She isn't calling for murdering Jews or advocating terrorism. She's opposing those things. Why are you lying about it? And why do you write "jew" instead of "Jew"? Looks to me like you actually do give a fuck.

Wait. "religion or rice"? "religion or rice"? What does that even mean? Am I arguing with some Nazi version of Eliza? Goddammit someone's made a Nazi version of Eliza and created 100 sock puppet accounts on bitcointalk and I've fucking wasted weeks arguing with them all. Fucking hell.

And as far as who unleashed Jihadi scum, I think that would have been Muhammed about 1500 years ago.

Here's a nice reenactment of how it all started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJow

"Something literally unbelievable has just happened to me!"

You are literally wrong. I'm using the word literally literally here. Read the ad. It doesn't call for murder. It's calling out someone who calls for murder. Why don't you want those who advocate the murder of Jews to be called out? It's also calling out those who try to mislead people about what jihad means. Why don't you want those people to be called out?

But look. We agree that someone will kill some Jews and justify it using Islam. And we agree that you'll blame Pamela Geller instead of the murderer, because Pamela Geller will be the Jew.

Obviously everytime a Jew is killed there's a Jew to blame because there is a secret Jew plan behind the killing. /s

Just to clarify: are you implying that I am a Jew? If so, what led you to this conclusion?

The ad doesn't say you should kill Jews. Read it again. It's quoting what Hamas says about killing Jews. It's an ad about what the word jihad means.

Pamela Geller doesn't want Jews killed. That's why she's point out Jew-killers and the people who excuse them. What do the people who want to silence her want? Dead Jews.

Don't worry. Jews will continue to be killed whether this ad runs or not. And people will blame the Jews for being killed.

It's all part of the picture and has been building for many years. Bat Ye'or wrote a good book named "Eurabia" about the topic many years ago. Europe's turning into exactly want it wants to become, and part of what has always wanted to become is Judenrein.

Is that how it happened to you? I mean, you did just compare a "Jewish group" who pointed out that Jihadis advocate killing Jews and actually kill Jews...to Nazis...instead of comparing the Jihadis who kill Jews to Nazis.



Is the "right message" to learn from the Holocaust to ignore and excuse Jew hatred and Jew killing? To lie about it as long as possible? Jews are being killed. Today. Because of you.

Obviously not all Muslims are Jihadis, and I don't think the ad in that other thread suggests that. Some Muslims are Jihadis and kill Jews. Some Muslims are lying about what Jihad means in order to provide cover for the active Jihadis. They should all be called out. The people doing the calling out are not like the Nazis. You said they were.

Last month I read an article in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg (a Jew!) titled "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?" It's disturbing to see how dangerous Europe is today for the Jews who have remained. It's not even safe to visit the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam.

There's a lot of Jew hatred on this forum,  so I guess I should intice you to read it in a different way. Read this so you can masturbate while thinking about how dangerous Europe is for Jews in 2015. If you guys keep it up, maybe it'll be this dangerous in the rest of the places in the world that still allow Jews to live there. And then after that maybe you'll finally get what you want: a world free of Jews.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

I wish the Jihadis who openly believe in and praise killing Jews were as controversial as the people who point it out.

If you're looking for people to compare to the Nazis, how about looking at the people who tortured and murdered Ilan Halimi in 2006? Or if 9 years is too long ago, look at the man who killed the Jews in that supermarket in Paris in January? Or the Jewish kids shot and killed at a school a couple of years ago? All these examples are in France and they were all killed by Jihadis.

Jews actually are being targetted and killed. Today. By the people who say their goal is to kill Jews. Because of their religion.

And you're comparing the people pointing this out to the Nazis. Instead of the people who are actually demonizing Jews, actually targetting Jews, actually killing Jews.

Do you ever stop for a moment and think that maybe you're missing something?

Only leftists think National Socialists are "right wing." The Nazis were also opposed to the NWO of the time. That's why they wanted a Berlin-centered socialism for Germany rather than a Moscow-centered socialism for the world.

Good luck opposing the NWO by blaming the Jews for things they didn't do. Very novel approach.

Hmm. Good point. What do you think is a representative document in which Palestine declares itself a state? I'll take a look and see if leads me to accept their statehood.


I don't think Israel has any good choices. The terrorism won't stop no matter what they do. The barrier/fence/wall cut down on suicide bombings, but just led to more rocket attacks. I don't think Israel would get attacked less if they didn't respond (both militarily and by building settlements).


It is preferable to me when Israel targets specific people. Propaganda-wise it doesn't seem to make a difference. When Israel targets specific leaders they're accused of going on an assassination campaign against Palestinian leaders. (Of course, they are, but this is supposed to be a good thing.) When Israel responds with a large bombing campaign or with import controls, they're accused of collective punishment.

Regarding Palestinian resources,the Palestinians get a huge amount of foreign aid (billions of dollars a year). I haven't studied how they spend it. Here's my impression which people can try to prove wrong if they like: Palestinians spend some of the aid on schools that indoctrinate children to become Jihadis, some of the money on weapons to use against Israel, and most of the rest of the aid to secret bank accounts for Palestinian Authority officials. I'm basing the last part on memories of Arafat's wife, who I assume is somewhere in Europe being very rich. I would be very surprised if any of the money went to stop or punish Jihadis. That might be a condition of the aid, but it's a condition with a wink because no one can realistically expect it to happen. The only time in my memory that the Palestinians have done anything to combat terrorism is in 2006 when they had a civil war and fought each other.

To really understand my point of view, it's important to recognize that I think the primary goal of the Palestinians is not to have a state, but to eliminate the Jews from their region. Under that assumption, their actions make more sense, and it's difficult to imagine a good strategy to counter it. If Israel doesn't respond at all, it will be destroyed. When Israel does respond, there are more people in the world who want Israel destroyed. The frustration I often show is due to my suspicion that I'll live to see the day that it'll happen, and that people around the world will celebrate it.

I know you meant this last "Palestine" to be "Israel". (In this case I'm sure it's a typo.) I got a good laugh out of it. Imagine the Palestinians finally get a state under the condition that both no Jews and no Arabs are allowed to live there.

I tend to agree with what you're saying though, sadly. But I can't imagine such a separation actually happening.

Wow. It seems like we might actually understand each other's point of view now. I imagine if we sat down in a room together we could hammer out some compromise that neither one is happy with, shake hands, then have it fall through, both blame each other and end up killing each other. Just like real life! We should share a Nobel Peace Prize for our work in this thread.

To learn more about the truth behind 9/11, I recommend the South Park episode "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce."

Al Qaeda was behind the attack on 9/11. (They are not the same as the Taliban.) "Infiltrated the USA airspace" is misleading. It was a surprise attack using civilian aircraft at a time when people expected it to be a hijacking, not a suicide terrorist mission. It was a relatively simple and inexpensive attack that didn't require much money, intelligence or technology. The steel frames of the WTC were weakened by the fire causing the collapse. Mossad/Israel had nothing to do with it. It's possible some members of the Saudi royal family were involved and that this has been kept quiet to prevent a rift with an ally.

Now you know the truth and can relax.

Popular Mechanics did a nice article debunking the usual conspiracy theories about 9/11 many years ago. Probably you've all read some version of it. (There's even a book now apparently.) In case you haven't here are links I found:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ (This is the one to read if you want to learn about fire vs. steel.)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

The reason most people don't bother to discuss any of this with you and you mostly hear from people who agree with you is simple: we've been down this road before and know the discussion is a waste of time. You already know what you believe and can't be convinced otherwise. Some people may even pretend to agree with you in real life in order to avoid conflict with a delusional person. Try to notice if they're backing away while agreeing with you.

Since we're on a bitcoin forum, let me give some bitcoin-related advice. If you really believe evil Jews committed 9/11 and it's been covered up, then you can't believe those same evil Jews would let bitcoin succeed unless it was part of their evil grand plan to control the world. In either case, it's clear you should sell your bitcoins as soon as possible and stay away from cryptocurrencies. Or should I say ziocurrencies of cryptozionists !!11!1!!!

I'm unclear on what the map you posted shows. In the pie chart on the side it says "White Area 6% 41 settlements, 65% of settlers" and "West Bank Brown Area 94% 87 Israeli settlements 35% of Israeli settlers". I had to stare at the map on a left for a while to decide what counts as "brown" and what counts as "white". I guess there are two different "browns" that both count as part of what would have been Palestine had the deal been accepted. And most of the settlements are in this "light brown" part and would have been abandoned. The "white" parts are small but can be found around Jerusalem and Ariel a bit north. I suppose the blue parts in these white parts are the ones that would have remained. Israel probably wanted to keep these because they are the most densely populated (based on the fact that 65% of settlers are in this small area). It's possible I'm misinterpreting the map. It took me three tries to find an interpretation that fit the statistics. Just tell me if you're reading it differently.

Well, a picture is sometimes helpful, so here's my modification of that map where I've blackened the Israeli settlements that would've been abandoned had the peace deal been accepted. Is this how you interpret it as well?



If this is correct, then it seems that land-wise most of the settlements would be gone. The settlements and settlers that remained would've been part of Israel, not part of what would have become Palestine. No Israeli settlers would've been left in what would've become Palestine. Maybe we're having trouble communicating because we interpret the phrase "become Palestine" differently. When I use it, I mean what would be the state of Palestine after such a peace deal. It's even more confusing here because the correct tense would be "would have become Palestine" since it's about a counterfactual world in which Arafat had accepted the proposal.


I assume this is a response to the final question. It's hard to tell, but I think you're saying you would never have accepted South Africa "belongs to whites" and will never accept the land in Israel "belongs to Jews". Or did I misinterpret this too?

You didn't directly answer the first two questions. However, what you're saying only makes sense if someone thinks of land as belonging to ethnic groups, not individuals. Presumably that's how you see the world. In addtion, it seems like your classification of land-to-ethnicity doesn't really depend on how long they've lived there (based on your South Africa response), so I'm not sure why you mentioned the fact that Arabs had ancestors living on that land for "100s of years." Presumably it doesn't matter how long they'd been there. You classify that land as "belonging to Arabs" just like South Africa "belongs to blacks" (I guess). It's not clear to me how you decided which parts of the world belong to which ethnic groups, but I guess it's not so important. All someone needs is a map with colors and conviction of being right.

This is an oversimplification. The mainstream version doesn't say they were "Muslim crazies." It says they were jihadis who were part of Al Qaeda. It also says Bin Laden was the head of Al Qaeda at the time. Jihadis aren't generally crazy. They have clear beliefs and goals. They're also often helpfully honest and even loud about those beliefs and goals. Unfortunately most people don't bother to listen. Or even if they do listen they can only imagine "Zionist" puppet-masters controlling the world making them say those things.


If you're interested in the "actual truth", why did you waste time in the thread "supporting" your ideas by noting that polls would show something or that your ideas could be confirmed by "any well educated American" who is sufficiently drunk?

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

I recognize your capitalization rules. Hi redzeronazi.

You're in a very small and dangerously delusionable bubble. I suggest you seek professional psychological help. I don't mean that as an insult. It's a serious suggestion.