America's irreplaceable ally

Bloody hell Ceasar even in my exremely inebriated state I can rip it apart (your questions)
#1 what state in 1923
#2 what 22%
#3 the fact that the majority of the parties concerned rejected the proposal , the proposal broke every "safety measure" included in any proposals , or any conditions of achievment for those proposals .
#4 7 States? what States ? (remember that one of those States was in a pact with Israe to divide the land between them) (though it is normally written in the history boks as an agreement to not launch military offensives in territory allocated to the State of Israel )...NAME THEM.. (copyright Gawain 2005) besides which the future Israel was holding non-Isaeli cities and towns that it had not been allocated under 181
#5Territories , Now are you talking about Israeli territories allocated under 181? Territories held upon signing up to the UN Charter ?territories that were assumrd to be part of Israel when they were not mentioned in the '67 resolution?
Territories ???? What territories ? what is Israel ? Is it every piece of land as far as the birthplace of Abraham ?
#6 '67 now then Ceasar , simple question ... who attacked Egypt as the first move in that war....?
#7 now forgive me if I am wrong , but wasn't that removed from the policy many years ago ?
#8 Hospitals and schools ? Now that is a real bugger , lets see .... oh yeah , after a great deal of thought and absolutely no need to re-consult the figures ...more non-Israelis in the area known as "Palestine" Have been attacked , intimidated , abused , delayed , imprisoned , threatened and endangered than Israelis . More schoolchidren have been killed or wounded , more hospital patients have been affected from that side of the fence .
#9 & 10 You tell me .
Which do you consider the greatest sticking point .Right of return (that works bothways)Territory , Settlements , Prisoners , Compensation , Trade access or Tarifs , Jerusalem , Water , Representtion , Free movement /corridors , Soveriegnty ? .... come on ......which??

Note to self ....drink and keyboard do not work well together , a 20 second rant took a hell of along time to write......slan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

By the way , is "History twisting" is your middle name ?

---

Actually, my middle name is Kennedy.

As in John F. Kennedy.

My mother was American. (But I forgave her.) Check out my birth date in my profile.

*Oh, Caeser44, do you know George & Martha?

Quote:

---

Thats the modern revisionist take for sure. It is not reality however.

---

I just know what I've read in history books, whose authors would have gained nothing by lying about it. And there is a lot of proof of Jewish and Christians serving Muslims. Besides, each nation was different, and each of them treated their subjects differently at different times.
There was certaintly Jews present when the Crusaders took Jeruseleum, and they were expelled. Now if the Muslims had all killed the Jews, where did they come from?
And the Europeans didn't treat the Jews that well either. On the way to the first Crusade, a bunch of Crusaders killed a whole bunch of Jews in a German town.

Quote:

---

And the Europeans didn't treat the Jews that well either. On the way to the first Crusade, a bunch of Crusaders killed a whole bunch of Jews in a German town.

---

And on another they sacked Constantanople. I guess they hated Christains also.

Quote:

---

And there is a lot of proof of Jewish and Christians serving Muslims.

---

Exactly. Serving is the nicest thing you could call it.
Christians and Jews have always been second class citizens in any of these countries at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I believe the anti-American sentiments transcend just our government. You feel it's limited to that. I think we have to agree to disagree here. I certainly know enough Germans that are friendly enough with Americans to say it's not a universal opinion....

---

I did not follow the complete discussion. Maybe someone mentioned this before:
There was a poll about the popularity of different nations. Whatever popularity means in this context. I think the question was 'Is this country good?'. The US pop decreased after the Iraq invasion. In Germany it dropped from some 75 to 45%. In this poll the Germans were most critical against the US of all non-muslim nations. But still 45% think that the US is good. Most of the voters saiid that not the US or the US people are bad but that they do not like the Bush government. After the last election this changed a bit. Popularity of the US is increasing again after their tsunami help.
By the way. Germans had a quite good popularity. Lowest values were reached in the US. However, the Germans judged themselves the same way the Americans did.
Summery:
Germans do not agree with America's Iraq politics
They know the difference between politics and people. There are no anti-American sentiments.
The US is also critical against Germans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The Germans are as critical against themselves
Suffice it to say, have you ever asked yourself why Germans (or Dutch or French, or Italians) seem to care so much about domestic American issues, such as gun control or our domestic sales taxes? Why is it so important to you all to disarm us and force us to change from a sales tax to a VAT? I think I know the answer...

---

Once I saw an American TV docu about Germany. Everything they showed was right; but they just picked some extremes and stereotypes and put it in the wrong context. A guess it is the same over here. Media show us just what is absurd and strange to us. So we have the impression that the Americans are a strange kind of people, all deaking with drugs, shooting policemen with big guns, killing indians, eating fast food, live in their cars, waste energy, ...
Want me to go on?

@caesar44

So based on this article and a Quran quote that refers to Jews as "apes and pigs" you are claiming that muslims as a whole believe in a Jihad gainst the Western world?

I think you are stretching things a little bit here.

But I will keep in mind the next time I talk to or work with muslims (e.g., from Turkey, the UAE or Malaysia) that they are actually secretly (or not-so-secretly as you would like to makes us believe) planning to launch a Jihad against us.

However, reading quotes from radical muslims about Jews and then your obvious prejudices against muslims as a whole, I guess the road to peace in the Middle East will be indeed a long and bumpy one :no:

@Don

So, I finally found some time to have a more detailed look at the cases you provided (BTW, it was not my intention to imply that you made these things up, I seriously was not aware of them and wanted some background information so I could reply in a meaningful manner ~:) )

Let me recapitulate what the subject of our short discussion was.
You suggested that there is a broader anti-Americanism in e.g., Germany that is not only directed at your current government but at the US population and its lifestyle in general.

In this context you suggested that e.g., France and Germany seem to be rather keen on meddling in domestic US issues. Given the context of our discussion (and correct me if I'm wrong here) your post implied that the rationale for this meddling is no a real political/economic interest but anti-Americanism (which would mean that it only happens because we kind of don't like you and your lifestyle and therefore decide to pester you).

To support your case you brought forward two examples.

a) The VAT issue brought forward to the WTO
As I said before, I do not see what this has to to with anti-Americanism or meddling with US domestic affairs that do not affect us.
You might disagree with the EU that the US tax system gives an unfair advantage (and, at least according to the articles you linked to, the WTO disagrees with your view on the issue), however, this is hardly a case of meddling with domoestic US affairs as the issue is obviously foreign trade.
I think the US as well as the EU both have a track record of calling the WTO in such issues, so quite frankly I do not quite understand why this issue is an example of anti-Americanism or an attempt of European to influence domestic US affairs.

b) The UN gun control proposal
Fristly, I read through the proposal and I have to admit that I still do not see how this would be an attempt to take away your gun from you. I understand that the proposal calls for a strict regulation regarding the registration of guns, but don't you already have such regulations in place?
Secondly, I seriously fail to see anything here that is specifically targeting the US. What makes you think that is proposal has anything to do with anti-Americanism? I think it would be a bit self-centered to believe that this proposal is an EU-led conspiracy to undermine the lifestyle of US citizens.

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you that these are examples of anti-Americanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

@caesar44

So based on this article and a Quran quote that refers to Jews as "apes and pigs" you are claiming that muslims as a whole believe in a Jihad gainst the Western world?

I think you are stretching things a little bit here.

But I will keep in mind the next time I talk to or work with muslims (e.g., from Turkey, the UAE or Malaysia) that they are actually secretly (or not-so-secretly as you would like to makes us believe) planning to launch a Jihad against us.

However, reading quotes from radical muslims about Jews and then your obvious prejudices against muslims as a whole, I guess the road to peace in the Middle East will be indeed a long and bumpy one :no:

---

"They don't want to see the truth" (Many , always)

"radical muslims" OH , yes , some 1,000,000,000 people
Again , and slow , so you can understand , IF THE KORAN IS SPEAKING ABOUT A JIHAD (against who ? against the martians ?) AND ONE BELIVE'S IN IT , HE (simple logic) BECOMES A JIHAD BELIEVER , ASK ANY MUSLIM IF HE BELIEVES IN THE KORAN AND JUST STOP COVERING YOUR EYES .
YOU KNOW WHAT , THIS IS A WASTE OT TIME , THE JEWS ARE BAD AND KILLING INNOCENT'S ARABS AND THE ARABS ARE LIBERALS , WHO DON'T KILL THEIR WOMANS JUST FOR KISSING , WHO LOVES HUMAN RIGHTS , HAVE DEMOCRACIES EVERYWHERE , THEY DON'T SEND'S THEIR CHILDRENS TO DIE IN A HOLLY WAR , THEY DON'T CUT SOME ONE HANDS JUST FOR STEALING BREAD AND SO ON

HERE IN THE "HOLLY LAND" WE HAVE WITH IN US AND AROUND US 10,000,000 PALESTINIANS , 300,000,000 ARABS , AND 1,000,000,000 MUSLIMS , BUT NO , YOU IN THE WEST ALWAYS TALK ABOUT NICE FAISAL OR ACHMAD (I am sure they are nice) BUT DON'T HAVE ANY , ANY , ANY IDEA OF "OUR" FAISAL'S AND ACHMAD'S

SOMETIME'S I WISH THAT ISRAEL SHOULD LOST ITS WARS JUST TO SHOW THE WORLD HOW THE ARABS WILL TREATS THE JEWS , BUT THE COST'S WILL BE HUGE (something like a second holocaust) AND FOR WHAT ? FOR THE WEST TO LOVES US ? GIVE ME A BREAK... THE CHRISTIANS KILLED IN THE LAST 1,900 YEARS MORE THEN THE MUSLIMS WOULD EVER .

caesar44

I am aware that this a very emotional topic for you, and that there is much more at stake for you than for most other people on this board who are exchanging opinions on here but are not actually personally involved in the problem themselves.

Personally I am happy to see you participating in these discussions in the Backroom, as we had a lot of discussions obout the Israel/Palestine situations here in the past, without having somebody who actually has to live in this conflict contributing to the discussions.

If you think that I am taking sides here and would like to paint the Jews/Israelis as the perpetrators in this conflict you are rather wrong.

What I do have a problem with, are broad generalizations that are meant to slander whole groups of people. I do have a problem when people keep referring to some rather vague concept of "Jews controling the US" without actually providing any facts to support this allegation, but I also have problem when you refer to all muslims as "radical muslims" that only live to start a Jihad against the Western world and to eradicate the Jewish people.

BTW, writing in capital letters does not make any argument more convincing, it just makes it rather inconvenient to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

caesar44

I am aware that this a very emotional topic for you, and that there is much more at stake for you than for most other people on this board who are exchanging opinions on here but are not actually personally involved in the problem themselves.

Personally I am happy to see you participating in these discussions in the Backroom, as we had a lot of discussions obout the Israel/Palestine situations here in the past, without having somebody who actually has to live in this conflict contributing to the discussions.

If you think that I am taking sides here and would like to paint the Jews/Israelis as the perpetrators in this conflict you are rather wrong.

What I do have a problem with, are broad generalizations that are meant to slander whole groups of people. I do have a problem when people keep referring to some rather vague concept of "Jews controling the US" without actually providing any facts to support this allegation, but I also have problem when you refer to all muslims as "radical muslims" that only live to start a Jihad against the Western world and to eradicate the Jewish people.

BTW, writing in capital letters does not make any argument more convincing, it just makes it rather inconvenient to read.

---

AgReEd !

I hate generalization as well , but this was to make a point after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on

Belive me , ser , I have tried and tried to convince posters to stop dividing the world in to Black and White , but alas , it is hard...


"Be ware of the ignoramus" (I am sure I heard that before)

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

but alas , it is hard...

---

Unfortunately that is very true... :bow:

Quote:

---

And on another they sacked Constantanople. I guess they hated Christains also.

---

Orthodox Chrsitians, not Catholics. By that time, they did hate Orthodox Christians.

Quote:

---

Exactly. Serving is the nicest thing you could call it.
Christians and Jews have always been second class citizens in any of these countries at best.

---

Well many Islamic nations also kept Muslim slaves, who could also rise to great prominencein the military as well as serving sultans and amirs. So I guess Muslims were second class citizens as well?
Besides, Jews could gain more power in most Muslim countries than they could in Western Europe...

caesar44, the jihad was an old and hardly used thing only a few hundred years after the Quran was written. It was revived for a time, but I'm pretty sure it's not an intergral part of the Quran, especially since it was defunct after only a few hundred years.
My point is that while the Quran might talk about Jihads, it isn't a main part of the faith. The Torah talks about sacrificing children to God, and God murdering all but two humans for their perceived sins. The Torah has just as much violence as the Quran, but it doesn't mean the it's a main part of the Jewish faith, does it?

Quote:

---

Orthodox Chrsitians, not Catholics. By that time, they did hate Orthodox Christians.

---

No they didnt. They just wanted all the loot there.

Quote:

---

Well many Islamic nations also kept Muslim slaves, who could also rise to great prominencein the military as well as serving sultans and amirs. So I guess Muslims were second class citizens as well?

---

Sure some Muslims were and are but all Christains and Jews are second class citizens at best.

Quote:

---

It was revived for a time, but I'm pretty sure it's not an intergral part of the Quran, especially since it was defunct after only a few hundred years.

---

Where do you come up with this stuff school? Tell that to Bin Laden.

Quote:

---

No they didnt. They just wanted all the loot there.

---

Very likely. But I think that the split between the Churches had gotten more pronounced by then, though I may be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Sure some Muslims were and are but all Christains and Jews are second class citizens at best.

---

I don't have enough info to disprove you, and I suppose it is true enough. But they weren't all killed or kicked out, which is what the Crusaders did to the Jews and Muslims after taking over Jeruseleum.

Quote:

---

Where do you come up with this stuff school? Tell that to Bin Laden.

---

School? No. But yes, it could be used, as it was after the Crusades and today. Many Muslim nations never used the jihad at all. Most of those that didn't weren't in the Middle East, but regardless, it is possible to have an Islamic nation without the Jihad.

Quote:

---

I don't have enough info to disprove you, and I suppose it is true enough. But they weren't all killed or kicked out, which is what the Crusaders did to the Jews and Muslims after taking over Jeruseleum.

---

I never denied they were trewated better than Christains trreated others but thats irrelevant. They still treat Christains and Jews badly.

Quote:

---

School? No. But yes, it could be used, as it was after the Crusades and today. Many Muslim nations never used the jihad at all. Most of those that didn't weren't in the Middle East, but regardless, it is possible to have an Islamic nation without the Jihad.

---

Jihad is about holy war not nationhood.

Exactly. And the holy war is not necassary in a Muslim nation or person.

Quote:

---

Exactly. And the holy war is not necassary in a Muslim nation or person.

---

I never said it was. Is Islam a nation?

I don't think so. And I didn't mean to imply that it was. I'm just saying that it isn't really a key part of Islam.

Quote:

---

I don't think so.

---

Think again.

Quote:

---

The Centrality of Jihad in Islam
By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 20, 2004

All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad—holy war against all non-Muslims—does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi (quoted recently at FrontPage Magazine), "Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them." World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."



Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."



In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains, by the way, why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.

---

So much for this

Quote:

---

It was revived for a time, but I'm pretty sure it's not an intergral part of the Quran, especially since it was defunct after only a few hundred years.

---

Quote:

---

In the 1860s a Muslim cleric in the Punjab launched murderous jihad against Sikhs and then against all non-Muslim groups. In the 1820s and '30s the Padri Islamists in West Sumatra waged war against less pure Muslims whom they accused of paganism. In South India in 1921, jihadists carried out massacres, the forcible conversion of Hindus and the desecration of Hindu temples. And today, of course, Islamists are attacking non-Muslims along a vast arc extending from Nigeria to Indonesia. Far from having fallen into permanent remission, jihad remains an ever present threat—it is the default mode of Muslims whenever they find themselves in close and sustained proximity with non-Muslims.

---

Quote:

---

To summarize our discussion so far: (1) The command to wage jihad is laid on all Muslims. (2) Jihad must be carried out until the whole world has been brought under the power of the Islamic state. (3) Even when Muslims lack the present ability to wage jihad, the hope of jihad remains alive in their hearts, enabling them to wait for generations for a new chance to spread the faith. And finally, (4) jihad is not a recent revival of the late 20th century but has periodically erupted during long ages of apparent Muslim quiescence.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

At a meeting in Cairo in 1990, representatives of all 54 Muslim countries signed the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, a Muslim-style answer to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Andrew Bostom describes it:

the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam included the triumphal announcement that the Shari'a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and included the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to "guide" humanity. This statement captures the indelible influence of the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude on the Shari'a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels.

---

What about the Muslim nations that didn't use Jihad for a long time, or ever? The Seljuks weren't fighting a Jihad against the Byzatines, but a normal war, as did many other Muslim nations against non Muslim nations. Not all of their wars were Jihads.

And Christians fought Crusades many times. I can quote numerous dates that make it seem like Christians are always fighting Crusades, or quote numerous Inquisition dates but that wouldn't be an accurate protrayal of Christianity.
All relgions have had violent pasts, and Islam is certaintly no exception. But I haven't seen any evidence to say that Islam itself is any more violent than other religons.

Quote:

---

What about the Muslim nations that didn't use Jihad for a long time, or ever? The Seljuks weren't fighting a Jihad against the Byzatines, but a normal war, as did many other Muslim nations against non Muslim nations. Not all of their wars were Jihads.

---

All their wars are Jihads . Did they or did they not bring Islam to every nation and peoples they conqured?

Quote:

---

But I haven't seen any evidence to say that Islam itself is any more violent than other religons.

---

Then you have been living in a vacumn and deny reality. Did you even read the link?

Then why were there still Christians and Jews around to serve the Muslim nations?
And yes, many were converted in the lands that were conquered. But not all. Otherwise, all Greeks would be Muslim, and all of the afore mentioned Jews and Christians in the Middle East would have been Muslim.
There were also numerous Turkish tribes that were still on the steppe that had members of multiple religion, from Judiasm, Buddism, Christianity and Islam, even when the leaders were sometimes Muslim. Now if Islam's purpose was to convert all non believers, how could all of those different relgions coexist?

Also, many Muslims served as mercanaries, sometimes to non Muslim nations including Byzantium. If Jihad was the "timeless core" of Islam, why would the Muslims serve the infedels?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all religions talk about converting and saving the non believer? So is Islam really that different when it talks about converting everyone else?

Quote:

---

And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all religions talk about converting and saving the non believer? So is Islam really that different when it talks about converting everyone else?

---

When it advocates doing so by war yes.

Quote:

---

Also, many Muslims served asAlso, many Muslims served as mercanaries, sometimes to non Muslim nations including Byzantium. If Jihad was the "timeless core" of Islam, why would the Muslims serve the infedels?, sometimes to non Muslim nations including Byzantium. If Jihad was the "timeless core" of Islam, why would the Muslims serve the infedels?

---

You answered it yourself. They were mercanaries.

after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on
Oh dear oh dear Ceasar ~:confused:
Where has that been stated ?
Or are you making a generalisation ~;)

Is any response forthcoming over my replies to you 10 questions ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Orthodox Chrsitians, not Catholics. By that time, they did hate Orthodox Christians.


Well many Islamic nations also kept Muslim slaves, who could also rise to great prominencein the military as well as serving sultans and amirs. So I guess Muslims were second class citizens as well?
Besides, Jews could gain more power in most Muslim countries than they could in Western Europe...

caesar44, the jihad was an old and hardly used thing only a few hundred years after the Quran was written. It was revived for a time, but I'm pretty sure it's not an intergral part of the Quran, especially since it was defunct after only a few hundred years.
My point is that while the Quran might talk about Jihads, it isn't a main part of the faith. The Torah talks about sacrificing children to God, and God murdering all but two humans for their perceived sins. The Torah has just as much violence as the Quran, but it doesn't mean the it's a main part of the Jewish faith, does it?

---

It is all in the eyes of the ...

One of the first things the Torah talks about is - NOT to sacrifice childrens to God and the story about Abraham and Ytschaq (the names are in Hebrew) proofed it
About the "two humans" , well it was Noah , his wife , their 3 childrens , and their wifes - 8 humans , so god was merciful here.... ~;)

Violence is one thing , believing in it , is another

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[B]after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA ,

---

Would you like me to post the link in this thread that states that Tribesman, because it has been stated in this tread that the Jewish lobby has the greatest influence and controls congress.
A couple of the better ones to illustrate the point.

America is Israel's bitch

The Jewish lobby in the US is second only to the gun lobby. No other country on Earth can manipulate the US as well as Israel. Even Americans cannot manipulate America as well as Israel can.

But Jews and Israel do have power in America disproportionate to their population.

And that was just on the first page of thread.

Quote:

---

Australias arms industry peaked at the boomerang. I don't think its modernisation is too far behind the rest of the World barring travelling to work on Kangaroo back.

---

Let me guess....American? Or as quite alot of us Aussies call you...Seppos.
Let me translate. A septic tank is a concrete reinforced pit in the back yard that all toilet refuse flows into. They are constantly full of shit and not much spoken about ~D American = yank = septic tank = Seppo. How apt!
Pity we have such a spineless leader who bows to the every whim of that mad, deranged bastard you have running your country.
From my personal experiences, folks in my neck of the woods feel the same way as the majority of the rest of the world. USA :furious3:
Give me China any day. I can learn to use chopsticks and work for a dollar a day....
Have a nice day ~D

Work away Redleg , since when has Jewish lobbyists and interest groups consisted of all the Jews , since when has Isreal representedall the Jews , or for that matter since when have all Israelis been Jewish ?

Hence ....
Where has that been stated ?
Or are you making a generalisation ~:cheers:
Or wouldn't you describe the full quote
I hate generalization as well , but this was to make a point after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on
as a generalisation , even when he says he hates generalisation .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revelation

Let me guess....American? Or as quite alot of us Aussies call you...Seppos.
Let me translate. A septic tank is a concrete reinforced pit in the back yard that all toilet refuse flows into. They are constantly full of shit and not much spoken about ~D American = yank = septic tank = Seppo. How apt!
Pity we have such a spineless leader who bows to the every whim of that mad, deranged bastard you have running your country.
From my personal experiences, folks in my neck of the woods feel the same way as the majority of the rest of the world. USA :furious3:
Give me China any day. I can learn to use chopsticks and work for a dollar a day....
Have a nice day ~D

---

If you decide to drop by in the Backroom and to issue sweeping insults, please at least make sure that you do not embarass yourself by making false assumptions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

If you decide to drop by in the Backroom and to issue sweeping insults, please at least make sure that you do not embarass yourself by making false assumptions...

---

How are they false? Perhaps you believe everyone adores Americans? I was merely stating what folks in my particualr region call Americans. We hold no soft spot in our hearts for them.
As for that fool that is the head of your country....bah, why waste the effort!
Just because you do not agree, does not make it untrue!
BTW, are you American? Iwas going to say Seppo, but it's obviously a touchy subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revelation

How are they false? Perhaps you believe everyone adores Americans? I was merely stating what folks in my particualr region call Americans. We hold no soft spot in our hearts for them.
As for that fool that is the head of your country....bah, why waste the effort!
Just because you do not agree, does not make it untrue!
BTW, are you American? Iwas going to say Seppo, but it's obviously a touchy subject.

---

Neither me, nor Papewaio are US citizens.

Perhaps it is common behaviour to insult people based on their nationality - on this board it isn't, and I expect you to respect these rules (which actually should not be considered "rules" but a matter of common courtesy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Work away Redleg , since when has Jewish lobbyists and interest groups consisted of all the Jews , since when has Isreal representedall the Jews , or for that matter since when have all Israelis been Jewish ?

Hence ....
Where has that been stated ?
Or are you making a generalisation ~:cheers:
Or wouldn't you describe the full quote
I hate generalization as well , but this was to make a point after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on
as a generalisation , even when he says he hates generalisation .

---

Just pointing out the statements there Tribesman when one gets to sarcastic in their comments - one begins to distort what has been stated and then misses the point of what the author was alluding to in his statement. You are attempting to argue sementics (SP) now by pointing out the word all to counter the individuals generalisation statement. However I did not see you attack Beruit's or Hurin's generalization statements earlier in the thread either. Are you attacking ceaser because his thoughts on the issue run contrary to your sarcasm.

Now if you just stick with the generalization arguement point - well then he would be incorrect - since he did use a generalization in pointing out other individuals generalizations. ( A little weak word play attempt there.)

Certain comments while not explicit in there statements allude to certain generalizations. For instance the statement - America is Israel's Bitch would generally mean that the country of Israel control the United States - because the term bitch - in the method Beriut used implies just that.

Then there is Hurin's statement - of But Jews and Israel do have power in America disproportionate to their population. His statement does indeed imply the generalization of all because that was how the statement was written and the context of the paragraph in which it was taken.

The complete post of Hurin's for the overall content of his statements.

Quote:

---

Christian interpretations of the bible do indeed state that the conversion of the Jews to Christianity will mark the onset of the last days and final judgement. In the Middle Ages, popes protected Jews, and one of the reasons was that they believed that if there were no Jews around, the prophesies of the last days could not be achieved. This belief continued in an unbroken line into modern times. It was still around when Cromwell decided to let some Jews back into England, and it is still around in many evangelical denominations today.

Is the whole Jewish cabbal thing exaggerated by Arab media? Surely. But Jews and Israel do have power in America disproportionate to their population. For one, the Jews in America tend to be far wealthier than their Arab counterparts, even when the odd oil-rich sheik is included, and far more prominent in the civil service and public interest organizations. Second, powerful Jewish lobby groups like Bnai Brith combine with disproportionate Jewish representation in the Film, television, newspaper and other forms of media:

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml

So no, there is no single, all-powerful 'Jewish lobby,' but Jews do have a degree of influence on American media far out of proportion to their population. Combine this with the religious views of the evangelicals and the US military's strategic alliance with Israel, and you have a nation of Israel that has much more power over the USA than one would expect.

---

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Work away Redleg , since when has Jewish lobbyists and interest groups consisted of all the Jews , since when has Isreal representedall the Jews , or for that matter since when have all Israelis been Jewish ?

Hence ....
Where has that been stated ?
Or are you making a generalisation ~:cheers:
Or wouldn't you describe the full quote
I hate generalization as well , but this was to make a point after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on
as a generalisation , even when he says he hates generalisation .

---

What ? the beer again , ha ?
You know , all the Irishmans like's it , and drinking it always , so they are always drunk... , that is what everybody is saying here in the wild East...

"All the "palestinians" are innocents" (well , think about it) :book:

AH , yes , jews , ireland
here it is -
Scapegoats & Swastikas





Seaghán Ó Murchú • 14 November 2004

In the Irish Independent, 12.11.2004, news of vandalism of Irish Jewish sites after the death of Yassir Arafat appeared. On the front wall of the Irish Jewish Museum on Dublin's South Circular Road, a black swastika was daubed. At the National War Memorial at Islandbridge, yellow paint was sprayed on the cross, altar, and memorials. Slogans urging 'Free Iraq', ''Traitors' and ''Burn in Hell' were written.

I know that many readers of The Blanket disagree with my own support for a two-state compromise. Palestinian solidarity committees in Dublin and Belfast receive coverage here frequently. I recall doggerel in the letters section musing how while the media cries at the incineration of Jewish youth on buses, it fails to bemoan the shooting of Palestinian children. My own contribution will not trumpet the 'whataboutery' so prevalent in Irish discourse as each side tallies its casualties. My admission that a mature reaction to the need for Israel and Palestine to reach an agreement to each let the other live does not equate with any more enthusiasm for the Sharon's Likud than the regimes of its Arab and Muslim neighbours. My acknowledgment remains a practical one. The British suggested Uganda and Hitler's cronies Madagascar, but these remain ludicrous. Nobody wanted the Jews, if Ireland's own response to the refugee crisis sixty years ago has shown. Now as then, those who rally behind a single Palestinian expanse appears to lose their voice as to where four million Jews would go. Or if they would still be around to drive out--this one more time. Perhaps the eagerness for an Endtime transcends born-again Christians?

The specious argument that Jews fared better in their Sephardic rather than their Ashkenazic diaspora depends upon the fact that both Christian and Muslim powers needed to keep them (those whom they did not 'convert' or crush in bursts of divine inspiration) intact for business manipulation, convenient targets of blame for economic downturns, and (as with the Coptic Christians in Egypt), a ready source of heavy taxation. Both the Koran and the Christian scriptures offer many more fulminations against the 'stiffnecked Jews' than they do professions of ecumenical harmony with the first 'people of the Book'. Jewish militancy, due to a definite disadvantage in pitting never more than its few million against now billions, may gain headlines but suffers from a certain historically proven underdog mentality. Those trying to take the Temple Mount were driven back by forces of that Jewish state; those vying for an Islamic theocracy have the support of not a few millenarian-deluded evangelicals and Jewish right-wingers, but over a billion believers. The condition of Palestine's people has been manipulated by not only Israel but by Arafat's cynicism and the Arab world's connivance. Darfur, the Congo, and the Hmong have all recently encountered genocide; lacking a (partially) European oppressor, they languish without an iconic gun-toter in a kafiyyeh or an Edward Said to publicise their plights. Instead, the hatred of much of the world focuses upon a scapegoat who its enemies want to lash out into the wilderness once and for all. No right of return. The Zionist entity's enemies only need to be lucky in war once, you know. If you wonder where the use of yellow, once again a chosen color when scrawled by thugs, originated as a marker of the condition of 'the Other' so fetishised by anti-Orientalists today, look not to Nuremberg but to the stars required in twelfth-century Baghdad.

In this age of fundamentalism from both religious and political extremes, we should take this time to, as Sam Harris proposes in his recent anti-religious polemic, The End of Faith (New York: Norton, 2004), remember what he suggests would put an end to all such acts perpetrated in the name of a fanaticism that harbours no room for compromise, tolerance, or diversity. He calls for an end to belief-based, unfounded rationalisations due to their very impossiblilty. Harris avers that if each of us told the truth to our children when they ask us questions, that this would eliminate hatred and cruelty committed in the name of surety, whether religiously or politically fueled.

Of course, the families of Palestinian suicide bombers cherish their own revealed truth, for their sons and daughters, husbands and wives believe in martyrdom, happy to destroy the lives of their fellow innocents, whether they follow Allah, Christ, Tanach, or a secular creed. Paradise can be found not by being killed but by killing. And, among the Israeli settlers who bring down their own terrible reign of fire as they insist on clinging to corners of a too small, too crowded land, their own smug assertions--often from those outside Israel--to claims three thousand years old ring shallow against those who watch their groves, farms, and homes bulldozed in the name of a triumphalist state. The stalemate depresses me, as does the news from Dublin. Neither side can justify its brutality, yet both sides act out of their concern for their children's future. Harris' utopian advice does not offer answers any easier to find than those within scripture--whether attributed to Marx or Moses, Mohammed or Mark.

This meditation, as I reflect upon one of the ultimate acts of desecration, that of another's ancestral burial site, revisits a perspective that many Irish republicans have lost sympathy with over the past thirty or forty years. The exceptions of future Lord Mayor of Dublin, Bob Briscoe, who aided the old IRA and then those fighting against the British for the establishment of Israel, and the Dublin and Cork Jewish families who harboured republicans during their own fight for independence against the same British a generation earlier, have given way to a more insular and stereotypical reaction--a legacy of first the Church and then anti-imperialist tendencies combined with pro-insurgent PLO alliances by many Irish--of the few Jews in Ireland as a dangerous presence.

Extensive evidence between swastika paraders and the Arabs who entertained the German presence during WWII, not to mention continued alliances between fascists and the Muslim Brotherhood after the war up to current far-right support for Muslim fundamentalists can be found in Martin A. Lee's The Beast Reawakens (Routledge, 1999). Irish antisemitism often merged with nativists in their shared antagonism to international financial control, and this blended in turn into fringe Irish-Ireland ultra-nationalist movements such as that joined by the father memorialised in Hugo Hamilton's 2003 memoir The Speckled People. The threat attributed to this 'alien' influence far exceeded its actual size. At their peak in the 1940s, Ireland's Jews numbered around 4,000--noted and quantified on the Nazi plans for the European reich's own one-state option; now less than a thousand remain.

The Limerick pogrom fueled by Redemptorist preachers in 1904, the invective hurled at Leopold Bloom by the Citizen in Joyce's Ulysses (based on GAA founder and noted nationalist Michael Cusack), the antisemitic stances publicly taken by nearly all entities and spokespeople for nationalists and republicans during the 'Emergency'', and the sympathy and ties--symbolic and practical--from the late 1960s embraced by republicans for Arab and Muslim extremism all document this habitual tendency to fight against suspected Jewish dominance. Those who respond with the Loyalist support for the Mogen David need not be alarmed. Their counter-reaction is very small, their factions tried to buy from Qaddafi in the 1970s too, and the impact of any Ulster influence has been cancelled in turn by strong antisemitic elements in the North that lurk among reactionaries. Unfortunately, here left and right again converge.

The vandalism against the cultural centre of the past Jewish community in Dublin, and at the memorial for those who fought in two wars that set up the conditions in which half of the Jews in the world were murdered--for those who see in the long-demonised caricature of 'the Jew' the epitome of capitalism, colonialism, and conspiracy--must please those who refuse to allow today's Jews even 1/300th of the territory controlled by Muslims today. The majority of Israel's Jews want a two-state solution. One state, it has been recently reasserted on behalf of the IRSP in The Blanket, is all the despised Zionists deserve, and the sooner demographics work to attain another Arab state in a Palestine where the name of Israel returns to the history from which 1948 revived its contested dominion, the better.

The contempt for Jewish lives comes, again, even to their few remnants in an Ireland where Ballyhaunis has nearly a thousand Muslims, where Belfast's mosque attracts the masses vs. the city's only surviving temple's couple of hundreds, and where halal (perhaps packed in Mayo) meat can be far more widely purchased than at Dublin's sole surviving kosher purveyor. True to the xenophobic fear of the Jewish presence, those who rally around its destruction must seek out whatever evidence exists, scant as it may be in Ireland. We call for a multicultural Ireland; the lessons of prejudice and persecution endured for centuries by its earliest non-Christian residents remain often ignored.

The wishes of the majority of Jews, outside and inside Israel, for a two-state system cannot be tolerated by those sure that their form of a deity tells them where to live. The few settlers in Israel capture much of the world's attention and scorn. Those who have, in the name of Hamas--which means literally 'chaos'--have obliterated thousands and who have in turn been hunted by Israeli weaponry, earn murals and schoolchildren's praise, and their surviving families rewards. Haven't Irish republicans learned from this morally bankrupt 'freedom struggle' not to condone and glorify the sacrifices of the young of another generation in another statelet? Luckily for Ireland, its own 'physical-force tradition' and the use of 'state terrorism' both played out their own wargames at least deprived of the biochemical and nuclear technologies within reach of the Mid-East's followers of scripture and manifesto.

If I am accused of contradiction as an Irish republican opposed to the GFA, this does not preclude my recognition of those advocating their own Ulster Britishism within a united Ireland. This cultural and political tolerance, contrarily, would not occur within a Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. The Jewish people would face a future within Palestine that would treat them again as a minority, as they were in Christian Europe and the Muslim empires. Subjugated, they would be forced to flee or fold. This is why a two-state answer becomes necessary, for survival of Muslims, Jews, and the region's dwindling Christian minority. Criticism of Israel should not result in calls for its own elimination.

What's left unsaid in all the carefully guarded, rhetorically sanitised eulogies for Arafat, with whom $300 million seems to have been spirited away from the Palestinian nation he claimed to cherish, is how he never gave up the aspiration that its surplus Jews would leave or be driven out of his one-state Palestine. When the swastika drips again from a Dublin wall, this only shows how ineradicable is this desire to bring back ethnic cleansing in the name of an ideology, and how committed Arafat and his cheerleaders across our fragile planet are to bringing about another Judenrein--not never, but once, again.

P.S. Read Dermot Keogh's Jews in Twentieth-Century Ireland (Cork UP: 1998) for context. Visit http:www.jewishireland.com for information on the Irish-Jewish community. Donate to the Irish Jewish Museum, 3/4 Walworth Rd, Dublin .

hhhmmmmm
self-righteousness all over again... (accuse the Jew for defending himself , and back home in dearest ireland...)

Scapegoats & Swastikas
Yes , and your point is ?????
If you want a more thourough investigation of anti-semitism in Ireland or any other country for that matter , then why not read the US State Dept. or the UN commisions annual reports , they contain far more information together with dates and analysis so you can get a better picture than by reading the article you posted .
Also what , if any relevance is this part
At the National War Memorial at Islandbridge, yellow paint was sprayed on the cross, altar, and memorials. Slogans urging 'Free Iraq', ''Traitors' and ''Burn in Hell' were written ?
Is that just to flesh out the article as the author coundn't find enough incidents to write about ?
I mean , for gods sake he includes two anti -semetic figures taken from works of fiction to back up his stance . ~:confused:

"All the "palestinians" are innocents"
Really , and where did you read that . ~D ~D ~D

BTW have you ever heard of a fellow called Chaim Hertzog ~;)

Redleg ;You are attempting to argue sementics (SP) now by pointing out the word all to counter the individuals generalisation statement.
No I was just amused by the fact that he had written "all" in bold letters in the initial post when quite clearly that assertion had not been made .

As you are highlighting Hurins statement , then this part ...
Is the whole Jewish cabbal thing exaggerated by Arab media? Surely.
is interesting . But then he has the rider ..
but Jews do have a degree of influence on American media far out of proportion to their population.
Which is true .
So he comes to the conclusion...
Combine this with the religious views of the evangelicals and the US military's strategic alliance with Israel, and you have a nation of Israel that has much more power over the USA than one would expect.
So what is wrong with his statement ?

Just to add Caesar perhaps the author of that article should visit Jewish Ireland . com as it seems he and they are in disagreement over certain "facts" . ~D ~D ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[
As you are highlighting Hurins statement , then this part ...
Is the whole Jewish cabbal thing exaggerated by Arab media? Surely.
is interesting . But then he has the rider ..
but Jews do have a degree of influence on American media far out of proportion to their population.
Which is true .
So he comes to the conclusion...
Combine this with the religious views of the evangelicals and the US military's strategic alliance with Israel, and you have a nation of Israel that has much more power over the USA than one would expect.
So what is wrong with his statement ?

---

Absolutely nothing major in my opinion - just pointing out that the wording implies the concept of all because of the generalized comments contained in the statement that I highlighted. Which was my point.

His statements have a mix of generalizations and spefics. If I would of just pointed out the generalization statements of his comments then I would have been as intellectually dishonest in my arguement that the generalization that ceaser pointed out and which you responded to in your oh so normal attempt at caustic sarcasm

after some people in the forum accused all the Jews to control the USoA , all the Jews as murders , all the Jews as thiefs and so on
Oh dear oh dear Ceasar
Where has that been stated ?
Or are you making a generalisation

Is any response forthcoming over my replies to you 10 questions ?

your oh so normal attempt at caustic sarcasm
Hey its the way I write here most of the time . I am even worse in real life .

I see your point though , a mixture of generalisation and specifics . It has caused many threads to derail in this forum .

Talking of specifics ...
Is any response forthcoming over my replies to you 10 questions ? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

your oh so normal attempt at caustic sarcasm
Hey its the way I write here most of the time . I am even worse in real life .

I see your point though , a mixture of generalisation and specifics . It has caused many threads to derail in this forum .

---

Yes it does - and normally leads them to be closing.

Quote:

---

Talking of specifics ...
Is any response forthcoming over my replies to you 10 questions ? ~;)

---

ceaser is going to have to answer them on his on. Since I just wanted to :duel: a little

Personally I think Israel is a decent ally but not irreplaceable in the strategic aspects of its location. They are definately better then say the double-dealing house of Saud.

About the 10 "answers" , there is no point to argue about it , I gave 10 facts and you gave 10 theories , I respect it (really) but again , if someone is seeing (in CNN , NBC , ABC , CBS , BBC , SKI and so on) a helicopter bombing and not seeing a holly warrior exploding , there is no room for a debate .
it is so simple , your perspective is so far from ours
Again , I ask only this , open your mind , solve your own country problems before you take a stand as a new jesus , don't make accusations against groups of people , there is 12,000,000 Jews on earth , some of them are blacks , some of them are blonds , some of them are bad , some of them are good , some of them are smart , some of them are stupid , hei , exactly as the irish , and I hope (and is is hard) as the palestinians

Let me sum up with the most popular word in hebrew - "SHALOM" , that is peace , and belive me , getting out of Gasa is a huge step for achieving it
:book:

gave 10 facts and you gave 10 theories ,
But Caesar some of your "facts" don't even stand up under the briefest scrutiny , if you want to go into detail using historical official documentation to try and support your theories then feel free .
(in CNN , NBC , ABC , CBS , BBC , SKI and so on)
Should you make assumptions about where people get their information from ~;) As I have found with another member on this subject , it is often far more advantageous to use Israeli Government and Zionist sources to dispel certain myths that are passed off as facts .

solve your own country problems
Any proposals on how to sort out that mess would be very welcome ~:cheers:
don't make accusations against groups of people
Where did I do that ? Criticism of the Israeli government or individuals is not the same as a general criticism of all people of the Jewish faith or Israelis any more than critcism of George Bush is a general criticism of all things American .
You know yourself that there is a fairly large movement in Israel in favour of disengagement just as there is a fairly large movement in favour of further expansion and consolidation

getting out of Gasa is a huge step for achieving it
It is a small step (but also a giant leap), but since gaza will be dominated by one Palestinian faction and the west bank dominated by another it will lead to some more problems without contignuity of territory and authority . plus , if I could point you back to president Trumans quote that I used , the underdog will become just as bad as its former oppressor . As in any similar situation the moderates will be pushed aside and the fanatics come to the fore . Whereas at the moment the fanatics are only to the fore when it comes to headlines and violence .

Shalom