To clarify: I'm against radical zionism (IE, kick out all Palies), but I do think they have a right to their own legally obtained homeland. Both sides need to make concessions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another example.Port arthur shooting,Australia i believe.The polcie ALLEGES that a mentally retarded man,managed to kill several dozen of people in a CAFE(INDOOR AREA!) with NO EAR PROTECTION WHATSOEVER(YOU try that,you have pink elephants in your eyes).And heres the MOST important thing.THE MENTALLY RETARDED MAN WHO'S VISION IS AFFECTED WITH PINK ELEPHANTS ACHIEVED AN ACCURACY RATE CONSISTENT WITH SPECIAL OPERATIONS SOLDIERS AKA COMMANDOS.Im not talking about merely HITTING the victims...im talking about HEAD and HEART(get this...HEART!) shots on MOVING targets in a NOISY indoor environment with screams,chairs going everywhere,people using furniture as cover,and the shooter did not panick.
If a normal,civilian,sport shooter can do this,why do we need to TRAIN commandos?
Oh and theres this rather interesting inconsistency.When police cornered him in a house somewhere,he fired hundreds of rounds with a ZERO accuracy rate.Thats right the commando-like shooter who got head/heart shots at moving targets indoors with furniture blocking the way,not to mention no ear protection,missed stationery targets that had lovely patrol car lights to illuminate them!WOW!Did he turn off his aimbot?
Then lets look at the trial.The prosecution KNEW that they would lose if they went to court just like that.So they went illegal.They somehow convicned the relatives of the allegeded shooter to blackmail him into confessing,or else they would never talk to him again.Dont laugh.Hes mentally retarded(tends to be emotional) and his relatives were ALL that he had left.So he confessed.This is HIGHLY ILLEGAL FORM OF INTERROGATION.
People pointed out the inconsistencies.Showed evidence.Stastistics.
All it took was brainless herd syndrome morons to say "OMG CONSPIRACY NUT!".
Bingo no more opposition to the official version of port arthur shootings.
Who did the port arthus shootings?Some other government.Why not the australians?Look at the results of the shooting.Sports shooting was HEAVILY regulated from then on.Australian army has traditionally depended on sports shooters to augment its armed forces in times of needs,but now?Thats gone man gone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you kindly show any evidence to support this? The man in question was armed with semi-automatic rifles. He was firing at paniked civilians. This isn't difficult to do.
And exactly where did you figure that the prosecution would lose? There is film evidance, plus the eyewittnes reports of hundreds of people, who all very clearly saw the gunman shooting people. Not hard to prove.
You're giving the Australian government more credit than they deserve, especially considering they usually can't find their arse with both hands.
And finally, your theory as to why the Australian government would slaughter it's own people makes absolutly no sense. Firstly you claim that the Australian army relies upon "sports-shooters" to suppliment it's forces, when it actual fact, it uses the Reserves. That's right, trained men and women who enlist themselves as part-time soldiers. But secondly, completly negating your own arguement, you then say that the new gun control legislation removed all these sports-shooters. So the Australian government did this to remove, according to you, an integral part of the nation's defense.
There simply is no evidance to show that Martin Bryant did not kill those people. Nor is there any reason why the Australian government would kill it's own people.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 1 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 1 2003, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apart from that - I agree thoroughly with Jammer. I dont know if we have Zionist controlled media in Australia, but Jammer's link to the Anti-idolatrian Rottweiler summed up my thoughts perfectly. If you would be so kind as to answer those on a point by point basis, I'd really appreciate it. If not - I can understand that also - that would be a hell of a lot of work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002714.html#002714' target='_blank'>The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler</a>
The site belongs to a "proud friend of Israel" so I would expect nothing less than a fair and honest defense of Israel. Just like if I found a site belonging to a "proud friend of Palestine" I'm sure I would see just as much pro-Israel spiel as the one linked. <i>Right.</i> But here we go anyways:
1. The disputed territories belonged to Palestine from 35 BC until 1948. Israel did not even exist as a country prior to the mass immigration and consequent recognition of a Jewish state in 1948. The Zionists come and invade the land, evict the people living there, and simply declare their own state. What would you do if you were in those circumstances? Say France comes over here and kicks you out of your house and kills your family. Would you keep searching for a peaceful solution? Would you just accept a deal and allow them to stay? Are you saying we should have let Germany retain their occupation of France, Belgium, and Holland instead of fighting back in WW2? This is modern times. You can't just decide to overthrow a country and declare it your own without expecting some kind of fight. The author clearly is naive in this regard. "We come in peace to claim your land as our own, we hope you like us and we really want peace, please! Don't mind us while we kill your children and evict you from your homes!" It doesn't work that way.
2. The Palestinians had their own country, they didn't need to make their own. Again, this is like conceding to the occupiers. Who the hell would ever accept such a deal? The Zionists <b>had no right to be there</b>. Period, end of story. I wouldn't just accept a deal if Canada came down and claimed the entire U.S. for itself, evicting us from our homes and stripping us of our rights. I would fight them back, and I would suspect any of you would do the same. You think the Native Americans just peacefully accepted our manifest destiny? You think they were agreeable and peaceful towards our occupation of their homeland? The white man forcing them out, and they should just accept it?
3. The right to be evicted from your house? The right to be mauled down by tanks and missile attacks? The right to have your women raped and children beaten in the streets? The right to have entire villages invaded and massacred? Oh, what a beautiful country Israel is. The Jews must really love their Palestinian neighbors. I don't understand why anyone would ever rise up against their occupiers. How silly these people are. They don't know how lucky they are. The Jews living in Palestine prior to 1948 when the mass immigration and occupation began <b>HAD NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER</b>. People seem to forget that there were Jews peacefully living in Palestine for a long, long time. The hatred and violence did not start until Zionism went into action.
4. This argument is like saying "we've evicted you from your homes and kicked you out of OUR land, so we don't understand why we can't come peacefully into other Arab countries." What a loaf of crap. They apparently expect to be treated like royalty even after the brutally inhumane crimes that they've committed against Arabs. What a joke.
5. This is exactly like saying "these newly homeless people are YOUR problem, we don't understand why you can't fend for yourselves." Jews will always put other Jews before any other person, this is a fact. Jews have been quoted as saying "the life of 1000 Arabs are not worth one fingernail from one Jew." Arabs don't have the same kinship. So apparently this fact makes it okay for Zionists to occupy Arab lands? All one has to do is say "look, no one wants you!" and all of the crimes committed during the immigration, occupation, and eviction are forgiven? What a treat!
6. So because there is no Jewish state, that makes these crimes okay? I don't see a Goth state, either. So maybe all of the Goths should take over California, and kick out all the Christians. Then they can do whatever they want to those Christians, because the Christians already have all kinds of other places they can go, like Oregon, or Canada, or Nevada. Hey, it works for Israel!
7. See my pictures before. Arabs in Israel have no backing. Jews in Israel are backed by the most powerful nation on the planet. We allow Israel to own and control nuclear weapons. We send more foreign aid to Israel than any other country. If we had done the same to Palestinians instead, it would be a dramatically different landscape, I can guarantee you that. Hiding behind money and military prowess is not a very glamorous thing to do, especially when they have not earned it. You and I pay for that military with our tax dollars.
8. This is quite a racist comment, and very offensive. Goes to show you that even "friends of Israel" show absolutely no value towards other human life, especially that of Arabs. Jews in Israel are ten times worse. Despicable.
9. Pure deflection tactic. There are dictators and ruthless regimes all over this planet. Muslims are no exception, and no one attempts to deny that. NONE of that makes what Israel has done to Palestinians OKAY. NONE OF IT. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity, regardless of who's doing it. They must all be held accountable, and Israel is NO DIFFERENT.
10. Perhaps the Jews should have taken Britain up on its offer back during WW1 and relocated to someplace in Africa. Britain offered land to them but the Zionists were absolutely insistent on Palestine.
11. Arabs in Israel hate so much because they <b>want their country back.</b> If the same thing happened here in America, I would expect the exact same thing out of evicted Americans or else I would consider them unpatriotic. The Native Americans fought to their death to defend their lands, but they could not match our weapons and numbers. That does not make what we did to them any less brutal and inhumane. Just because Israel has the backing of a Zionist-controlled superpower <b>DOES NOT MAKE THEM SUPERIOR</b>.
Now if you'd like me to start listing all of Israel's crimes against Arabs, and also post some pro-Arab sites, I'd be glad to. We can start with Israel's invasion of Lebanon (led by one Ariel Sharon) with the intention of wiping out the PLO, and subsequent <b>massacre</b> of 3,500 Palestinian refugees at the hands of the Israelis in <a href='http://www.indictsharon.net/' target='_blank'>Sabra and Shatila</a>. Some kind of peaceful country, this Israel. They really love their Palestinian neighbors.
But I'll only go there if you're going to go through every point one at a time like I just did. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. If you'd like to discuss the events surrounding 9/11, the point of this topic, and what Israel stands to gain from a prolonged war against every Arab country in the Middle East, I'd be happy to start going down that path. The first one I would like someone to rebuff is U.S. involvement in WW1 and the Balfour Declaration. My goal is to show the pattern and history of Zionist control over U.S. foreign policy. So far no one has claimed that the U.S. was NOT led into the war only because of the declaration and pursuant Zionist influence over Woodrow Wilson. I would very much like to address this, would someone please rebuke it? Let's at least start there, and then we can build upon our history lessons until we get to 9/11.
<i>"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." </i> <a href='http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/woodrowwil136325.html' target='_blank'>Woodrow Wilson</a>
I asked for a point by point dissertation not because I thought you didnt have answers, but because I thought you did and I wanted to hear them.
The claims of eviction are a bit overrated I believe. Apparently, the Jews in no way wanted the Arabs to shift out, but a militant faction during the 1948 war slaughtered an Arab village and they all panicked and left. The Israeli's had nothing to gain by throwing the Arabs out, and that was never their intentiono, it just turned out that way. The Israeli claim was "We are here, we are not leaving, and this is what is going to be ours, shut up and put up". Not nice, not entirely fair, but it was what the British had promised them. Mind you, the British also promised the land to the Arabs during WW1 also, so it was kinda the "twice promised land". Coming in and killing arabs and stealing there homes was NOT the intent. If the arabs intended to resist, the Israeli's intended to fight, but they didnt steal anyones home.
You also make it sound like we should be sorry for the Arabs because they are being picked on by bigger, stronger Israel, something else I disagree on. The arabs have more people, more land and far more natural wealth ie oil. They chose to squander it. When they attacked the Jews in 1948, they had practically the full backing of the British government, they outnumbered the Israeli's heavily, they had tanks, planes and artillery and the Arab Legion - the British trained army of Jordan I think. The Jews had dirt, only small arms and at that stage did not have the full backing of America. Sure they had the Hanagahn, but these guys lacked serious numbers.
Village massacres, they happened. However they were NOT the norm - they were the exception to the rule, at least in the '48 war. Raped and beaten eh? From the reports I have read, all the raping was happening on the one side - the Arab side. The Palestinians themselves feared their supposed "saviours" from Syria, Jordan and Egypt because their soldiers were very unruly. The Jews didnt claim to love their Palestinian neighbours, but they planned to live side by side with them.
Using what little they had, they won. They asked the Arabs to come back, the Arabs didnt. They sat in their camps and rotted, and their leaders made sure it stayed that way. Attempts to get the Palestinians back on their feet were constantly foiled by the Palestinians themselves. Rather than improve their situation, they would rather brood so they could generate more hate for the Israeli's. This is their own fault - completely and utterly. I have no pity for any arab that ended up stuck in a camp after 1948.
I feel that Israeli policy now is that of defeat. They have realised what they should have know all along - you can't negotiate with Arabs. And as such they have given up.
As to Jews living in Israel before '48 having no problem - that is false. Wherever the Jews attempted to set up Kibbutz's (in land purchased LEGALLY from the Arab leaders themselves) the Arab tribesmen attacked them. They were sold all the crappy land, and they turned it into the best in Palestine and the Arabs were jealous.
If we had funded the palestinians instead of the Jews, all the Jews would be dead. Militant Islam is not known for mercy - and while the Israeli's are becoming VERY hard, they have nothing on the pure savagery of Arab hate. If the arabs were given the chance, they would slaughter the Jews.
But your right, this is offtopic so we'd better leave it.
One small point about the whole thread that really bothers me though.
Whenever I see people talking about Zionist Influence etc etc, its never with a calm and detached tone. There always seems to be the undertone of hatred and fear, never one of pure interested current events and historical affairs. You're a little different in this respect Evisc, but a lot of the anti-zionist material I read smacks heavily of Anti-Semitism, and I trust little of what I read when it has the backing of hatred.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Oct 31 2003, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Oct 31 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Lord Fanny-[MacH]+Oct 31 2003, 06:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lord Fanny-[MacH] @ Oct 31 2003, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Google is an excellent source for the REAL news! Because the internet never lies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you for the meaningful discussion. The Google search is to merely to allow people to find for themselves who owns and controls the media companies here in America (and Britain, and Canada, and many other countries.) That way they don't have to just take my word for it. Now, are you wanting to debate the fact that the media here is owned and controlled by Zionists? Otherwise I fail to see any useful meaning to your posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 1 2003, 04:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 1 2003, 04:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I asked for a point by point dissertation not because I thought you didnt have answers, but because I thought you did and I wanted to hear them.
The claims of eviction are a bit overrated I believe. Apparently, the Jews in no way wanted the Arabs to shift out, but a militant faction during the 1948 war slaughtered an Arab village and they all panicked and left. The Israeli's had nothing to gain by throwing the Arabs out, and that was never their intentiono, it just turned out that way. The Israeli claim was "We are here, we are not leaving, and this is what is going to be ours, shut up and put up". Not nice, not entirely fair, but it was what the British had promised them. Mind you, the British also promised the land to the Arabs during WW1 also, so it was kinda the "twice promised land". Coming in and killing arabs and stealing there homes was NOT the intent. If the arabs intended to resist, the Israeli's intended to fight, but they didnt steal anyones home.
You also make it sound like we should be sorry for the Arabs because they are being picked on by bigger, stronger Israel, something else I disagree on. The arabs have more people, more land and far more natural wealth ie oil. They chose to squander it. When they attacked the Jews in 1948, they had practically the full backing of the British government, they outnumbered the Israeli's heavily, they had tanks, planes and artillery and the Arab Legion - the British trained army of Jordan I think. The Jews had dirt, only small arms and at that stage did not have the full backing of America. Sure they had the Hanagahn, but these guys lacked serious numbers.
Village massacres, they happened. However they were NOT the norm - they were the exception to the rule, at least in the '48 war. Raped and beaten eh? From the reports I have read, all the raping was happening on the one side - the Arab side. The Palestinians themselves feared their supposed "saviours" from Syria, Jordan and Egypt because their soldiers were very unruly. The Jews didnt claim to love their Palestinian neighbours, but they planned to live side by side with them.
Using what little they had, they won. They asked the Arabs to come back, the Arabs didnt. They sat in their camps and rotted, and their leaders made sure it stayed that way. Attempts to get the Palestinians back on their feet were constantly foiled by the Palestinians themselves. Rather than improve their situation, they would rather brood so they could generate more hate for the Israeli's. This is their own fault - completely and utterly. I have no pity for any arab that ended up stuck in a camp after 1948.
I feel that Israeli policy now is that of defeat. They have realised what they should have know all along - you can't negotiate with Arabs. And as such they have given up.
As to Jews living in Israel before '48 having no problem - that is false. Wherever the Jews attempted to set up Kibbutz's (in land purchased LEGALLY from the Arab leaders themselves) the Arab tribesmen attacked them. They were sold all the crappy land, and they turned it into the best in Palestine and the Arabs were jealous.
If we had funded the palestinians instead of the Jews, all the Jews would be dead. Militant Islam is not known for mercy - and while the Israeli's are becoming VERY hard, they have nothing on the pure savagery of Arab hate. If the arabs were given the chance, they would slaughter the Jews.
But your right, this is offtopic so we'd better leave it.
One small point about the whole thread that really bothers me though.
Whenever I see people talking about Zionist Influence etc etc, its never with a calm and detached tone. There always seems to be the undertone of hatred and fear, never one of pure interested current events and historical affairs. You're a little different in this respect Evisc, but a lot of the anti-zionist material I read smacks heavily of Anti-Semitism, and I trust little of what I read when it has the backing of hatred. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I never thought I'd say this, but Marine01 your posts in this thread are awesome.
Unless I've been brainwashed by the evil zionistic forces controlling our world, I'm pretty sure heres how Israel started.
-Jews moved to Palestine. -Bought land. -Lived on land. -Asked for statehood.
Palestinians were displaced because of their own people. The majority of arabs in the region were sharecroppers. They worked the land in exchange for living on it. When Jews bought the land and formed their own legal communities, the sharecroppers were kicked off by their employers so they could sell the land to the Jews.
Its funny how you never hear this side of the story. Arabs sold out other arabs, but thats not cool in Arab 'history', so they blamed the Jews.
Were there militant Jews? Yes. Were the majority of the Jews that way? No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> -Jews moved to Palestine. -Bought land. -Lived on land. -Asked for statehood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You haven't been brainwashed, you're just misinformed. Easy mistake to make. Marine01 is correct in his understanding of Israel's history. I keep repeating this, maybe sooner or later it will sink in. Please, read it thoroughly. There are no links to conspiracy sites to distract you from the message. Again, I'm not trying to debate Arab/Jews. I want to show a history of Zionism control over U.S. foreign policy. To that end:
Palestine was Ottoman Empire territory prior to WW1. At the outset of the war, the Allies needed to make friends to help conquer the Axis. Britain allied with the Palestinians and promised them that if they took up arms and fought against the Turks, they would be given an independent Palestine, something they've wanted for a very long time. Note that Britain did the same thing with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. So the Palestinians, with help from the Britains, did exactly that. They fought the Turks and pushed them out of Palestine. But the war dragged on, particularly in Europe. Trench warfare was taking its toll.
Here's where the silly Brits made what is quite possibly the worst diplomatic relations blunder in modern history. They've already promised Palestine to the Palestinians. Why, oh why, did Britain decide to promise the same land to the Zionists, too? What on Earth could have posessed them to do such a stupid thing? Well, I have an answer. The Allies were <b>losing the war.</b> Their promises wouldn't have held up if they lost the war, right? Britain clearly cared more for winning the war than ensuring peace in the Middle East. The Zionists, eager for a chance to get back into Palestine, struck a deal with Britain. Zionism is purely about reclaiming the holy land, and Palestine is it. An opportunity presented itself, and they nabbed it. Zionists promised to deliver the U.S. to the Allied side, in exchange for rights to Palestine. This is documented as the Balfour Declaration. Of course, we all know the problem here. Britain has now promised the same speck of land to two different peoples. BIG problem.
Note that the U.S. was <b>actively trading</b> with Germany during the war, prior to its declaration AGAINST Germany. The official U.S. stance on the war was one of neutrality! They were happy to trade with both sides, and they did so. The U.S. was making a lot of money because of the war. Germany was trying to win the war, so it sank American supply ships destined for Britain. Britain used blockades to do the same thing to Germany. Germany <i>did not want to get the U.S. involved in the war</i>. The reason is quite obvious, it would mean defeat.
Yet, the U.S. would end up declaring war on the same country that just a few years earlier it was happily trading with! This was due in large part to the intense pressure and propaganda campaign put forth by Zionists in America. Not even the repeated sinkings of American supply ships for <b>years</b> was able to push the U.S. into the war. It required something more powerful. The propaganda machine went to work and turned Germany into the evil Hun. Democracy across the planet was at risk! Oh no, what to do! We must fight back!
U.S. enters the war, war is won, and everyone's happy. Well, not everyone. The biggest diplomatic error in modern history is now a serious problem. One land, two peoples. Mass immigration of Jews to Palestine took place, since they were promised the land. This is a country the size of New Jersey, mind you. Hitler blames the Zionists, and Jews in general, for Germany's loss in WW1, and capitalizes on a depressed, angry nation wanting revenge. Hitler is correct that Zionists were at fault, however this does <b>not</b> mean that I agree with what he DID. Hitler was a deranged, satanic man, let's make that clear. Germany begins persecution of Jews during the 30s, and the migration is in full-swing. Palestinians are being displaced. Palestinians are displeased with the fact that Britain renegged on its promise. Rebellion, violence, and bloodshed from both sides, <b>including</b> Jews. 1947 rolls around. Britain, having no idea what to do about the problem it created, turns the impossible issue over to the newly-formed United Nations. Way to go, Britain.
The U.N. decides to split the territory into two pieces, one for Arabs and one for Jews, with Jerusalem left as an internationalized territory. Israel accepts. Palestinians, with their leaders in exile, refuse the U.N. resolution and mount an ineffectual defense of their homeland. Jews easily win the war of 1948 and take over 77% of Palestine. Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred. Jordan and Egypt claim the remaining land which the unorganized Palestinians did not. Here is where the Palestinians had their chance and frankly, blew it. They were more upset over the Jewish migration and simply refused to accept the U.N. deal. Whether you agree with the Palestinian side or the Jewish side is purely a matter of opinion. Both sides technically can say they have a legitimate claim to the land. Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.
That is how Israel came into being. The Palestinians have a valid claim. The Zionists, through their promise to deliver the U.S. into WW1, also were granted a claim to the land. Who is right, and who is wrong? Very clearly, Britain is at fault. Zionists, whether you fault them or not, very clearly took advantage of the situation. And they very clearly took advantage of the U.S. And <b>this is the point I'm trying to make</b>. I don't want to get into a whole Palestine/Israel debate here. The problem exists, it won't go away. No one can deny that there have been brutal crimes committed by BOTH sides. My point in bringing this in is to show a pattern and history of Zionist ability to manipulate other countries to do their bidding for them. Please, take it only as that. Look at how the Balfour Declaration came into being, how the U.S. got into the war, and don't focus on Palestine itself... who is right and who is wrong. That is what I would like to show.
Argue against my stance for how the U.S. came to declare war against Germany in WW1. My contention is that the U.S. would not have gotten involved in WW1 if it were not for the Zionist deal with Britain and the ensuing propaganda campaign both here in the U.S. and in Germany. Let's start there and <i>skip Palestine</i>. Please?
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread?
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You want to know why Hitler and other Germans came to despise Jews so much? It was because they blamed the Zionists for their defeat in WW1. And in retrospect, they were correct... the Zionists did cause Germany to lose. Although not directly through force... they did it through manipulation of public opinion, both in Germany and in the U.S. Very powerful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that way of thinking lets kill the blacks for increasing the dropout rate in the US, and increasing the crime rate too. Oh hell let's kill teenagers for doing so many drugs, and having sex all the time.
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Accursed Zionists manipulating my relevancy!
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Accursed Zionists manipulating my relevancy! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I just wanted to see another layer of quotes. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Nov 1 2003, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Nov 1 2003, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In that way of thinking lets kill the blacks for increasing the dropout rate in the US, and increasing the crime rate too. Oh hell let's kill teenagers for doing so many drugs, and having sex all the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're thinking like Hitler. I don't agree with what the Nazi party did to Jews... that doesn't change the fact that they blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1. And that doesn't change the fact that they were right... Zionists DID end up causing Germany to lose the war. Purely for the fact that they managed to involve the U.S., something Germany tried <i>very hard to avoid.</i> It wasn't just Hitler; anti-semitism after the war was rampant throughout Germany. One man alone did not kill 6 million Jews. Hitler used the German hatred towards Jews to fuel his efforts. Now let's be perfectly clear here... that does <b>not</b> mean the actions Germans took as revenge against the Jews was justified or even remotely acceptable. You have to separate the two. However, just because the Nazis were despicable, evil men does not remove the fact that Zionists lost WW1 for Germany.
Steve Bartman may have caused the Cubs to lose the Division Series, but that doesn't give anyone the right to persecute and murder him. Cubs fans have every right to blame him, however.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 1 2003, 03:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 1 2003, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> -Jews moved to Palestine. -Bought land. -Lived on land. -Asked for statehood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You haven't been brainwashed, you're just misinformed. Easy mistake to make. Marine01 is correct in his understanding of Israel's history. I keep repeating this, maybe sooner or later it will sink in. Please, read it thoroughly. There are no links to conspiracy sites to distract you from the message. Again, I'm not trying to debate Arab/Jews. I want to show a history of Zionism control over U.S. foreign policy. To that end:
Palestine was Ottoman Empire territory prior to WW1. At the outset of the war, the Allies needed to make friends to help conquer the Axis. Britain allied with the Palestinians and promised them that if they took up arms and fought against the Turks, they would be given an independent Palestine, something they've wanted for a very long time. Note that Britain did the same thing with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. So the Palestinians, with help from the Britains, did exactly that. They fought the Turks and pushed them out of Palestine. But the war dragged on, particularly in Europe. Trench warfare was taking its toll.
Here's where the silly Brits made what is quite possibly the worst diplomatic relations blunder in modern history. They've already promised Palestine to the Palestinians. Why, oh why, did Britain decide to promise the same land to the Zionists, too? What on Earth could have posessed them to do such a stupid thing? Well, I have an answer. The Allies were <b>losing the war.</b> Their promises wouldn't have held up if they lost the war, right? Britain clearly cared more for winning the war than ensuring peace in the Middle East. The Zionists, eager for a chance to get back into Palestine, struck a deal with Britain. Zionism is purely about reclaiming the holy land, and Palestine is it. An opportunity presented itself, and they nabbed it. Zionists promised to deliver the U.S. to the Allied side, in exchange for rights to Palestine. This is documented as the Balfour Declaration. Of course, we all know the problem here. Britain has now promised the same speck of land to two different peoples. BIG problem.
Note that the U.S. was <b>actively trading</b> with Germany during the war, prior to its declaration AGAINST Germany. The official U.S. stance on the war was one of neutrality! They were happy to trade with both sides, and they did so. The U.S. was making a lot of money because of the war. Germany was trying to win the war, so it sank American supply ships destined for Britain. Britain used blockades to do the same thing to Germany. Germany <i>did not want to get the U.S. involved in the war</i>. The reason is quite obvious, it would mean defeat.
Yet, the U.S. would end up declaring war on the same country that just a few years earlier it was happily trading with! This was due in large part to the intense pressure and propaganda campaign put forth by Zionists in America. Not even the repeated sinkings of American supply ships for <b>years</b> was able to push the U.S. into the war. It required something more powerful. The propaganda machine went to work and turned Germany into the evil Hun. Democracy across the planet was at risk! Oh no, what to do! We must fight back!
U.S. enters the war, war is won, and everyone's happy. Well, not everyone. The biggest diplomatic error in modern history is now a serious problem. One land, two peoples. Mass immigration of Jews to Palestine took place, since they were promised the land. This is a country the size of New Jersey, mind you. Hitler blames the Zionists, and Jews in general, for Germany's loss in WW1, and capitalizes on a depressed, angry nation wanting revenge. Hitler is correct that Zionists were at fault, however this does <b>not</b> mean that I agree with what he DID. Hitler was a deranged, satanic man, let's make that clear. Germany begins persecution of Jews during the 30s, and the migration is in full-swing. Palestinians are being displaced. Palestinians are displeased with the fact that Britain renegged on its promise. Rebellion, violence, and bloodshed from both sides, <b>including</b> Jews. 1947 rolls around. Britain, having no idea what to do about the problem it created, turns the impossible issue over to the newly-formed United Nations. Way to go, Britain.
The U.N. decides to split the territory into two pieces, one for Arabs and one for Jews, with Jerusalem left as an internationalized territory. Israel accepts. Palestinians, with their leaders in exile, refuse the U.N. resolution and mount an ineffectual defense of their homeland. Jews easily win the war of 1948 and take over 77% of Palestine. Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred. Jordan and Egypt claim the remaining land which the unorganized Palestinians did not. Here is where the Palestinians had their chance and frankly, blew it. They were more upset over the Jewish migration and simply refused to accept the U.N. deal. Whether you agree with the Palestinian side or the Jewish side is purely a matter of opinion. Both sides technically can say they have a legitimate claim to the land. Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.
That is how Israel came into being. The Palestinians have a valid claim. The Zionists, through their promise to deliver the U.S. into WW1, also were granted a claim to the land. Who is right, and who is wrong? Very clearly, Britain is at fault. Zionists, whether you fault them or not, very clearly took advantage of the situation. And they very clearly took advantage of the U.S. And <b>this is the point I'm trying to make</b>. I don't want to get into a whole Palestine/Israel debate here. The problem exists, it won't go away. No one can deny that there have been brutal crimes committed by BOTH sides. My point in bringing this in is to show a pattern and history of Zionist ability to manipulate other countries to do their bidding for them. Please, take it only as that. Look at how the Balfour Declaration came into being, how the U.S. got into the war, and don't focus on Palestine itself... who is right and who is wrong. That is what I would like to show.
Argue against my stance for how the U.S. came to declare war against Germany in WW1. My contention is that the U.S. would not have gotten involved in WW1 if it were not for the Zionist deal with Britain and the ensuing propaganda campaign both here in the U.S. and in Germany. Let's start there and <i>skip Palestine</i>. Please?
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa Whoa Whoa - The Israeli's had been shipping out to Palestine every since World War I. The Arab leaders sold the Jews all the crappy land, and expected the Jewish colonists to be wiped out by tribesmen. Thanks to the Hanaghan, the colonists weren't destroyed, and using modern farming methods started improving the land. Other Jews, especially those in Europe and Russia, were feeling the squeeze as countries that were already hostile towards them started turning to bluntfaced oppression. So the Zionists started smuggling more Jews into the Holy Land.
The British, who controlled Palestine, did their best to stop them. On one hand they begged for the Hanaghan's help in curbing Islamic Fundementalists, and with the other they struck out at the Israeli attempts to import more people. Kind of like two men shaking hands and hitting each other with the free hand.
I seriously doubt claims that the British believed the Zionists could influence Americans into the war. The British wanted the Jews to sign up for war - as many of them did. Those veterans from WW1 are pretty much what made up the Hanaghan. Did you link the Balfour declaration above, because I cant seem to find it and would really like to read it.
Migration goes into full swing, but NO Palestinians are being displaced yet. Bloodshed comes from two sources - either Israeli terrorist organisations, or Arab tribesmen attacking the Kibbutz'. The British Government, led by one DOG of a Foreign Minister, actively places support behind the Arabs. Eventually the Israeli's kill him, but not till later.
Then, in 1947, it becomes pretty clear that the Jews are about to claim statehood. Ben Gurion has serious concerns about the ability of the Hanaghan and Jewish conscripts to fight and win this war. Israel has nothing but small arms - no artillery, no planes, no tanks. At this stage, they only have paltry funding from US Jews. Arrayed against them are Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (I dont think it was called Saudi Arabia at the time) and pretty much every arab in the region. Egypt, Syria and Jordan all have artillery, planes and tanks - coupled with British "military advisors". These military advisors acted as normal officers in the Arab armies, almost like the "chinese volunteers" during Korea. So led by the British commanders, with vastly superior weapons and technology, and far larger armies, they attack Israel the moment it declares independance.
Israel fights back. Highly successfully. Several Kibbutz' are destroyed, but the civilians had all been evacuated. The combined might of Middle Eastern military is beaten. The British at one stage send tanks into direct action against Israeli forces to save 1/2 the Egyptian army that was surround by the Israeli's. During this war, the Arabs were sure that the Israeli's would do to them what they would have done to the Israeli's - massacre. The Israeli's tried to keep the Arabs at home, but eventually a far right wing militant organisation attacks a town. Expecting little resistance, they discover a stiff force of Arab fighters. They panick, and move into the town shooting everything that moves. Women, Children etc. This is the final straw for every Arab withing a hundred miles, and they panick and run.
Ben Gurion shuts down the militant organisation responsible for the crime, and merges them with the regular army. But its too late, millions of Palestinians evacuate, convinced that the Israeli's are coming to slaughter them. Nothing the Israeli's can do will convince them to come back.
So I dispute two claims made - first this one <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Israel is NOW backed with lots of money and diplomatic influence and advanced weapons, but it DEFINATELY wasnt back then. No one cared about the Palestinians, least of all their muslim "brothers". The West didnt give a sod because they refused to accept help, and the surrounding muslim countries didnt want to help because these camps were perfect breeding grounds for suicide bombers to send to Israel.
and secondly this one
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Palestinians BELIEVED they had no choice. They did, but they couldnt understand why the Israeli's wouldnt slaughter them. Heck, reverse the positions and we wouldnt have a single Jew in Palestine today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not even the repeated sinkings of American supply ships for years was able to push the U.S. into the war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Woah slow down there. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 very nearly pushed the US into the war. Right after that Germany put a hold on unrestricted submarine warfare. Prior to the Lusitania sinking, Germany had been shooting at any ship heading for Europe, under the pretext that they must be helping the Allied powers (and this, to some exent, was true. South American ships carried a lot of food to England and the US traded freely with England and France). Fearful of US intervention, the Germans backed off this policy, giving explict orders to their submarine captains to only target confirmed enemy shipping.
Naturally, many Allied ships started flying flags of neutral nations to evade attacks, and the impact of German submarines greatly decreased. Importantly, US shipping wasn't being sunk; the Germans couldn't afford the consequences. By 1917 though the Germans were getting desperate. The country was falling apart thanks to the Allied blockade of the North Sea and poor management of farming and production. The German high command restarted unrestricted submarine warfare in Feburary of that year.
No surprises what followed. US shipping was actively targeted and sunk. The US declaration of war came barely two months later on the 6th of April. <b>This was a direct result of the sinking of US merchant shipping.</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 1 2003, 10:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 1 2003, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Nov 1 2003, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Nov 1 2003, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In that way of thinking lets kill the blacks for increasing the dropout rate in the US, and increasing the crime rate too. Oh hell let's kill teenagers for doing so many drugs, and having sex all the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're thinking like Hitler. I don't agree with what the Nazi party did to Jews... that doesn't change the fact that they blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1. And that doesn't change the fact that they were right... Zionists DID end up causing Germany to lose the war. Purely for the fact that they managed to involve the U.S., something Germany tried <i>very hard to avoid.</i> It wasn't just Hitler; anti-semitism after the war was rampant throughout Germany. One man alone did not kill 6 million Jews. Hitler used the German hatred towards Jews to fuel his efforts. Now let's be perfectly clear here... that does <b>not</b> mean the actions Germans took as revenge against the Jews was justified or even remotely acceptable. You have to separate the two. However, just because the Nazis were despicable, evil men does not remove the fact that Zionists lost WW1 for Germany.
Steve Bartman may have caused the Cubs to lose the Division Series, but that doesn't give anyone the right to persecute and murder him. Cubs fans have every right to blame him, however. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't agree with it but you justify it? That's pretty much the same thing, and just saying 'Ya its their fault but not directly' in alot of issues that is the case but does the other group put them in death camps? No.
I think this went on for by far long enough and created more than enough friction.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>
On a note to Evis, if you're trying to convince people of any unconventional theory, you try to prove <i>every damn word</i> you type. You <i>don't</i> post long lists of assumptions and leave people to find the facts themselves.
Comments
If a normal,civilian,sport shooter can do this,why do we need to TRAIN commandos?
Oh and theres this rather interesting inconsistency.When police cornered him in a house somewhere,he fired hundreds of rounds with a ZERO accuracy rate.Thats right the commando-like shooter who got head/heart shots at moving targets indoors with furniture blocking the way,not to mention no ear protection,missed stationery targets that had lovely patrol car lights to illuminate them!WOW!Did he turn off his aimbot?
Then lets look at the trial.The prosecution KNEW that they would lose if they went to court just like that.So they went illegal.They somehow convicned the relatives of the allegeded shooter to blackmail him into confessing,or else they would never talk to him again.Dont laugh.Hes mentally retarded(tends to be emotional) and his relatives were ALL that he had left.So he confessed.This is HIGHLY ILLEGAL FORM OF INTERROGATION.
People pointed out the inconsistencies.Showed evidence.Stastistics.
All it took was brainless herd syndrome morons to say "OMG CONSPIRACY NUT!".
Bingo no more opposition to the official version of port arthur shootings.
Who did the port arthus shootings?Some other government.Why not the australians?Look at the results of the shooting.Sports shooting was HEAVILY regulated from then on.Australian army has traditionally depended on sports shooters to augment its armed forces in times of needs,but now?Thats gone man gone.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you kindly show any evidence to support this? The man in question was armed with semi-automatic rifles. He was firing at paniked civilians. This isn't difficult to do.
And exactly where did you figure that the prosecution would lose? There is film evidance, plus the eyewittnes reports of hundreds of people, who all very clearly saw the gunman shooting people. Not hard to prove.
You're giving the Australian government more credit than they deserve, especially considering they usually can't find their arse with both hands.
And finally, your theory as to why the Australian government would slaughter it's own people makes absolutly no sense. Firstly you claim that the Australian army relies upon "sports-shooters" to suppliment it's forces, when it actual fact, it uses the Reserves. That's right, trained men and women who enlist themselves as part-time soldiers. But secondly, completly negating your own arguement, you then say that the new gun control legislation removed all these sports-shooters. So the Australian government did this to remove, according to you, an integral part of the nation's defense.
There simply is no evidance to show that Martin Bryant did not kill those people. Nor is there any reason why the Australian government would kill it's own people.
<a href='http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002714.html#002714' target='_blank'>The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler</a>
The site belongs to a "proud friend of Israel" so I would expect nothing less than a fair and honest defense of Israel. Just like if I found a site belonging to a "proud friend of Palestine" I'm sure I would see just as much pro-Israel spiel as the one linked. <i>Right.</i> But here we go anyways:
1. The disputed territories belonged to Palestine from 35 BC until 1948. Israel did not even exist as a country prior to the mass immigration and consequent recognition of a Jewish state in 1948. The Zionists come and invade the land, evict the people living there, and simply declare their own state. What would you do if you were in those circumstances? Say France comes over here and kicks you out of your house and kills your family. Would you keep searching for a peaceful solution? Would you just accept a deal and allow them to stay? Are you saying we should have let Germany retain their occupation of France, Belgium, and Holland instead of fighting back in WW2? This is modern times. You can't just decide to overthrow a country and declare it your own without expecting some kind of fight. The author clearly is naive in this regard. "We come in peace to claim your land as our own, we hope you like us and we really want peace, please! Don't mind us while we kill your children and evict you from your homes!" It doesn't work that way.
2. The Palestinians had their own country, they didn't need to make their own. Again, this is like conceding to the occupiers. Who the hell would ever accept such a deal? The Zionists <b>had no right to be there</b>. Period, end of story. I wouldn't just accept a deal if Canada came down and claimed the entire U.S. for itself, evicting us from our homes and stripping us of our rights. I would fight them back, and I would suspect any of you would do the same. You think the Native Americans just peacefully accepted our manifest destiny? You think they were agreeable and peaceful towards our occupation of their homeland? The white man forcing them out, and they should just accept it?
3. The right to be evicted from your house? The right to be mauled down by tanks and missile attacks? The right to have your women raped and children beaten in the streets? The right to have entire villages invaded and massacred? Oh, what a beautiful country Israel is. The Jews must really love their Palestinian neighbors. I don't understand why anyone would ever rise up against their occupiers. How silly these people are. They don't know how lucky they are. The Jews living in Palestine prior to 1948 when the mass immigration and occupation began <b>HAD NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER</b>. People seem to forget that there were Jews peacefully living in Palestine for a long, long time. The hatred and violence did not start until Zionism went into action.
<img src='http://www.shwa.org/pix/otrapix/911/zionistmobattack.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
4. This argument is like saying "we've evicted you from your homes and kicked you out of OUR land, so we don't understand why we can't come peacefully into other Arab countries." What a loaf of crap. They apparently expect to be treated like royalty even after the brutally inhumane crimes that they've committed against Arabs. What a joke.
5. This is exactly like saying "these newly homeless people are YOUR problem, we don't understand why you can't fend for yourselves." Jews will always put other Jews before any other person, this is a fact. Jews have been quoted as saying "the life of 1000 Arabs are not worth one fingernail from one Jew." Arabs don't have the same kinship. So apparently this fact makes it okay for Zionists to occupy Arab lands? All one has to do is say "look, no one wants you!" and all of the crimes committed during the immigration, occupation, and eviction are forgiven? What a treat!
6. So because there is no Jewish state, that makes these crimes okay? I don't see a Goth state, either. So maybe all of the Goths should take over California, and kick out all the Christians. Then they can do whatever they want to those Christians, because the Christians already have all kinds of other places they can go, like Oregon, or Canada, or Nevada. Hey, it works for Israel!
7. See my pictures before. Arabs in Israel have no backing. Jews in Israel are backed by the most powerful nation on the planet. We allow Israel to own and control nuclear weapons. We send more foreign aid to Israel than any other country. If we had done the same to Palestinians instead, it would be a dramatically different landscape, I can guarantee you that. Hiding behind money and military prowess is not a very glamorous thing to do, especially when they have not earned it. You and I pay for that military with our tax dollars.
8. This is quite a racist comment, and very offensive. Goes to show you that even "friends of Israel" show absolutely no value towards other human life, especially that of Arabs. Jews in Israel are ten times worse. Despicable.
9. Pure deflection tactic. There are dictators and ruthless regimes all over this planet. Muslims are no exception, and no one attempts to deny that. NONE of that makes what Israel has done to Palestinians OKAY. NONE OF IT. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity, regardless of who's doing it. They must all be held accountable, and Israel is NO DIFFERENT.
10. Perhaps the Jews should have taken Britain up on its offer back during WW1 and relocated to someplace in Africa. Britain offered land to them but the Zionists were absolutely insistent on Palestine.
11. Arabs in Israel hate so much because they <b>want their country back.</b> If the same thing happened here in America, I would expect the exact same thing out of evicted Americans or else I would consider them unpatriotic. The Native Americans fought to their death to defend their lands, but they could not match our weapons and numbers. That does not make what we did to them any less brutal and inhumane. Just because Israel has the backing of a Zionist-controlled superpower <b>DOES NOT MAKE THEM SUPERIOR</b>.
Now if you'd like me to start listing all of Israel's crimes against Arabs, and also post some pro-Arab sites, I'd be glad to. We can start with Israel's invasion of Lebanon (led by one Ariel Sharon) with the intention of wiping out the PLO, and subsequent <b>massacre</b> of 3,500 Palestinian refugees at the hands of the Israelis in <a href='http://www.indictsharon.net/' target='_blank'>Sabra and Shatila</a>. Some kind of peaceful country, this Israel. They really love their Palestinian neighbors.
But I'll only go there if you're going to go through every point one at a time like I just did. Otherwise, I won't waste my time. If you'd like to discuss the events surrounding 9/11, the point of this topic, and what Israel stands to gain from a prolonged war against every Arab country in the Middle East, I'd be happy to start going down that path. The first one I would like someone to rebuff is U.S. involvement in WW1 and the Balfour Declaration. My goal is to show the pattern and history of Zionist control over U.S. foreign policy. So far no one has claimed that the U.S. was NOT led into the war only because of the declaration and pursuant Zionist influence over Woodrow Wilson. I would very much like to address this, would someone please rebuke it? Let's at least start there, and then we can build upon our history lessons until we get to 9/11.
<i>"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." </i> <a href='http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/woodrowwil136325.html' target='_blank'>Woodrow Wilson</a>
[edit] spelling, grammar, and punctuation
The claims of eviction are a bit overrated I believe. Apparently, the Jews in no way wanted the Arabs to shift out, but a militant faction during the 1948 war slaughtered an Arab village and they all panicked and left. The Israeli's had nothing to gain by throwing the Arabs out, and that was never their intentiono, it just turned out that way. The Israeli claim was "We are here, we are not leaving, and this is what is going to be ours, shut up and put up". Not nice, not entirely fair, but it was what the British had promised them. Mind you, the British also promised the land to the Arabs during WW1 also, so it was kinda the "twice promised land". Coming in and killing arabs and stealing there homes was NOT the intent. If the arabs intended to resist, the Israeli's intended to fight, but they didnt steal anyones home.
You also make it sound like we should be sorry for the Arabs because they are being picked on by bigger, stronger Israel, something else I disagree on. The arabs have more people, more land and far more natural wealth ie oil. They chose to squander it. When they attacked the Jews in 1948, they had practically the full backing of the British government, they outnumbered the Israeli's heavily, they had tanks, planes and artillery and the Arab Legion - the British trained army of Jordan I think. The Jews had dirt, only small arms and at that stage did not have the full backing of America. Sure they had the Hanagahn, but these guys lacked serious numbers.
Village massacres, they happened. However they were NOT the norm - they were the exception to the rule, at least in the '48 war. Raped and beaten eh? From the reports I have read, all the raping was happening on the one side - the Arab side. The Palestinians themselves feared their supposed "saviours" from Syria, Jordan and Egypt because their soldiers were very unruly. The Jews didnt claim to love their Palestinian neighbours, but they planned to live side by side with them.
Using what little they had, they won. They asked the Arabs to come back, the Arabs didnt. They sat in their camps and rotted, and their leaders made sure it stayed that way. Attempts to get the Palestinians back on their feet were constantly foiled by the Palestinians themselves. Rather than improve their situation, they would rather brood so they could generate more hate for the Israeli's. This is their own fault - completely and utterly. I have no pity for any arab that ended up stuck in a camp after 1948.
I feel that Israeli policy now is that of defeat. They have realised what they should have know all along - you can't negotiate with Arabs. And as such they have given up.
As to Jews living in Israel before '48 having no problem - that is false. Wherever the Jews attempted to set up Kibbutz's (in land purchased LEGALLY from the Arab leaders themselves) the Arab tribesmen attacked them. They were sold all the crappy land, and they turned it into the best in Palestine and the Arabs were jealous.
If we had funded the palestinians instead of the Jews, all the Jews would be dead. Militant Islam is not known for mercy - and while the Israeli's are becoming VERY hard, they have nothing on the pure savagery of Arab hate. If the arabs were given the chance, they would slaughter the Jews.
But your right, this is offtopic so we'd better leave it.
One small point about the whole thread that really bothers me though.
Whenever I see people talking about Zionist Influence etc etc, its never with a calm and detached tone. There always seems to be the undertone of hatred and fear, never one of pure interested current events and historical affairs. You're a little different in this respect Evisc, but a lot of the anti-zionist material I read smacks heavily of Anti-Semitism, and I trust little of what I read when it has the backing of hatred.
Thank you for the meaningful discussion. The Google search is to merely to allow people to find for themselves who owns and controls the media companies here in America (and Britain, and Canada, and many other countries.) That way they don't have to just take my word for it. Now, are you wanting to debate the fact that the media here is owned and controlled by Zionists? Otherwise I fail to see any useful meaning to your posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='http://www.cytoplastik.com/~devojenkins/pcsforjournal/103103/2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
The claims of eviction are a bit overrated I believe. Apparently, the Jews in no way wanted the Arabs to shift out, but a militant faction during the 1948 war slaughtered an Arab village and they all panicked and left. The Israeli's had nothing to gain by throwing the Arabs out, and that was never their intentiono, it just turned out that way. The Israeli claim was "We are here, we are not leaving, and this is what is going to be ours, shut up and put up". Not nice, not entirely fair, but it was what the British had promised them. Mind you, the British also promised the land to the Arabs during WW1 also, so it was kinda the "twice promised land". Coming in and killing arabs and stealing there homes was NOT the intent. If the arabs intended to resist, the Israeli's intended to fight, but they didnt steal anyones home.
You also make it sound like we should be sorry for the Arabs because they are being picked on by bigger, stronger Israel, something else I disagree on. The arabs have more people, more land and far more natural wealth ie oil. They chose to squander it. When they attacked the Jews in 1948, they had practically the full backing of the British government, they outnumbered the Israeli's heavily, they had tanks, planes and artillery and the Arab Legion - the British trained army of Jordan I think. The Jews had dirt, only small arms and at that stage did not have the full backing of America. Sure they had the Hanagahn, but these guys lacked serious numbers.
Village massacres, they happened. However they were NOT the norm - they were the exception to the rule, at least in the '48 war. Raped and beaten eh? From the reports I have read, all the raping was happening on the one side - the Arab side. The Palestinians themselves feared their supposed "saviours" from Syria, Jordan and Egypt because their soldiers were very unruly. The Jews didnt claim to love their Palestinian neighbours, but they planned to live side by side with them.
Using what little they had, they won. They asked the Arabs to come back, the Arabs didnt. They sat in their camps and rotted, and their leaders made sure it stayed that way. Attempts to get the Palestinians back on their feet were constantly foiled by the Palestinians themselves. Rather than improve their situation, they would rather brood so they could generate more hate for the Israeli's. This is their own fault - completely and utterly. I have no pity for any arab that ended up stuck in a camp after 1948.
I feel that Israeli policy now is that of defeat. They have realised what they should have know all along - you can't negotiate with Arabs. And as such they have given up.
As to Jews living in Israel before '48 having no problem - that is false. Wherever the Jews attempted to set up Kibbutz's (in land purchased LEGALLY from the Arab leaders themselves) the Arab tribesmen attacked them. They were sold all the crappy land, and they turned it into the best in Palestine and the Arabs were jealous.
If we had funded the palestinians instead of the Jews, all the Jews would be dead. Militant Islam is not known for mercy - and while the Israeli's are becoming VERY hard, they have nothing on the pure savagery of Arab hate. If the arabs were given the chance, they would slaughter the Jews.
But your right, this is offtopic so we'd better leave it.
One small point about the whole thread that really bothers me though.
Whenever I see people talking about Zionist Influence etc etc, its never with a calm and detached tone. There always seems to be the undertone of hatred and fear, never one of pure interested current events and historical affairs. You're a little different in this respect Evisc, but a lot of the anti-zionist material I read smacks heavily of Anti-Semitism, and I trust little of what I read when it has the backing of hatred. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never thought I'd say this, but Marine01 your posts in this thread are awesome.
-Jews moved to Palestine.
-Bought land.
-Lived on land.
-Asked for statehood.
Palestinians were displaced because of their own people. The majority of arabs in the region were sharecroppers. They worked the land in exchange for living on it. When Jews bought the land and formed their own legal communities, the sharecroppers were kicked off by their employers so they could sell the land to the Jews.
Its funny how you never hear this side of the story. Arabs sold out other arabs, but thats not cool in Arab 'history', so they blamed the Jews.
Were there militant Jews? Yes.
Were the majority of the Jews that way? No.
EDIT
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
-Jews moved to Palestine.
-Bought land.
-Lived on land.
-Asked for statehood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You haven't been brainwashed, you're just misinformed. Easy mistake to make. Marine01 is correct in his understanding of Israel's history. I keep repeating this, maybe sooner or later it will sink in. Please, read it thoroughly. There are no links to conspiracy sites to distract you from the message. Again, I'm not trying to debate Arab/Jews. I want to show a history of Zionism control over U.S. foreign policy. To that end:
Palestine was Ottoman Empire territory prior to WW1. At the outset of the war, the Allies needed to make friends to help conquer the Axis. Britain allied with the Palestinians and promised them that if they took up arms and fought against the Turks, they would be given an independent Palestine, something they've wanted for a very long time. Note that Britain did the same thing with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. So the Palestinians, with help from the Britains, did exactly that. They fought the Turks and pushed them out of Palestine. But the war dragged on, particularly in Europe. Trench warfare was taking its toll.
Here's where the silly Brits made what is quite possibly the worst diplomatic relations blunder in modern history. They've already promised Palestine to the Palestinians. Why, oh why, did Britain decide to promise the same land to the Zionists, too? What on Earth could have posessed them to do such a stupid thing? Well, I have an answer. The Allies were <b>losing the war.</b> Their promises wouldn't have held up if they lost the war, right? Britain clearly cared more for winning the war than ensuring peace in the Middle East. The Zionists, eager for a chance to get back into Palestine, struck a deal with Britain. Zionism is purely about reclaiming the holy land, and Palestine is it. An opportunity presented itself, and they nabbed it. Zionists promised to deliver the U.S. to the Allied side, in exchange for rights to Palestine. This is documented as the Balfour Declaration. Of course, we all know the problem here. Britain has now promised the same speck of land to two different peoples. BIG problem.
Note that the U.S. was <b>actively trading</b> with Germany during the war, prior to its declaration AGAINST Germany. The official U.S. stance on the war was one of neutrality! They were happy to trade with both sides, and they did so. The U.S. was making a lot of money because of the war. Germany was trying to win the war, so it sank American supply ships destined for Britain. Britain used blockades to do the same thing to Germany. Germany <i>did not want to get the U.S. involved in the war</i>. The reason is quite obvious, it would mean defeat.
Yet, the U.S. would end up declaring war on the same country that just a few years earlier it was happily trading with! This was due in large part to the intense pressure and propaganda campaign put forth by Zionists in America. Not even the repeated sinkings of American supply ships for <b>years</b> was able to push the U.S. into the war. It required something more powerful. The propaganda machine went to work and turned Germany into the evil Hun. Democracy across the planet was at risk! Oh no, what to do! We must fight back!
U.S. enters the war, war is won, and everyone's happy. Well, not everyone. The biggest diplomatic error in modern history is now a serious problem. One land, two peoples. Mass immigration of Jews to Palestine took place, since they were promised the land. This is a country the size of New Jersey, mind you. Hitler blames the Zionists, and Jews in general, for Germany's loss in WW1, and capitalizes on a depressed, angry nation wanting revenge. Hitler is correct that Zionists were at fault, however this does <b>not</b> mean that I agree with what he DID. Hitler was a deranged, satanic man, let's make that clear. Germany begins persecution of Jews during the 30s, and the migration is in full-swing. Palestinians are being displaced. Palestinians are displeased with the fact that Britain renegged on its promise. Rebellion, violence, and bloodshed from both sides, <b>including</b> Jews. 1947 rolls around. Britain, having no idea what to do about the problem it created, turns the impossible issue over to the newly-formed United Nations. Way to go, Britain.
The U.N. decides to split the territory into two pieces, one for Arabs and one for Jews, with Jerusalem left as an internationalized territory. Israel accepts. Palestinians, with their leaders in exile, refuse the U.N. resolution and mount an ineffectual defense of their homeland. Jews easily win the war of 1948 and take over 77% of Palestine. Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred. Jordan and Egypt claim the remaining land which the unorganized Palestinians did not. Here is where the Palestinians had their chance and frankly, blew it. They were more upset over the Jewish migration and simply refused to accept the U.N. deal. Whether you agree with the Palestinian side or the Jewish side is purely a matter of opinion. Both sides technically can say they have a legitimate claim to the land. Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.
That is how Israel came into being. The Palestinians have a valid claim. The Zionists, through their promise to deliver the U.S. into WW1, also were granted a claim to the land. Who is right, and who is wrong? Very clearly, Britain is at fault. Zionists, whether you fault them or not, very clearly took advantage of the situation. And they very clearly took advantage of the U.S. And <b>this is the point I'm trying to make</b>. I don't want to get into a whole Palestine/Israel debate here. The problem exists, it won't go away. No one can deny that there have been brutal crimes committed by BOTH sides. My point in bringing this in is to show a pattern and history of Zionist ability to manipulate other countries to do their bidding for them. Please, take it only as that. Look at how the Balfour Declaration came into being, how the U.S. got into the war, and don't focus on Palestine itself... who is right and who is wrong. That is what I would like to show.
Argue against my stance for how the U.S. came to declare war against Germany in WW1. My contention is that the U.S. would not have gotten involved in WW1 if it were not for the Zionist deal with Britain and the ensuing propaganda campaign both here in the U.S. and in Germany. Let's start there and <i>skip Palestine</i>. Please?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need help.
QUOTE
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
You need help.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor.
QUOTE
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
You need help.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread?
QUOTE
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
You need help.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No".
In that way of thinking lets kill the blacks for increasing the dropout rate in the US, and increasing the crime rate too. Oh hell let's kill teenagers for doing so many drugs, and having sex all the time.
QUOTE
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
You need help.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Accursed Zionists manipulating my relevancy!
QUOTE
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)
You need help.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need a sense of humor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOW will people understand the relevancy of my posts to this thread? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked in with the Zionists during the 6 o'clock evening news and their answer was "No". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Accursed Zionists manipulating my relevancy! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just wanted to see another layer of quotes. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You're thinking like Hitler. I don't agree with what the Nazi party did to Jews... that doesn't change the fact that they blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1. And that doesn't change the fact that they were right... Zionists DID end up causing Germany to lose the war. Purely for the fact that they managed to involve the U.S., something Germany tried <i>very hard to avoid.</i> It wasn't just Hitler; anti-semitism after the war was rampant throughout Germany. One man alone did not kill 6 million Jews. Hitler used the German hatred towards Jews to fuel his efforts. Now let's be perfectly clear here... that does <b>not</b> mean the actions Germans took as revenge against the Jews was justified or even remotely acceptable. You have to separate the two. However, just because the Nazis were despicable, evil men does not remove the fact that Zionists lost WW1 for Germany.
Steve Bartman may have caused the Cubs to lose the Division Series, but that doesn't give anyone the right to persecute and murder him. Cubs fans have every right to blame him, however.
-Jews moved to Palestine.
-Bought land.
-Lived on land.
-Asked for statehood.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You haven't been brainwashed, you're just misinformed. Easy mistake to make. Marine01 is correct in his understanding of Israel's history. I keep repeating this, maybe sooner or later it will sink in. Please, read it thoroughly. There are no links to conspiracy sites to distract you from the message. Again, I'm not trying to debate Arab/Jews. I want to show a history of Zionism control over U.S. foreign policy. To that end:
Palestine was Ottoman Empire territory prior to WW1. At the outset of the war, the Allies needed to make friends to help conquer the Axis. Britain allied with the Palestinians and promised them that if they took up arms and fought against the Turks, they would be given an independent Palestine, something they've wanted for a very long time. Note that Britain did the same thing with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. So the Palestinians, with help from the Britains, did exactly that. They fought the Turks and pushed them out of Palestine. But the war dragged on, particularly in Europe. Trench warfare was taking its toll.
Here's where the silly Brits made what is quite possibly the worst diplomatic relations blunder in modern history. They've already promised Palestine to the Palestinians. Why, oh why, did Britain decide to promise the same land to the Zionists, too? What on Earth could have posessed them to do such a stupid thing? Well, I have an answer. The Allies were <b>losing the war.</b> Their promises wouldn't have held up if they lost the war, right? Britain clearly cared more for winning the war than ensuring peace in the Middle East. The Zionists, eager for a chance to get back into Palestine, struck a deal with Britain. Zionism is purely about reclaiming the holy land, and Palestine is it. An opportunity presented itself, and they nabbed it. Zionists promised to deliver the U.S. to the Allied side, in exchange for rights to Palestine. This is documented as the Balfour Declaration. Of course, we all know the problem here. Britain has now promised the same speck of land to two different peoples. BIG problem.
Note that the U.S. was <b>actively trading</b> with Germany during the war, prior to its declaration AGAINST Germany. The official U.S. stance on the war was one of neutrality! They were happy to trade with both sides, and they did so. The U.S. was making a lot of money because of the war. Germany was trying to win the war, so it sank American supply ships destined for Britain. Britain used blockades to do the same thing to Germany. Germany <i>did not want to get the U.S. involved in the war</i>. The reason is quite obvious, it would mean defeat.
Yet, the U.S. would end up declaring war on the same country that just a few years earlier it was happily trading with! This was due in large part to the intense pressure and propaganda campaign put forth by Zionists in America. Not even the repeated sinkings of American supply ships for <b>years</b> was able to push the U.S. into the war. It required something more powerful. The propaganda machine went to work and turned Germany into the evil Hun. Democracy across the planet was at risk! Oh no, what to do! We must fight back!
U.S. enters the war, war is won, and everyone's happy. Well, not everyone. The biggest diplomatic error in modern history is now a serious problem. One land, two peoples. Mass immigration of Jews to Palestine took place, since they were promised the land. This is a country the size of New Jersey, mind you. Hitler blames the Zionists, and Jews in general, for Germany's loss in WW1, and capitalizes on a depressed, angry nation wanting revenge. Hitler is correct that Zionists were at fault, however this does <b>not</b> mean that I agree with what he DID. Hitler was a deranged, satanic man, let's make that clear. Germany begins persecution of Jews during the 30s, and the migration is in full-swing. Palestinians are being displaced. Palestinians are displeased with the fact that Britain renegged on its promise. Rebellion, violence, and bloodshed from both sides, <b>including</b> Jews. 1947 rolls around. Britain, having no idea what to do about the problem it created, turns the impossible issue over to the newly-formed United Nations. Way to go, Britain.
The U.N. decides to split the territory into two pieces, one for Arabs and one for Jews, with Jerusalem left as an internationalized territory. Israel accepts. Palestinians, with their leaders in exile, refuse the U.N. resolution and mount an ineffectual defense of their homeland. Jews easily win the war of 1948 and take over 77% of Palestine. Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred. Jordan and Egypt claim the remaining land which the unorganized Palestinians did not. Here is where the Palestinians had their chance and frankly, blew it. They were more upset over the Jewish migration and simply refused to accept the U.N. deal. Whether you agree with the Palestinian side or the Jewish side is purely a matter of opinion. Both sides technically can say they have a legitimate claim to the land. Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.
That is how Israel came into being. The Palestinians have a valid claim. The Zionists, through their promise to deliver the U.S. into WW1, also were granted a claim to the land. Who is right, and who is wrong? Very clearly, Britain is at fault. Zionists, whether you fault them or not, very clearly took advantage of the situation. And they very clearly took advantage of the U.S. And <b>this is the point I'm trying to make</b>. I don't want to get into a whole Palestine/Israel debate here. The problem exists, it won't go away. No one can deny that there have been brutal crimes committed by BOTH sides. My point in bringing this in is to show a pattern and history of Zionist ability to manipulate other countries to do their bidding for them. Please, take it only as that. Look at how the Balfour Declaration came into being, how the U.S. got into the war, and don't focus on Palestine itself... who is right and who is wrong. That is what I would like to show.
Argue against my stance for how the U.S. came to declare war against Germany in WW1. My contention is that the U.S. would not have gotten involved in WW1 if it were not for the Zionist deal with Britain and the ensuing propaganda campaign both here in the U.S. and in Germany. Let's start there and <i>skip Palestine</i>. Please?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, I want Marine01's babies :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need help. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa Whoa Whoa - The Israeli's had been shipping out to Palestine every since World War I. The Arab leaders sold the Jews all the crappy land, and expected the Jewish colonists to be wiped out by tribesmen. Thanks to the Hanaghan, the colonists weren't destroyed, and using modern farming methods started improving the land. Other Jews, especially those in Europe and Russia, were feeling the squeeze as countries that were already hostile towards them started turning to bluntfaced oppression. So the Zionists started smuggling more Jews into the Holy Land.
The British, who controlled Palestine, did their best to stop them. On one hand they begged for the Hanaghan's help in curbing Islamic Fundementalists, and with the other they struck out at the Israeli attempts to import more people. Kind of like two men shaking hands and hitting each other with the free hand.
I seriously doubt claims that the British believed the Zionists could influence Americans into the war. The British wanted the Jews to sign up for war - as many of them did. Those veterans from WW1 are pretty much what made up the Hanaghan. Did you link the Balfour declaration above, because I cant seem to find it and would really like to read it.
Migration goes into full swing, but NO Palestinians are being displaced yet. Bloodshed comes from two sources - either Israeli terrorist organisations, or Arab tribesmen attacking the Kibbutz'. The British Government, led by one DOG of a Foreign Minister, actively places support behind the Arabs. Eventually the Israeli's kill him, but not till later.
Then, in 1947, it becomes pretty clear that the Jews are about to claim statehood. Ben Gurion has serious concerns about the ability of the Hanaghan and Jewish conscripts to fight and win this war. Israel has nothing but small arms - no artillery, no planes, no tanks. At this stage, they only have paltry funding from US Jews. Arrayed against them are Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (I dont think it was called Saudi Arabia at the time) and pretty much every arab in the region. Egypt, Syria and Jordan all have artillery, planes and tanks - coupled with British "military advisors". These military advisors acted as normal officers in the Arab armies, almost like the "chinese volunteers" during Korea. So led by the British commanders, with vastly superior weapons and technology, and far larger armies, they attack Israel the moment it declares independance.
Israel fights back. Highly successfully. Several Kibbutz' are destroyed, but the civilians had all been evacuated. The combined might of Middle Eastern military is beaten. The British at one stage send tanks into direct action against Israeli forces to save 1/2 the Egyptian army that was surround by the Israeli's. During this war, the Arabs were sure that the Israeli's would do to them what they would have done to the Israeli's - massacre. The Israeli's tried to keep the Arabs at home, but eventually a far right wing militant organisation attacks a town. Expecting little resistance, they discover a stiff force of Arab fighters. They panick, and move into the town shooting everything that moves. Women, Children etc. This is the final straw for every Arab withing a hundred miles, and they panick and run.
Ben Gurion shuts down the militant organisation responsible for the crime, and merges them with the regular army. But its too late, millions of Palestinians evacuate, convinced that the Israeli's are coming to slaughter them. Nothing the Israeli's can do will convince them to come back.
So I dispute two claims made - first this one
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Israel was backed by tremendous money, diplomatic influence, and its associated weaponry. Palestine was backed by nothing... no one really cared about Palestine. Easy victory for the Israelis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Israel is NOW backed with lots of money and diplomatic influence and advanced weapons, but it DEFINATELY wasnt back then. No one cared about the Palestinians, least of all their muslim "brothers". The West didnt give a sod because they refused to accept help, and the surrounding muslim countries didnt want to help because these camps were perfect breeding grounds for suicide bombers to send to Israel.
and secondly this one
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Palestinians have no choice but to flee or be massacred.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Palestinians BELIEVED they had no choice. They did, but they couldnt understand why the Israeli's wouldnt slaughter them. Heck, reverse the positions and we wouldnt have a single Jew in Palestine today.
Woah slow down there. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 very nearly pushed the US into the war. Right after that Germany put a hold on unrestricted submarine warfare. Prior to the Lusitania sinking, Germany had been shooting at any ship heading for Europe, under the pretext that they must be helping the Allied powers (and this, to some exent, was true. South American ships carried a lot of food to England and the US traded freely with England and France). Fearful of US intervention, the Germans backed off this policy, giving explict orders to their submarine captains to only target confirmed enemy shipping.
Naturally, many Allied ships started flying flags of neutral nations to evade attacks, and the impact of German submarines greatly decreased. Importantly, US shipping wasn't being sunk; the Germans couldn't afford the consequences. By 1917 though the Germans were getting desperate. The country was falling apart thanks to the Allied blockade of the North Sea and poor management of farming and production. The German high command restarted unrestricted submarine warfare in Feburary of that year.
No surprises what followed. US shipping was actively targeted and sunk. The US declaration of war came barely two months later on the 6th of April. <b>This was a direct result of the sinking of US merchant shipping.</b>.
You're thinking like Hitler. I don't agree with what the Nazi party did to Jews... that doesn't change the fact that they blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1. And that doesn't change the fact that they were right... Zionists DID end up causing Germany to lose the war. Purely for the fact that they managed to involve the U.S., something Germany tried <i>very hard to avoid.</i> It wasn't just Hitler; anti-semitism after the war was rampant throughout Germany. One man alone did not kill 6 million Jews. Hitler used the German hatred towards Jews to fuel his efforts. Now let's be perfectly clear here... that does <b>not</b> mean the actions Germans took as revenge against the Jews was justified or even remotely acceptable. You have to separate the two. However, just because the Nazis were despicable, evil men does not remove the fact that Zionists lost WW1 for Germany.
Steve Bartman may have caused the Cubs to lose the Division Series, but that doesn't give anyone the right to persecute and murder him. Cubs fans have every right to blame him, however. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't agree with it but you justify it? That's pretty much the same thing, and just saying 'Ya its their fault but not directly' in alot of issues that is the case but does the other group put them in death camps? No.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>
On a note to Evis, if you're trying to convince people of any unconventional theory, you try to prove <i>every damn word</i> you type. You <i>don't</i> post long lists of assumptions and leave people to find the facts themselves.