't like your own medicine? Why don't you answer?

I thought it was rather ironic that you quoted an anti-Israeli to 'prove' your point about the catholic collusion with the Nazis, did you actually read it?

Did you also know that Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal also claims that European jews have no right to be in Palestine because they are not descended from the ancient hebrews, and are not, in fact, semitic?

I take it then, seeing as you quoted him, that you agree with all he has to say. :)

I deliberately posted an anti-Israeli, a Jewish one at that, praising the Pope for what the catholic Church had done during the second World war. You quite obviously haven't read the piece if you think it shows the Church colluded with the Nazis. Let's not squabble your lack of understanding tho'. Other people who read it can work out how far off the mark you are, I can only assume deliberately.

He also points out that the Catholic Church did not want a Jewish State in the Middle East, the same position as you as it happens. However in spite of that they helped the Jews more than all the other churches, religious institutions and rescue organisations put together. Which is totally at odds with your repeated claims, based on misinformation and propaganda that the Church did nothing to help the Jewish people.

Like I said earlier I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else opposing an Israeli state. Matter for you, I'll even support your right to do it. However the Nazis did not murder an Israeli State, or even murder Israelis. They murdered Jews. They were not opposing an Israeli state, they were "ethnic cleansing".

"Did you also know that Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal also claims that European jews have no right to be in Palestine because they are not descended from the ancient hebrews, and are not, in fact, semitic? "

I didn't know that, however if that's his position he's entitled to it I'm really not fussed either way. I don't see how it effects how he reported the Pope's actions. Unless of course you are suggesting that it makes him an unreliable person. I assume you aren't suggesting that but please feel free to correct me on that.

[Ava Estelle]

I deliberately posted an anti-Israeli,

Haha, and I'm supposed to believe that?

The man is a self confessed anti-zionist, who has no time for European jews, and he 'defends' the position of the catholic church, who, like him, doesn't want a jewish state ... and you present that, not only as absolute 'proof', but the definitive answer, as if there is no other point of view. How cute, I won't bother posting a refutation, it's a moot point.

Did he, or you, comment on RATLINE? Are you ready to answer that yet? Do you have another jewish gentleman who claims that didn't happen?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to answer, I'll check in tomorrow and see what other funnies you've come up with. :lol:

[Chip Monk]

Presumably you see the irony of me posting an anti-Israeli. Maybe not.

"and you present that, not only as absolute 'proof', but the definitive answer, as if there is no other point of view."

Never let it be said Billy puts words in people's mouth or owt.

I've never heard of RATLINE Billy, other than you posting about it. Here's my answer. I don't know what it is so I'll take it on face value that you are right.

If you don't accept that the good Doctor is a reliable witness as to the Pope's actions during the war then what about Golda Meir

"At the time of Pius PP. XII's death in 1958, Israel's Golda Meir, who later became prime minister, telegraphed Rome: "...When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict."

She went on to become Prime Minister. So what we have are Jews from totally opposing viewpoints both praising the man.

[Ava Estelle]

Another selective post JP. Golda Meir wrote that in 1958, before the Vatican archives were opened, throwing some light on the catholic church's involvement. She also knew nothing of RATLINE.

Here 's a bit of reading for you, plenty of links too. The Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html)

So, what about the RATLINE? Now you know of it, why not learn and comment? For instance, what was the Vatican's motives for aiding the escape of Nazi war criminals? Could it be because some of them knew too much? That they were good catholics? Why would they then look after them in South America?

I look forward to your reply, tomorrow, unless this cyclone hits us in the meantime, in which case it may be a few days. :)

Just a bit about the Vatican and CIA documents, as it says, the first papers weren't released until the 1980's ... I don't know what the outcome of this court case was, I'll find out later ..

Two California attorneys have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in a bid to have the U.S. Army and CIA release documents relating to alleged Vatican collaboration with Nazi-allied fascists in the wartime Balkans.

The Army's decision earlier this year to withhold more than 250 documents, some at the request of the CIA, was in violation of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, the lawyers contended in their complaint.

Jonathan Levy and Tom Easton are representing elderly Serb, Jewish and Ukrainian survivors of atrocities committed by the Nazi puppet regime in Croatia, the Ustashe, in a class action lawsuit against the Vatican Bank and the monastic Franciscan Order.

Wartime intelligence documents have suggested Ustashe leaders took loot, including gold, silver and jewelry seized from their victims, to the Vatican at the end of the war.

There the assets were allegedly used to help finance an escape route - the "ratline" - for Nazis trying to escape Europe, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Nazi war criminals.

The Vatican has consistently denied the allegations, while declining to open its unpublished wartime archives despite appeals from Jewish and other groups.

Source (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200009/For20000904a.html)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Billy you're flogging a dead horse here, again. The Catholic Church has done some terrible things in it's history, or at least people from within it. I've said that loads of times.

Jewish people have done terrible things. You pointed that out yourself. In fact it's the only other one you seem to accept.

Muslims have done terrible things. The Muslim leadership still issue death warrants. Still preach hate in the streets. Still encourage murder and violence. Not exactly big on equal rights either if the stories are to be believed.

Protestants have done terrible things. They murdered innocent people in Ireland in the same way Catholics did. there's not as many of them Worldwide, nor are they as old, however they have done their bit.

White imperialists of various religions or none at all have done terrible things, have tortured and enslaved, all over the World. You yourself argue that they continue to do it to this day.

The Chinese have a dreadful history on civil rights. As have various other countries.

The Nazi Party, a political group. No need to go into that, everyone knows it. But what of the political organisations in the UK who supported the upper classes. What about the way the poor were downtrodden and had little or no rights.

What about the potato famines in Ireland. Probably mostly Catholics who suffered in that one.

The point is, you are anti-semite and anti-catholic. So you only accept that these groups (or members of them) are guilty of any wrong. In spite of the fact that others have done as much.

Muslim terrorists murdered thousands in America, in a well organised, well funded, well trained manner. This was not a random group of terrorists. So shall we blame everyone of that faith. Everyone who supports the teachings of Islam, or helps to support it financially.

We've been here before, it's all so predictable.

[Ava Estelle]

Good post JP, mostly.

Unlike catholicism, there is no Muslim leadership, that's part of the problem, if they had a 'Vatican' things may be different. Catholicism is run from the top, Islam is run locally.

Your accusations of anti-semitism needs clarification; if you're saying I hate all jews, you're wrong; if you're saying I hate the government of Israel, and Zionism, and that's why I'm anti-semite, you're also wrong, unless you're saying that jews who feel the same way are also anti-semite.

With regards to the 1947-49 Israeli war of Independence, the terrorists who started the slaughter of Palestinians were jewish, not Israeli, Israel wasn't founded until 1948, and you still haven't commented on their actions.

Here's a quote for you, from Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, who told the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: "I couldn't sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken.

It's worth mentioning too that representatives of one of these 'gangs' met with the Nazis prior to the war and suggested they expel all European jews, with the hope that enough would settle in Palestine to give the Zionists a majority jewish population. I wonder what Hitler thought of the idea?

By anti-catholic, I take it you're talking about the religion, if you're talking about all catholics you are wrong again.

Then, of course, you forgot to mention the US, although you mentioned 9\11, maybe you believe the deaths of 30,000 innocent Afghani civilians in the revenge attack was justified?

The rest of your post is correct, and I have supported those views also.

[Biggles]

Good post JP, mostly.

Unlike catholicism, there is no Muslim leadership, that's part of the problem, if they had a 'Vatican' things may be different. Catholicism is run from the top, Islam is run locally.

Your accusations of anti-semitism needs clarification; if you're saying I hate all jews, you're wrong; if you're saying I hate the government of Israel, and Zionism, and that's why I'm anti-semite, you're also wrong, unless you're saying that jews who feel the same way are also anti-semite.

With regards to the 1947-49 Israeli war of Independence, the terrorists who started the slaughter of Palestinians were jewish, not Israeli, Israel wasn't founded until 1948, and you still haven't commented on their actions.

Here's a quote for you, from Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, who told the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: "I couldn't sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken.

It's worth mentioning too that representatives of one of these 'gangs' met with the Nazis prior to the war and suggested they expel all European jews, with the hope that enough would settle in Palestine to give the Zionists a majority jewish population. I wonder what Hitler thought of the idea?

By anti-catholic, I take it you're talking about the religion, if you're talking about all catholics you are wrong again.

Then, of course, you forgot to mention the US, although you mentioned 9\11, maybe you believe the deaths of 30,000 innocent Afghani civilians in the revenge attack was justified?

The rest of your post is correct, and I have supported those views also.



Post the Balfour Declaration of 1917 there was a steady trickle of Jewish immigrants to Palestine. These people bought land and businesses and farmed and traded with only minor clashes recorded with the local population. Post 1935, when Hitler's anti-Jewish policies really began to kick in, there was a flood of refugees to Palestine. More immigrated between 1935 and 1939 than between 1917 and 1934. So one could say that the Nazis were not adverse to ethnically cleansing rather than out and out killing. The big difference being that these subsequent refugees were stripped of property by the Nazis and were consequently penniless, often middle class, urbanites. Quite different from those who who had moved to Palestine in the two decades before. The Arabs petitioned the British to stop the ships coming from Europe. The British agreed and turned ships back in the 39 sending the occcupants to almost certain death in the camps back in Germany.

[Ava Estelle]

The British agreed and turned ships back in the 39 sending the occcupants to almost certain death in the camps back in Germany.

Not just the British, the US turned refugees away too, like the St. Louis.

[Biggles]

It is perhaps easy to forget how popular bigotry and persecution were pre WW2 - not to say that it is still not commonplace but in the 1930s, and before, one could openly display ones bigotry with pride. Popular newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic in the early 30s were far from against Hitler and his views on race and racial purity. There have been holocausts before - the Armenians in the Great War is an example - but somehow these were pushed to the back of peoples' consciousness (it is still a crime to talk about it in Turkey to ensure it stays there too) but the revelations of the camps in Germany were too horrific and too apparent to ignore. Consciousness was raised and moral certainties about race became moral dilemmas.