Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 3:17 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Israel
#1
Israel
Hello

This topic is not a personal point of view. It's the truth that many people try to ignore or even sometimes deny. I tried to use quoting from different sources rather than personal opinions on this post, maybe a good way to prove that my personal opinion is actually built on facts.
I will also avoid anything related to Islam in this topic, since it's all about Israel.

I also note that I posted this topic here rather than the religious forum because I couldn't find a Jewish section to post this in.

I have two main points which I will discuss in details, 1) Is israel founded based on religious reasons -I dedicate this part to cato, who told me it isn't religious- and 2) The eligibility of the Jews for the land
=====

1) Is Israel founded based on religious views ?

The name "Israel" can be linked to ancient people who used to inhabit "parts" of Canaan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite

According to the previous source, those people would later evolve into two factions : Jews and Samaritans.

The biblical story states how these Jews -part of the Israelites- were able to form their own Jewish kingdom which was called : the kingdom of Israel.

The name "israel" is then became a representative of jews, since their kingdom is under the same name -note that this is according to the biblical source-.

The word "Land of Israel" now is a gathering name for any Jew, since it represents the land of the Jews -i.e the ancient kingdom of Israel which was resided by the Jews".

The modern Israeli flag contains a religious symbol -star of david-, which represents the Jewish identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_david

Quote:the compound of two equilateral triangles. The hexagram has been in use as a symbol of Judaism since the 17th century
From the naming of the country & its symbol, we can conclude due to symbolic evidence & Jewish/Biblical folklore that the state of Israel is a country with a "Jewish Identity", built as the modern equivalent of the ancient kingdom of Israel, which gathered the ancient Jews under one flag.

Historically, this link pretty much says it all.. just to remove any doubt that Israel is not founded on religious prophecies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zion...sh_mandate
Quote:Since the Diaspora, some Jews have aspired to return to "Zion" and the "Land of Israel",[47] though the amount of effort that should be spent towards such an aim was a matter of dispute.[48][49] The hopes and yearnings of Jews living in exile were articulated in the Hebrew Bible,[50] and are an important theme of the Jewish belief system.[48] After the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, some communities settled in Palestine.[51] During the 16th century, Jewish communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities—Jerusalem, Tiberias, Hebron, and Safed—and in 1697, Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid led a group of 1,500 Jews to Jerusalem.[52] In the second half of the 18th century, Eastern European opponents of Hasidism, known as the Perushim, settled in Palestine.[53][54][55]
==========
2)The Eligibility of the jews for the land

according to the previous source, the earliest immigration to Palistine -the place which is now occupied & declared as a separate place called "Israel- was after the Spanish inquisition in the 15th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inq...nquisition

An important historical note should be added here ; the inquisition was aimed mainly at Muslims who occupied spain & declared the famous "Andalus", since the Jews were also a victim of the spanish, Muslims had a big amount of compassion towards the jews who suffered the same brutality of the Christian inquisition in spain. Which might explain why Muslims allowed early jewish immigrations into Islamic lands.

The source -which I provided before this one- continues to count the Jewish immigrations into palestine.

During the 16th century, Jewish communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities—Jerusalem, Tiberias, Hebron, and Safed

I should also note that Muslims didn't commit any act of violence or extermination against the Jews for almost half a century, which is why the jews were able to breed just like the natives in the holy land.

The immigrations were soon turn to contain massive numbers , especially after the arrival of Hitler & the Nazi party. The immigrations became very large, the source continues :
Quote:The Third (1919–1923) and Fourth Aliyahs (1924–1929) brought an additional 100,000 Jews to Palestine.[56] Finally, the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–1939 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939.

The reason for the Arab revolt is mentioned in details here, the british government understood the demands of the Arabs & did force constraints on the Jewish immigrations into Palestine.
The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against British colonial rule and mass Jewish immigration.[10]

Unlike many stories which blame the Arabs & accuse them of starting by killing Jews, the historical evidence proves that the Arab revolt started as a peaceful movement, then turned into violence after British suppression.

The first phase was directed primarily by the urban and elitist Higher Arab Committee (HAC) and was focused mainly on strikes and other forms of political protest.

It was then, when the civil war started between native Palestnians & immigrating Jews, with the support of the british government -and almost all of Europe- to the foreign immigrants, which caused other arab countries to support their palestinian ally.

That war was also started because of the unfair partitioning of palestine by the UN, which favored the immigrating jews over the native arabs
Quote:On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and the City of Jerusalem.[22] Each state would comprise three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads; the Arab state would also have an enclave at Jaffa. The Jews would get 56% of the land,[23] of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land,

one reason for arab outrage, is giving the natives 43% of the land only. The jews thought it was "a minimum" ; which supports the claim of jewish greed over the rest of the land. More information can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-I..._Palestine
Here, you can also find the historical evidence on the british support for jewish armed militias.

From these historical sources, we can conclude that :
1)The land of Israel was a biblical story, not supported by any valid evidence
2)The Jewish presence in Palestine started in the 15th century after the spanish inquisition, which proves that Jews weren't natives of Palistine, rather than "immigrating minorities" who composed their own community there.
3)The state of Israel was founded by dividing a larger piece of land for the benefit of the immigrating mass of jews, rather than the natives. The west was biased towards the jews by historical evidences ; since more than 50% of the land was given to the jews.
Reply
#2
RE: Israel
Israel violates international law on a massive scale and has a policy of blocking a two-state solution.
Hamas does the same ofcourse, the problem is that Israel is in total control though and suffers from an existential fear for persecution. Despite what a lot of mainstream media suggest, Netanyahu is in no way better than a suicide bomber.

I have no hope for that country.
Reply
#3
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 8:48 am)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Israel violates international law on a massive scale and has a policy of blocking a two-state solution.
Hamas does the same ofcourse, the problem is that Israel is in total control though and suffers from an existential fear for persecution. Despite what a lot of mainstream media suggest, Netanyahu is in no way better than a suicide bomber.

I have no hope for that country.

Indeed, dee. Hope is hard for such a state. But I'm sure that studying the history of that period might explain the severe violent behavior which arabs are now practicing in every conflict they go through, might also explain the mass hatred against the west.

You see, the first terrorist bombings in Palestine were not carried on by Hammas or the Arabs, it was actually carried on by a Jewish gangster later elected as "the president of israel" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin

The double standards are what causing arabs to go insane.

Quote:Begin ordered the bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem

It's unfair dee to accuse hammas of terrorism. They just fight the war with the Zionist rules.
Reply
#4
RE: Israel
No, it's not unfair to accuse a terrorist of terrorism, no one gives a shit why they decided to resort to terrorism. No amount of "but they had it coming/but look what they -made- us do" is going to excuse one faction or another.

1)The land of Israel was a biblical story, not supported by any valid evidence
-Whether or not it existed in antiquity it exists now. There is no United States of America in the distant past either. Should we pack up shop, maybe condense our civilization into a smaller % of the north american landmass and give the rest back to whoever claims to have been part of an older wave of immigration?

2)The Jewish presence in Palestine started in the 15th century after the spanish inquisition, which proves that Jews weren't natives of Palistine, rather than "immigrating minorities" who composed their own community there.
-Bickering over which wave of emigration holds primacy over another is pointless. We're all immigrants.

3)The state of Israel was founded by dividing a larger piece of land for the benefit of the immigrating mass of jews, rather than the natives. The west was biased towards the jews by historical evidences ; since more than 50% of the land was given to the jews.
-Snapshot in time, the west's attitude towards jews is largely one of stereotypes and exclusion. What would be an acceptable percentage to you, of course realizing that whatever percentage you feel isn't "greedy" or whatnot is inconsequential when drawing borders?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#5
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 9:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, it's not unfair to accuse a terrorist of terrorism, no one gives a shit why they decided to resort to terrorism. No amount of "but they had it coming/but look what they -made- us do" is going to excuse one faction or another.

http://suntzusaid.com/

Quote:66. Forestall your opponent by seizing what he holds dear

Obviously, they are not carrying on terrorism because they're insane. Israel won't back off, in war mister Rhythm, even the most civilized & modern countries do carry on this rule from "the art of war" by bombing civilians..

I think operation "Shock & Awe" was an evidence of that.

You see, I don't like double standards. With this standard you're putting, everybody on earth is a terrorist. It's a rule of war -even though I hate it & don't agree with it & Islam made it forbidden-, but you must change your mentality to understand what's happening in the world.

Tactical bombers are an example.. all western countries have them : )

Blame war & the "country which started it".. but don't blame soldiers who try to win the battle, especially if the second party is carrying on the same rule.
Reply
#6
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 9:50 am)AtlasS Wrote: http://suntzusaid.com/

Quote:66. Forestall your opponent by seizing what he holds dear

Obviously, they are not carrying on terrorism because they're insane. Israel won't back off, in war mister Rhythm, even the most civilized & modern countries do carry on this rule from "the art of war" by bombing civilians..

I think operation "Shock & Awe" was an evidence of that.
Suntzu said plenty of things, but having Suntzu weigh in on something does not make it terrorism, or exclude it from being terrorism. Even the most civilized and advanced countries mislay munitions. Aiming for a strategic target and instead hitting a civilian target is an unfortunate consequence of war, but not terrorism. One must explicitly engage in a campaign of violence against soft targets, say civilians with the aim of producing terror- for something to be called terrorism.

"Shock and Awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Hmn, I guess the part about attacking civilians in order to scare the shit out of them got left out of the draft the wiki contributor was working from.

Quote:You see, I don't like double standards. With this standard you're putting, everybody on earth is a terrorist. It's a rule of war -even though I hate it & don't agree with it & Islam made it forbidden-, but you must change your mentality to understand what's happening in the world.

Tactical bombers are an example.. all western countries have them : )

Blame war & the "country which started it".. but don't blame soldiers who try to win the battle, especially if the second party is carrying on the same rule.
Neither do I, but that wouldn't excuse terrorism from any faction. I'm not putting forward any standard- terrorism already has a definition that segregates it from conventional warfare (which is what the rapid dominance doctrine is - and what strategic bombers are for - though of course they can be used for acts of terrorism - say the fire bombing of Dresden). Engaging in a war does not make one a terrorist, and it wouldn't matter if it did (with respects to excusing this or that act of another factions terrorists). To be completely blunt, moralizing acts of war is pretty shaky right from the outset as it's a giant shit sandwhich start to finish - whats the aim, to show that one side is the lesser of two turds?

Who's blaming soldiers for anything? I'd be the last person to point that finger. I have no problem pointing a finger at terrorists. I'll point the finger at the terrorist, I'll point the finger at the people who funded and trained the terrorist and I'll point the finger at the people who support or attempt to excuse their actions.......

(and just to add a little spice to the convo, a large number of civilian casualties in recent wars can be attributed to a battle doctrine of mixing civilians with combatants, so I suppose it's up to you to decide which faction is the lesser of the two turds, the one that hits civilians while returning fire in an attempt to save their lives - or the one that brings along their auntie and nephews with the aim of turning them into human shields. I'm biased, after all, wasn't my auntie, aint my nephews- I'd probably get bitchslapped for even suggesting such an adventure.)

To make a very long story short - one can rattle on about all the horrible things that any particular culture or nation has done - or whatever horrible things one thinks the culture or nation has done - and it won't matter in the least. The misdeeds of others does not excuse ones own, two wrongs don't make a right, I'm willing to bet that every culture has a saying that amounts to this - it's probably been said countless times by now.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#7
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 10:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: Suntzu said plenty of things, but having Suntzu weigh in on something does not make it terrorism, or exclude it from being terrorism. Even the most civilized and advanced countries mislay munitions. Aiming for a strategic target and instead hitting a civilian target is an unfortunate consequence of war, but not terrorism. One must explicitly engage in a campaign of violence against soft targets, say civilians with the aim of producing terror- for something to be called terrorism.

"Shock and Awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Hmn, I guess the part about attacking civilians in order to scare the shit out of them got left out of the draft the wiki contributor was working from.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb...d_Nagasaki

since we know that those bombs were aimed at soft targets, would that also make the USA army a terrorist organization ?

but back to the link you provided. According to your definition, terrorism is the engagment of civilian & soft targets to produce terror.. I found this in the link

Quote:"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]

knowing that the american army did hit "baghdad" which is a soft target, without the consideration of the fact the people & children live there, to spread terror that "prevents an action"..

does that also means it's a terrorist attack ?


Quote:Neither do I, but that wouldn't excuse terrorism from any faction. I'm not putting forward any standard- terrorism already has a definition that segregates it from conventional warfare (which is what the rapid dominance doctrine is - and what strategic bombers are for - though of course they can be used for acts of terrorism - say the fire bombing of Dresden). Engaging in a war does not make one a terrorist, and it wouldn't matter if it did (with respects to excusing this or that act of another factions terrorists). To be completely blunt, moralizing acts of war is pretty shaky right from the outset as it's a giant shit sandwhich start to finish - whats the aim, to show that one side is the lesser of two turds?

Who's blaming soldiers for anything? I'd be the last person to point that finger. I have no problem pointing a finger at terrorists. I'll point the finger at the terrorist, I'll point the finger at the people who funded and trained the terrorist and I'll point the finger at the people who support or attempt to excuse their actions.......

(and just to add a little spice to the convo, a large number of civilian casualties in recent wars can be attributed to a battle doctrine of mixing civilians with combatants, so I suppose it's up to you to decide which faction is the lesser of the two turds, the one that hits civilians while returning fire in an attempt to save their lives - or the one that brings along their auntie and nephews with the aim of turning them into human shields. I'm biased, after all, wasn't my auntie, aint my nephews.)

Trying to make a "good side" & a "bad side" during wars can help us end it. There is always a better side, especially in invasions.

When I revise the history of america, I know that the native americans were right. If I wanted to stop that war, I would stop the part which started the oppression.
Reply
#8
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 10:28 am)AtlasS Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb...d_Nagasaki

since we know that those bombs were aimed at soft targets, would that also make the USA army a terrorist organization ?
Yeah, I'd call the bombings at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden (as mentioned before - and there are some other notable examples from WW2 as well - might add the Blitz to this one as well- not so much the start, as theres some contention that the initial civilian casualties were unintentional - though it rapidly declined to intentional strikes on civilians.) acts of terrorism.

Quote:but back to the link you provided. According to your definition, terrorism is the engagment of civilian & soft targets to produce terror.. I found this in the link

Quote:"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]

knowing that the american army did hit "baghdad" which is a soft target, without the consideration of the fact the people & children live there, to spread terror that "prevents an action"..
Baghdad wasn't a soft target, just wow (though granted - we turned it into one awfully quick). Care to fact check yourself or do I need to do it for you? The shock and awe campaign targeted strategic buildings, not apartments, though we can expect that there was a significant amount of damage done to civilian structures both by mislayed munitions,bad intel, the general force of explosions and their tendency to throw alot of shit around, etc. A very large amount of consideration must have been given to civilians - it would be miraculous that any civilians were left alive after weeks of continuous bombing if no thought had been given, wouldn't you say? Case in point, airstrikes, by confirmed casualties, have been the least lethal operations in the entirety of that campaign. Consider the two scenarios side by side, a sustained shock and awe campaign - which did not target civilians, can be maintained for long periods of time with surprisingly low numbers of civilian (or otherwise) casualties - an act of terrorism -explicitly targeting civilians- is generally starts and ends very quickly and amounts to surprising high number of civilian casualties. You are either forgetting or intentionally excluding a very important part of what is required to call an act an act of terrorism.

Quote:does that also means it's a terrorist attack ?
So, as above, I guess that answer would be a no, huh? Perhaps if we had attempted to do the same thing with b-17's and carpet bombing I'd be inclined to give the notion credence, but due to the fact that we did not, and the amount of ords that landed relative to civilian casualties, I'm more inclined to conclude that you're grasping at straws on this one.


Quote:Trying to make a "good side" & a "bad side" during wars can help us end it. There is always a better side, especially in invasions.

When I revise the history of america, I know that the native americans were right. If I wanted to stop that war, I would stop the part which started the oppression.

No, Atlass, there really isn't. There's us and them, winners and losers, heros and villians - but better, nah, takes too many backflips to make that work out. If the first step in laying a case in against Israel is to make them the bad guys and excuse their adversaries for what have you (for example), I'm afraid it's DOA.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#9
RE: Israel
(February 23, 2013 at 10:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, I'd call the bombings at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden (as mentioned before - and there are some other notable examples from WW2 as well - might add the Blitz to this one as well- not so much the start, as theres some contention that the initial civilian casualties were unintentional - though it rapidly declined to intentional strikes on civilians.) acts of terrorism.
[/quote]
Okay, I'm really happy that you said this Big Grin


Quote:Baghdad wasn't a soft target, just wow (though granted - we turned it into one awfully quick). Care to fact check yourself or do I need to do it for you? The shock and awe campaign targeted strategic buildings, not apartments, though we can expect that there was a significant amount of damage done to civilian structures both by mislayed munitions,bad intel, the general force of explosions and their tendency to throw alot of shit around, etc. A very large amount of consideration must have been given to civilians - it would be miraculous that any civilians were left alive after weeks of continuous bombing if no thought had been given, wouldn't you say? Case in point, airstrikes, by confirmed casualties, have been the least lethal operations in the entirety of that campaign. Consider the two scenarios side by side, a sustained shock and awe campaign - which did not target civilians, can be maintained for long periods of time with surprisingly low numbers of civilian (or otherwise) casualties - an act of terrorism -explicitly targeting civilians- is generally starts and ends very quickly and amounts to surprising high number of civilian casualties. You are either forgetting or intentionally excluding a very important part of what is required to call an act an act of terrorism.

I might agree with you on this, it didn't leave a lot of civilian casualties. I was wrong about this. But I still think that hitting a city full of people to spread fear between so they don't volunteer with saddam is a foolish & irresponsible act.

Quote:So, as above, I guess that answer would be a no, huh? Perhaps if we had attempted to do the same thing with b-17's and carpet bombing I'd be inclined to give the notion credence, but due to the fact that we did not, and the amount of ords that landed relative to civilian casualties, I'm more inclined to conclude that you're grasping at straws on this one.

Saddam wasn't worth it, his army was already dead before the invasion. But let a real war comes, & we'll see how america would act.

Quote:No, Atlass, there really isn't. There's us and them, winners and losers, heros and villians - but better, nah, takes too many backflips to make that work out. If the first step in laying a case in against Israel is to make them the bad guys and excuse their adversaries for what have you (for example), I'm afraid it's DOA.

Sadly, it's the case. I have Palestinian friends, they live like bugs in here. Thrown away without any kind of land just because they were in the jew's way, and now, the people who kicked them out are using their land, water, recourses & kill the fuck out of the rest of them by the end of the day..

Do you want to convince me, that hitler & the jews -during WW2- were equivalent ? he had a war going against the jews, so who's right & who's wrong ?
Us & them would mean corruption. There is no us & them, there is always "why"..
According to this, Rythem, all the casualties of war are dead for nothing ! I can't imagine that or even accept it..
Reply
#10
RE: Israel
Quote: I will also avoid anything related to Islam in this topic, since it's all about Israel.

Well of course you don't want to talk about Islam, because Islam is equally as guilty as the Jews on so many fronts. Are they going to give back Egypt to the Nestorian Christians? They want the land for equally religious reasons. The whole problem is a problem of religion, and not just of "The Jews" as you so splendidly put it. Although it's possible to feel sorry for the Palestinians, I don't notice their Muslim neighbors opening up the doors so they can resettle in Egypt, Lebanon, etc.

The whole reason that you want to avoid the topic of Islam is that you can then just focus on the bad things that "The Jews" have done. Sorry, not going to play by your rules.
[Image: dcep7c.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Israel-Palestine conflict nintendo048 4 1582 March 19, 2014 at 10:38 am
Last Post: nintendo048
  Israel lobby is it ethical nintendo048 36 8836 March 16, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Last Post: nintendo048
  Israel Never Did a Thing to the Arabs EgoRaptor 164 26304 January 21, 2014 at 6:38 am
Last Post: là bạn điên
  Why Iran is hostile Israel and America? A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c 18 4220 December 24, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Last Post: A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c
  Anti-German Essay on Israel EgoRaptor 7 2356 December 17, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Last Post: NoraBrimstone
  The Case for Israel EgoRaptor 0 890 December 13, 2013 at 12:24 am
Last Post: EgoRaptor
  "Black people blood" isn't accepted in Israel. I and I 19 5763 December 12, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Last Post: LostLocke
  Israel launched an airstrike, Friday night cratehorus 1 1563 May 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Last Post: A_Nony_Mouse
  US support of segregation and discrimination in Israel A_Nony_Mouse 0 1108 April 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Last Post: A_Nony_Mouse
  Israel elections soon Stanley 27 5466 November 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)