When was Palestine a country?
No one wants else wants to try to answer this? Is it because you all agree Palestine never was a country? |
|
|
|
I was basing this on an earlier statement of yours, but when I went back to requote it, I think it only justifies (2) and (3), which you probably don't disagree with.
its (1) i am disagreeing with, the part where you accused me of holding them to a higher standard. i don't. I didn't remember that in the second paragraph where you admit that Jews are held to a different standard, it's a sarcastic admission to say that the world allows them uniquely to be evil racists.
possibly not unique in the world but certainly unique among the supposedly civilised countries we think of as western. david cameron could never get away with saying he wants to preserve britain as a white majority country but when bibi says the same thing about israel and jews no one bats an eyelid. You're saying they're unique among the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western." This clearly implies you have one standard for the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western" and another standard for those who aren't. That's a double standard. There's no clear standard by which the West Bank and Gaza are occupied but Saudi Arabia is not. The people who control Saudi Arabia gained that control by conquest. In addition, the ancestors of those who control Saudi Arabia today destroyed the religions of those who lived there before. |
|
|
|
The out-of-the-closet Nazi gave good, informed responses to the questions I posed, but this only reinforces my assertions (1) and (2). Why? Because the out-of-the-closet Nazi openly says he holds Jews to a different standard and that he has a problem with Jews. (He believes this attitude is appropriate because of some historic problems he has with Jewish people.)
assume this refers to me. how's telling israel to stop building settlements on land the whole world says belongs to someone else and return to its internationally recognised borders holding it to a different standard? Yes, it refers to you. Everytime you post I think of an old David Bowie song. I'm closer to the Golden Dawn...I made three separate statements in what you quoted: (1) You openly say you hold Jews to a different standard. (2) You have a problem with Jews. (3) You believe this attitude is justified historically. I was basing this on an earlier statement of yours, but when I went back to requote it, I think it only justifies (2) and (3), which you probably don't disagree with. (If you don't have a problem with Jews and you don't think having a problem with Jews is historically justifiable, then you're seriously miscommunicating. Your signature and avatar are pretty fucking clear.) Here's the quote from you: any normal person after being persecuted and expelled from 50 or whatever countries over centuries would eventually ask himself what he had done to be so disliked. for the jews and their supporters the answer is that the rest of the world must be mentally ill.
you're right about jews being held to a different standard to everyone else. they are allowed to talk openly about the need to preserve a jewish majority in their country, but when europeans talk about keeping britain british or france french we are evil racists who want to holocaust millions of brown people in poison gas showers
I didn't remember that in the second paragraph where you admit that Jews are held to a different standard, it's a sarcastic admission to say that the world allows them uniquely to be evil racists. By the way, I'm planning to visit Mecca next year. Do you want me to bring you anything? Oh, right. I'm not allowed there. If the world didn't have double standards, wouldn't that fact (among many others) make Saudi Arabia an "apartheid state"? Doesn't really matter. The whole world knows Mecca belongs to the pagans. To address your point in this message though, the "whole world" doesn't say certain land belongs to "someone else." It's disputed territory. The reason it's disputed is because the borders have never been agreed upon. There are no internationally recognized borders (if such a concept even has a meaning). The closest possibilities were the UN partition plan in 1947 and the almost-deal in 2000. Both times the Palestinians said no. Let's analyze this "whole world." There's the Muslim world. That's a huge chunk. (The Islamic world controls everything in the UN except the Security Council, in case anyone's trying to figure out the UN issue.) Of course Muslims believe all of Israel should be under Islamic rule. Muslims believe any land that was ever under Islamic rule at some point in the past is "stolen" from them. (There's sometimes a push to restore Islamic rule to Spain, i.e., al-Andalus. Is Spain "stolen land"? How long before "the whole world agrees" it is.) And, of course, the problems Muslims have with Jews date back to the time of Muhammad. European countries tend to support the Palestinians. This is due to a combination of factors, with latent Jew-hatred playing an important role. More practical concerns are that they've dealt with Palestinian terrorism (e.g., Black September in Munich) and found it easier to just appease the terrorists. This has been amplified over the decades due to the rapid influx/increase in the Muslim population in Europe and the desire of leftist parties to get these populations into their political coalitions. The Arab oil embargo in the 70s also played a role. It happened over time. Europe tended to support Israel the first decades after WW2. Well, what remained of Europe. The book Eurabia from some years ago gives a lot of background about the European situation and how it developed. The former Soviet block was often allied with Arab countries largely because the US was close to Israel. Plus the Soviets spent decades trying to get rid of their Jews. It's natural they wouldn't be sympathetic to Israel. (Many Israelis escaped persecution in Russia.) Then there's subsaharan Africa. Just kidding. They've never heard of the issue. I'm not sure what the situation is in South America. There was recently an issue where the Argentinian (leftist) leader had a prosecuter killed because he was investigating Iranian ties to a massacre of Jews in Argentina some years ago. Plus lots of Nazis escaped to that region. But, like I say, it's not something I've looked deeply into. Finally let's consider the two big players: Israel and the US. Whether or not some of the disputed territory actually "belongs" to the Palestinians in any meaningful metaphysical sense, it's clear that the leaders in Israel and the US have demonstrated a willingness to cede control over some of the land if it leads to a lasting peace agreement. I think the idea of Palestinians living in peace next to a secure Israel is laughable, but Israel's made several peace deals with neighbors before. You know, it's strange that since Jews control the power structure of the world that this issue is such a big deal. It seems like they would use their Jew power to make people focus on other things. Or maybe I don't see the brilliance of their Jew plan. /s (The slash s indicates I'm being sarcastic in the paragraph. That means I'm pretending to have different beliefs that I have in order to show how silly the beliefs are.) |
|
|
|
agreee. And ISR controls US. So the hierarchy of worldcontrol should be clear.
In case it's not clear to anyone, Darkblock has introduced a new statement: (ISRUS) Israel controls the US.Also, there is a second implied statement that ("should be clear"): (JRW) Jews rule the world.I can offer counterevidence to this if anyone is interested. For now I'll just say it's the kind of thing Nazis believe, so I'm not surprised to see it in this thread. The Nazis represented the Jewish control over the world as an octopus. You've probably seen similar drawings. Some loonies these days refer to "ZOG" ("Zionist Occupied Government"). It's basically a run of the mill conspiracy theory. Like that mossad was behind 9/11 or a secret race of reptilians rule the world. Israel doesn't "control" the US. (If they did, why the fuck would Obama be President of the US?) The evidence clearly supports the following conclusion: (IUS) Idiots control the US.I can back that up with a hell of a lot of evidence. |
|
|
|
True-or-false statement:
(USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN.
Fact: The US has veto power on the security council, as do 4 other nations. The US "controls" the UN in the same sense as Russia, Britain, France and China. The US has no veto power over the general assembly and they regularly vote for resolutions against Israel. So, the US does not control the UN.
Status: (USUN) is false.
It doesn't matter anyway, since the UN has very little power (fortunately).
Nope. US has a lot of money. If US goes from UN, it will be hard for UN to stand in financial things. Now, does everyone see what happened here? There was a clear statement that can be true or false: (USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN. I presented two other true-or-false style statements as evidence that the US does not control the UN. (See my response above.) While MZ has ignored my two statements (naughty!), he has advanced the argument by offering different statements as evidence that the US actually does control the UN. The two statements are: (US$UN) The US gives a lot of money to the UN.
(UNUS$) The UN wants the US to keep giving the UN a lot of money.(First of all, please notice that instead of ignoring his statements, I am responding to them. That's what happens in a discussion. I thought I should point that out since it seems to be unfamiliar territory for many of you. Or if that's too controversial we could call it disputed territory.) Now, it's not clear just from the statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$) what this has to do with Israel, but let me make the following statement that I suspect is supposed to be implied by the two explicit statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$). (UNUS$ISR) The UN makes some of its decisions with respect to the Middle East conflict so that the US continues to give the UN a lot of money.Is that what you're asserting MZ? I'll assume for now it is. Now, I haven't checked (US$UN) in a long time, but I read some years ago that in fact the US is one of the major financial backers of the UN. (It's one of the reason many Americans on the right complain about the UN.) Without objection then: (US$UN) Status: True. It's also clear enough to me that the UN would be very unhappy if the US stopped giving it money (and especially if New York made it pay for the real estate it uses!). So let's also concede this: (UNUS$) Status: True. However, neither of these necessarily imply (UNUS$ISR). Consider the following two statements: (UNGA) The UN general assembly has passed many resolutions against Israel.
(UNHMR) The UN human rights council is notoriously anti-Israel.This is counterevidence against (UNUS$ISR). In other words, I present those two statements as evidence that (UNUS$ISR) is false. If the UN were making decisions based on US dollars, why would the general assembly and the human rights council behave this way? Aren't they afraid of losing those precious dollars? Evidence of (UNUS$ISR) being true would be of the following form: There is an action A which is relevant to the conflict. The US is threatening to withdraw funding for action A if the UN takes action A. Simply say what action A is. I've never heard of the US government seriously threatening to withdraw funding from the UN (as much as many American taxpayers would love it), but I'll be open-minded that it could be quietly happening behind the scenes. What is this action A the UN is unwilling to take out of fear of losing US dollars? In case it isn't clear, I'm asking for what the action A is. So in your respond you should say an action A. It should be such that the UN could take it but is unwilling to do so because of US dollars. It should also be related to the conflict under discussion. And it should be an action. It might help if you start the sentence with "The action A I have in mind is..." The only kinds of actions I can imagine (though I see no connection to US$) is the vetoing of Security Council resolutions. Here's a Wikipedia page about the related Negroponte Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrineHowever, the passing or veto of a UN Security Council seems like an irrelevant action. It doesn't change anything about the facts of the conflict. Are you wanting the UN to send some troops to fight Israel? As an aside since you brought it up: I'm not anti-German (not that I've met many Germans). I'm anti-Nazi. Nazis come from many nationalities, as this thread makes clear. The German people in the 1930s and 1940s were not generally innocent though. It's a bit of an oversimplification that the Germans "voted for" the Nazis, but it's largely true. To relate it to the topic, I'll note that Hamas is by many measures worse than the Nazis and the Palestinians voted for them more clearly than the Germans voted for the Nazis. In a Palestinian election adopting the nickname "Hitler" helps you win an election. (I didn't make that up. It happened.) |
|
|
|
Miracle #1THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE The origin of the universe is described in Naked Lunch in the following verse: Green sparks explode behind his eyes. A sweet toothache pain shoots through the neck, down the spine to the groin, contracting the body in spasms of delight. His whole body squeezes out through his cock. A final spasm throws a great spurt of sperm across the red screen like a shooting star.
This information given in the Naked Lunch is in full agreement with the findings of contemporary science. The conclusion that astrophysics has reached today is that the entire universe, together with the dimensions of matter and time, came into existence as a result of a great explosion that occurred in no time. This event, known as "The Big Bang" proved that the universe was created from nothingness as the result of the explosion of a single point. Modern scientific circles are in agreement that the Big Bang is the only rational and provable explanation of the beginning of the universe and of how the universe came into being. Before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed, and which can only be described metaphysically, matter, energy, and time were all created. This fact, only recently discovered by modern physics, was announced to us in the Naked Lunch 56 years ago.  The sensitive sensors on board the COBE space satellite which was launched by NASA in 1992, captured evidentiary remnants of the Big Bang. This discovery served as evidence for the Big Bang, which is the scientific explanation of the fact that the universe was created from nothing.
|
|
|
|
NAKED LNUCH remain safe isn't it an open evidence of presence of ALLOT SUBURROUGHS. everything burnt out . Naked lunch is safe becuase junk is the protector of Naked Lunch!  |
|
|
|
|
Naked Lunch (William S. Burroughs) contains scientific knowledge that could not have been known in 1959. It ranges from basic arithmetics to the most advanced topics in in all the Field of this world. You are invited to go through those miracles. Every Day I will post One miracle of Naked Lunch.
Lots Of things That Were Discovered Now, and Few year Back, Was Everything Written In the the Naked Lunch 56 year Ago. It is Only the Thing You should Look into the things Why it is created and what is its purpose.
Naked Lunch is the principle source of All Truth. It deals with all subjects that concern us as human beings, including wisdom, doctrine, worship and law; but its basic theme is the relationship between Giant Insect and His creatures. At the same time, Naked Lunch provides guidelines for a just society, proper human conduct and equitable economic principles.
|
|
|
|
Israel and Palestine. Long long lost cousins that started as enemies thousands of years ago and then become neighbours. Eventually some left and some stayed. then the world was in a great turmoil and many decided to go back and settle. Greedy men on both sides wanted more and more power, Blood was shed, and it still is. The people are okay with eachother. Governments are not and will never be. Until then. Blood will still flow there.
I hope your words are wrong but it seems that is what will happen between Palestine and Israel. No one want to resolve their internal conflic, also the UN. US indirectly controls UN. So when it comes about UN and few other things, I think Israel is being helped by US. Any comments on this? You can find something from this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+helped+by+USTrue-or-false statement: (USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN. Fact: The US has veto power on the security council, as do 4 other nations. The US "controls" the UN in the same sense as Russia, Britain, France and China. The US has no veto power over the general assembly and they regularly vote for resolutions against Israel. So, the US does not control the UN. Status: (USUN) is false. It doesn't matter anyway, since the UN has very little power (fortunately). True-or-false statement: (IUS) Israel is being helped by the US. Fact: Israel and the US have been allies for many decades. They have worked together for many years on many different things, including militarily. I don't think anyone denies this. (Someone could argue against it by pointing to cases where the US has helped Israel's enemies, but it's clear that the US often "helps" both sides in a conflict. The US has had its fingers in a lot of pies since WW2.) Status: (IUS) is true. A little problem though, by saying the US is helping Israel, you may have shifted the "worst enemy of Muslims" status from Israel to the US. Maybe you guys should debate which one you want to have the status. Just to keep things simple. As a social statement, you have confirmed that you are anti-Israel and anti-US. You are allowed to remain part of the in-group. Congratulations! |
|
|
|
If your country would be invaded like Palestinan what would be your thought?
I'm assuming "like Palestinan" is intended to be "like Palestine." You have a presupposition in this question. It's subtle. The presupposition is that Israel invaded a country called Palestine. The first of my many questions in my first post was this one: When was Palestine a country?A "presupposition" of a question is an implicit (unstated) true-or-false statement which must be accepted for the question to make sense. A famous example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" The presupposition is that you used to beat your wife. Also, if by "worst enemy of Muslims" we mean someone who undermines the fundamentals of the faith, I'd nominate whoever made these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJdu4HV-Nghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJowFunny stuff. Unless you believe bullshit. |
|
|
|
I've opened this thread only to see what are the people (in this forum) thinking about the general Palestine and israel situation.
You're trolling me by continuing to write "israel". That's funny. Nazis aren't usually known for their sense of humor. Anyone who reads through this thread can clearly see there's been hardly any discussion of the conflict. Maybe part of the problem is that people don't even know how such a discussion would look. Let's suppose we were discussing a car. I said, "That car is blue." You said, "That car is red." These are statements that can be true or false. How do we determine which is true? Can they both be true? Can they both be false? What are the dependencies? Some other statements are not "true or false" statements, like "Have a great day." Now maybe I say the car is blue and you say the car is red because we're pointing at different cars. In that case there's just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up as part of the discussion. Or maybe we're pointing at the same car but we have different definitions of "red" and "blue." In that case the car could be both JJ-blue and sn0w-red but not JJ-red and not sn0w-blue. In that case we're disagreeing about the use of language, but not about the state of the world. Finally it could be that we're pointing at the same car, have the same definitions of colors, and yet still disagree. In that case, we would start considering other relevant statements. Other relevant statements would again be of the true or false variety, but would be relevant because they could provide evidence about the color of the car. My first post on this thread contained a sequence of questions and a link at which a reader who wished to be better informed could learn more. The only person who responded to this was the out-of-the-closet Nazi. My primary assertions in this thread have been: (1) The reason Israel is so criticized is that it is held to a different standard than other countries/peoples.(2) The reason Israel is held to a different standard is because it is Jewish and people have a problem with Jews.The out-of-the-closet Nazi gave good, informed responses to the questions I posed, but this only reinforces my assertions (1) and (2). Why? Because the out-of-the-closet Nazi openly says he holds Jews to a different standard and that he has a problem with Jews. (He believes this attitude is appropriate because of some historic problems he has with Jewish people.) Now maybe all of you believe (1) and (2) but you think you would look bad admitting it, or maybe you don't know how to argue against it. It should be clear to anyone paying the least amount of attention to the world that for every "bad" thing Israel has done there is some other nation that has done something far worse. Why the focus on Israel? Well, because of (1) and (2), obviously. There have been very few meaningful true-or-false style assertions in this thread, but one was this: Well simple is that isreal is the worst enemy of Muslims .
The term "worst enemy of Muslims" is a property, like a car being red or blue. Now, how can we determine if something is the "worst enemy of Muslims"? Probably we have different criteria, and it's not something I'd like to spend a lot of time thinking about. To be honest, I'd think the "worst enemy of Muslims" is anyone who presents information leading to the conclusion that Muhammed was not a prophet, as the undermines the fundamentals of their religion. I'm not aware of Israel going on a campaign of undermining the idea that Muhammed was a prophet. (To my dismay, Israeli spokesmen never defend cartoonists who even draw Muhammed.) But, let's take a different criteria. Let's say the "worst enemy of Muslims" is a title that belongs to the group that kills the most Muslims. Do any of you seriously think that if we count the dead Israel will even be in the top 10? Look at ISIS. Look at various civil wars. Look at how Jordan dealt with Black September. The only way to get Israel to the top of that list is to consider Israel to be the "real cause" of the deaths. For example, ISIS is killing lots of Muslims, but someone could say the reason ISIS is killing so many Muslims is because of something Israel did or didn't do (or both). So then the blame gets shifted to Israel. This kind of blame-shifting happens when the topic actually gets discussed, but for the most part what's happening is a social phenomenon. Someone says: Well simple is that isreal is the worst enemy of Muslims .
The purpose of this statement is not to be examined as something true or false. The purpose is to communicate to the board: this is what our bitcointalk politics subforum believes. Adopt these beliefs or leave. It's a lot like religion that way. Well, except bitcointalk can remove your account while religious fanatics cut your fucking head off, so it's a little different. Now let's go all the way back to the OP which contained this question: If your country would be invaded like Palestinan what would be your thought?
I'm assuming "like Palestinan" is intended to be "like Palestine." You have a presupposition in this question. It's subtle. The presupposition is that Israel invaded a country called Palestine. The first of my many questions in my first post was this one: When was Palestine a country?The out-of-the-closet Nazi confirmed that it was never a country in the sense the term is used today. Now maybe you think it was a country in some other sense and at some time in the past. If so, what is that sense and what was that time period? If someone were to give a new definition of "being a country", then we could also apply it to other regions at other times in the past. It might have consequences you don't intend. It might mean Kurdistan was/is a country and that certain Muslim groups/countries have spent years invading them and stealing their land. It might even imply Israel was a country at some time in the past and was invaded and its land was stolen. What a wrench in the works that would cause! Fortunately you don't have to think about any of these issues deeply. Just signal that you're anti-Israel so you're accepted. TLDR: You're not talking about the conflict. You're confirming to each other that you're against Israel so everyone knows you "belong". Your statements are intended to signal this "belonging" rather than be "true or false." You're all ignorant of history and happily so. And you're all Nazis (in or out of closets) who should die in a fire. PS: I thought some more about how to bring about the extinction of the Nazi human species. There could be a chemical introduced into the ecosystem which causes chemical castration so that humans cannot effectively reproduce. Surely someone's done some work on this before. Maybe someone can point me towards it. Thanks! If such a chemical castration idea worked, we could finally have Peace in our Time! |
|
|
|
|
Well, then let me clear something up. I'm Canadian. I've never even visited Israel. I'm neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish. I never said I was Israeli or Jewish, but people on an earlier thread assumed it because I defended a Jew's right to walk through Paris unmolested. Clearly only a Jew would have such an opinion.
You're right that I'm very hateful though. I have a visceral hatred of Nazis. It bothers me intensely that people pretend to believe the Nazis were evil on a surface level while continuing to advance their beliefs. And most people are too fucking stupid to know they're doing it.
|
|
|
|
Consider self-extermination.
Back at you. Unless you have kids. In that case make sure to follow Goebbels example and kill your kids first. |
|
|
|
...
Israel is nothing special. Israel is just a normal country like all others. Don't be too arrogant. ...
That is a message I am down with also. The days of thinking of Israel as a victim are over for me. They are stealing land and refuse to recognize that as a blatant criminal act. Not that I'm a Hamas supporter, but Israel has created an apartheid state and can blame itself as much as anyone for it's problems. They should stop to thinking "we are the victim here" the arab aren't who have killed that number of Jew people in germany and other country during the second worldwide war. Also hamas are not doing the right thing, because the war isn't the correct solution for a problem. The Palestinians were allied with Hitler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-HusseiniAnd regarding capitalization, maybe I wasn't clear. If it were a typo, it wouldn't be a big deal. The fact that it hasn't been corrected means it isn't a typo. It's done for a reason. That reason is a big fucking deal to me. Maybe not to you, but it is to me. You're not a "realist". You've demonstrated no knowledge of the history or the current situation. At least saddampbuh knows enough to know he's a Nazi. |
|
|
|
Hey, I just noticed the OP capitalized "Palestine" but not "israel." Bitcoiners are such fucking nazis.
Is there any problem if I "capitalize" Palestine and not israel? I am not nazi I'm only realist and if you open your eyes, you will see the truth. I have also few jew friends, so where is the problem? Read the additional rule of this thread: Thanks for the attention, and please don't turn this thread in a blame thread.
There's a problem if you're a Nazi. And you are. And your Jewish friends are friends with a Nazi. |
|
|
|
|
If someone looked around the world at different cultures in different countries and examined how they treat their religious minorities including what kinds of violence has occurred, there is no way to believe Israel is even high on the list of offenders. Yet the people here are clearly OK with the idea of it being destroyed (meaning the extermination, again, of 6 million Jews). The reason is simple: Israel is held to a different standard. The reason for that is also simple: Israel is Jewish. The reason many people hold Jews to a different standard is simple: many people are Nazis.
Now, let's suppose you decided to (temporarily) stop holding Jews/Israel to a different standard and looked around the world. Let's say with your newfound objectivity you noticed, wow, most of these people are far worse (more discriminatory/more violent) than the Israelis! At that point you could go in one of three directions: (1) go back to holding Jews to a different standard because it's comfortable for you, (2) decide that maybe the Israelis aren't being as unreasonable as you thought and maybe 6 million Jews don't need to die again, or (3) decide that the human species generally is not worth sympathy and be OK with the idea of the extinction of the species.
You guys have made a clear case for human extinction, I'll give you that. In fact, let me make this promise. If Israel is destroyed, I will devote the rest of my life to the extermination of the human species. Any species that goes down this road again less than 100 years after the holocaust needs to be fucking wiped out.
And about the "apartheid wall", the Vatican has a wall around it. Why is that not an "apartheid wall"?
And what the fuck does Israel owe Syria? Does Syria respect Israel as a "sovereign nation"? What legitimacy does Assad have? Syria's attacked Israel multiple times. But that's different I suppose since you consider Syria legitimate (non-Jewish) and Israel illegitmate (Jewish).
If Syria wipes out a million jihadis in ISIS, people will blame Israel. If ISIS jihadis kill a million Syrians, people will blame Israel. You have to be blind not to see the reason.
|
|
|
|
to be honest with you zakir i dont think badecker has any point at all. like on the other post he could not prove that muslim or islam from facts that (maybe only he has) the Quraan and the Hadiths tells muslims to BE VIOLENT. i have shown to him dozens of websites supporting my claims and backing my posts with quotes, facts and science. he only replies with that one post he has from a website that obviously is nurturing his mind in a bad way because of twisted morcels of quotes rather than the full quote itself in its original way. as far as badecker is concerned he is more of a troll than someone with a brain. and he dares to say people in gunea or africa or amazon people are dumb. try live the way they do then come back to say they have no intelligence. the human as itself is the most intelligent beings on this planet, they have the ability to think and have their free will. badecker is just poisoning the threads with his obvious islamophobic minded being that he is. he cannot prove anything nor has he posted anything wise on both thread. he cherrypick a few words and twist it to make it a comment. i would rather think the guy is trying to get post counts rather than factual posts  Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill in his cause. Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war. Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse. Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. From the Hadith: Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings. Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror' Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'." And one of my favorites. but dont worry I left tons of scripture out also, these are just a small percentage of the hate. Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."  Christian students massacred on Easter weekend by devout Muslims. All take from a great site known as http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/We need more miracles of the Quran cause the first one was bullshit. Arabs had a grasp on "Space" far before the 1400's and there are numerous famous arab astronomers from 400-500 years before that. They mainly followed Ptolemaic astronomy. See your muslim bs doesn't work on us, you can't just spout shit off, write a line of scripture and say LOOK LOOK allah created this and it says so here in these 7 words. Maybe you can tell that to the 16 year old kid who has a 2nd grade education before you send him off to blow himself up in the name of Allah, but your gonna need better than that here. ....
Yeah These things are Written in the Quran and I believe These are 100% correct without any doubt. So what is your Point? in this video? what you want say you never mentioned in the ^ post? You say These are Flaws why these Are Flaw you never mentioned? If you can Post here any flaw with Solid Reason then I will also Answer your Doubts.
Sure, let's hear about that Moon splitting apart. here you go. its been a while you are asking for this, because all the other accusations and misinterpretations were all wiped out. Nasa does not say so, even the wiki page they used as a reference says this. NASA mis-cited as proof NASA photograph from Apollo 10 in 1969. A scar on the surface of the moon alleged to be evidence of a healed split Apollo mission photographs of the Rima Ariadaeus revealed a rift line across the surface of the moon. A 2004 book by Zaghloul El-Naggar reproduces one of these photographs and says that British Muslim David Musa Pidcock told him he had seen a 1978 "program" (sic) in which he claimed that unnamed US space scientists had said that "the moon had been split a long time ago and rejoined, and there is a lot of concrete evidence on the surface of the moon to prove this".[16] This was reported as proof of splitting by news services such as Jafariya News[17][18] and on Internet Web sites. On being asked in 2010, NASA scientist Brad Bailey said, "My recommendation is to not believe everything you read on the internet. Peer-reviewed papers are the only scientifically valid sources of information out there. No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[6] You even linked a Nasa site which says it is believed to be lava flows LOL Explanation: What could cause a long indentation on the Moon? First discovered over 200 years ago with a small telescope, rilles (rhymes with pills) appear all over the Moon. Three types of rilles are now recognized: sinuous rilles, which have many meandering curves, arcuate rilles which form sweeping arcs, and straight rilles, like Ariadaeus Rille pictured above. Long rilles such as Ariadaeus Rille extend for hundreds of kilometers. Sinuous rilles are now thought to be remnants of ancient lava flows, but the origins of arcuate and linear rilles are still a topic of research. The above linear rille was photographed by the Apollo 10 crew in 1969 during their historic approach to only 14-kilometers above the lunar surface. Two months later, Apollo 11, incorporating much knowledge gained from Apollo 10, landed on the Moon. Keep trying. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I hope you've protected your anonymity. Muslims and their defenders can be kind of touchy, as your post makes clear. It's a shame we live in a society where people can't openly talk about this without putting their lives in danger. |
|
|
|
Hey, I just noticed the OP capitalized "Palestine" but not "israel." Bitcoiners are such fucking nazis.
If you misspell Israel, then you automatically become a Nazi? Are you from the Mossad? Israel is nothing special. Israel is just a normal country like all others. Don't be too arrogant. Arrogance will ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel and very few people in the world would even mourn them. Oh, I wasn't being too serious about the "Palestine" vs. "israel" thing. Don't worry. I'm not Mossad. If the OP just randomly capitalized one and not the other, then it's no big deal. If he purposefully did it, then -- yes -- he's a Nazi and should die in a fire. I say "die in a fire" with a purpose. Near the end of WW2 the Allies fire bombed Dresden. Many modern Neo-Nazis use this as evidence that the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis. My only problem with the fire bombing of Dresden is not enough fucking Nazis died in a fire, but hey, maybe I'm in a minority on that here. I'm sure the Nazis on this thread can give a different perspective. I'm not sure "arrogance" is what will lead to the destruction of Israel. I think it's more likely to be Jihadis with nuclear weapons funded by Westerners who have a problem with Jews. Maybe it's a language issue and that's how you define "arrogance." About whether or not the Jews in Israel would be mourned by very few people in the world if that happened, I expect you're right about that. The culture has been priming them to celebrate this possibility for decades. Even that piece of shit Obama said something like that some time ago...like it'll be Israel's own fault if they get nuked because they would just never give those poor Palestinians what they wanted (all the Jews dead) and so everyone turned on them and as a result...all the Jews are dead. We are living in a time when Jews are being slaughtered in Europe -- on a small scale for now, but the signs are clear. Swastikas are showing up in descrated Jewish graveyards. After the Jews were ("randomly" to quote that goddamn Nazi Obama) in Paris, a Jewish woman living in Paris wrote that her neighbors had asked her to please remove any sign she was Jewish, to avoid trouble in the building. If .., when all this is going on ... when we are living in a time very similar to the 1930s ... if now you are someone who is spending more time focusing on Israel's actions than the the violence and hatred directed at Jews, if you are one of these people, then yes: you are a Nazi. And I hope you die in a fire. Clutching your children while crying to your g*d for mercy. And none is shown. |
|
|
|
|
Hey, I just noticed the OP capitalized "Palestine" but not "israel." Bitcoiners are such fucking nazis.
|
|
|
|
When was Palestine a country?
none of the former european colonial possessions could be considered countries in the sense you're thinking of. this usually isn't used to justify denying people self determination in 2015. Who controlled the terroritory before WWI?
Who controlled the terroritory after WWI? How did this change come about? What agreements were made and between what parties?
we took it from the turks and promised the jews a homeland there on the condition that nothing would be done to violate the rights of palestine's non jewish population. this commitment wasn't held to. Why did the UN recognize Israel as an independent nation, but not Palestine? [This is a trick question.]
the palestinians rejected partition which they knew would result in the expulsion and/or disenfranchisement of a large part of their population. same reason they rioted a decade earlier when the peel commission decided some 200k of them would need to be deported for a zionist state to work what zionist apologists never tell us is how a jewish state was supposed to be viable in 1947 with a 40% arab population when such a thing was understood to be impossible in 1937 and also in the present day where the large arab population on the west bank is cited as the reason there can't be a one state solution Many Palestinians evacuated Israel after Israel declared its nationhood. How many were forced out and how many followed the advice of neighboring Arab countries who clearly said they were going to invade Israel? Did those countries declare war on Israel? How many wars have Israel's neighbors waged on her?
the question of how many refugees were directly driven out by zionist bullets and mortars and how many left to escape fighting after the arab armies invaded has no bearing on their right to return to their homes once the fighting is done. if israel agrees to live within its proper borders and still gets attacked maybe someone somewhere outside right wing evangelical christian non passport owning america will feel sorry for it Did Jews have equal rights living in Arab countries at the time? Were Jews pushed out of those countries after the establishment of Israel? If so, do they have a right to return to those countries?
pushed out after a wave of antisemitism swept the middle east which is just what the zionist leadership wanted. antisemitism has always been an essential component of zionism. a right morally, possibly yes, but not happening just as the palestinian right of return isnt happening. People refer to the "occupied territories" -- but this presupposes a certain view. Hamas believes all the land is occupied not just the "West Bank" and "Gaza." Regarding settlements being the problem, that argument would hold more weight if we didn't have the clear example of what happens when all the settlements are removed by Israel. This happened in Gaza. The reaction of the Palestinians was to elect Hamas, have an incredibly bloody civil war and then engage in years of rocket attacks into Israel. All while receiving sympathy and aid from around the world.
had barak dismantled the settlements when he was supposed to hamas wouldn't exist. polls consistently show a majority of palestinians would grudgingly live alongside israel within its internationally recognised borders despite the undeniable truth that all of palestine *is* occupied territory Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?
Is Constantinople occupied by the Turks?
the wrong side won ww2 and i'm half greek so not gonna bother with this one Why does a map showing a population shifting towards having more Jews indicate something nefarious, but maps showing other population growths do not? Has there been a growth in Muslim population in Europe in the past 40 years? Is there a problem with that?
the ratio of jews to arabs in historic palestine west of the river hasn't shifted which is why there's this weird semi apartheid system where palestinians inside israel itself enjoy some rights but the ones in israeli owned gaza and the west bank don't, and are at the same time denied the right to form their own state because more of their land might be needed for european and north american settlers. israel wants the land but not the people. the muslim minority population in europe has become a problem now that it threatens to stop being a minority and actually overtake the host countries There's a reason why there's a standard to which Jews and only Jews are held. It's something deep down. Something that survives centuries as a mental virus.
any normal person after being persecuted and expelled from 50 or whatever countries over centuries would eventually ask himself what he had done to be so disliked. for the jews and their supporters the answer is that the rest of the world must be mentally ill. you're right about jews being held to a different standard to everyone else. they are allowed to talk openly about the need to preserve a jewish majority in their country, but when europeans talk about keeping britain british or france french we are evil racists who want to holocaust millions of brown people in poison gas showers saddampbuh is probably the most informed person on this thread, and grudgingly I must say I respect his honesty. The rest of you who think Israel is the primary cause of the conflict should look into the Golden Dawn Neo-Nazis. You might find out you have more in common with them than you expect! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
