12
   

Israel's Shame

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 09:36 am
@BillRM,
Then, why do you approve of the Zionists doing so?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 09:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
Another 'incident' of Jews killing children.
Quote:
Palestinian official says 10 people, including children, killed in strike on park in Gaza


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 10:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Then, why do you approve of the Zionists doing so?


If the choice is killing the enemies women and children who are being placed on top of military targets as a shield and allowing your own women and children to remain at risk then sadly you take those military targets out.

Unlike the Israels the Palestinians consider their own women and children as pawns who can be used as shields.

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 11:09 am
@BillRM,
As far as I know even the Nazis did not try to protected their V1 and V2 launch sites using women or children or prisons of war.

So at least in that very very limited regards the Nazis are proven more honorable then the Palestinians.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 11:12 am
@BillRM,
Pawns at gun point? What makes you think they have the freedom from Hamas to do as they please? Where do you expect the Palestinians to hide when the Jews bombs hospitals, schools, and parks?

You're so screwed up in the head, you need medical help.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 11:57 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:


I did not see this post of yours immediately, Finn dAbuzz,commenting on CI and my patronizing the ladies room together.


And I didn't see this post of yours immediately, Moment-in Time, commenting on my comment on CI and you patronizing the ladies room together.

Quote:
Firstly, my message was not exclusively for CI but in a roundabout way to the board which includes JTT.....this is a public forum is it not?!


Ahh, I see. You meant to invite everyone but JTT into the Girls Room with you and CI.

Quote:
Secondly, I realize you were being facetious by suggesting CI and I were "bitiching in the girl's room" together, but I find your remarks suggestive of one possessing a painfully closed mind.


So, expressing my aversion to "gang-bashing" is suggestive of a "painfully closed mind?" Darn, I really should expand my perspective and reconsider joining in with 7th Grade behavior.

Quote:
You appear to be quite the fluent writer, yet so much within your posts ring empty, false. You come across as thoroughly disingenuous. For some unexplained reason your board persona frightens me....call it animal instinct. ....Normally I don't bother to read your posts....I like it that way..... but since you made remarks regarding CI and me, I felt strongly the need to reciprocate.


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would find what I write to be empty and false; in fact I'm quite pleased you do. Considering the opinions you, generally, express, I would be alarmed if you found me to be a kindred spirit. Being frightened of any on-line persona is feeble enough, but to be frightened of mine is truly pathetic. I guess you have the animal instincts of a mouse. ( I suspect a parrot is far more courageous)

Quote:
Once again, have a good life.


You too, but try not to be so afraid of people with whom you disagree.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Whoops! I thought I had you on ignore. My bad. There is no room for you in my posting world.
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:20 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Then, why do you approve of the Zionists doing so?


If the choice is killing the enemies women and children who are being placed on top of military targets as a shield and allowing your own women and children to remain at risk then sadly you take those military targets out.

Unlike the Israels the Palestinians consider their own women and children as pawns who can be used as shields.




"Pawns" is just a euphemism for "expendable," in my opinion. If Hamas does not value the lives of their civilians, why would any enemy value Hamas' civilians more than their own? Some people don't make sense, unless of course there is a double standard for Israelis (aka, Jews).
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:21 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

As far as I know even the Nazis did not try to protected their V1 and V2 launch sites using women or children or prisons of war.

So at least in that very very limited regards the Nazis are proven more honorable then the Palestinians.


Plus, Germans adopted western style democracy very well. Can Palestinians adopt western style democracy?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Pawns at gun point? What makes you think they have the freedom from Hamas to do as they please? Where do you expect the Palestinians to hide when the Jews bombs hospitals, schools, and parks?

You're so screwed up in the head, you need medical help.


American "Jews" are bombing Palestinians?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:25 pm
@Foofie,
You wrote,
Quote:
American "Jews" are bombing Palestinians?


And you arrived at this conclusion how? Your imagination is a terrible thing when you think up ideas that is found nowhere else! Your ability to accuse me of nothing I ever said proves your own ignorance. You must be a 'proud' Jew - an American Jew.
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
American "Jews" are bombing Palestinians?


And you arrived at this conclusion how? Your imagination is a terrible thing when you think up ideas that is found nowhere else! Your ability to accuse me of nothing I ever said proves your own ignorance. You must be a 'proud' Jew - an American Jew.


I am secular. I am not proud about anything. I am grateful, and consider myself fortunate that I am a native born American. I am also grateful that America is a great Protestant nation, since in my opinion, only Protestants value the presence of Jews. Catholics, in my opinion, have a long history of thinking they are expendable. Not all Catholics, but a large percentage, in my opinion.

I was questioning your use of the word Jew, since when Americans bombed Nagasaki, no one said Christians bombed Japan. You don't seem to refer to Israelis, as Israelis. The fact that many Israelis are Jews is just the problem that Arabs have. If all of Israel were Muslims, I do not think the Palestinians would care who was building settlements, etc. It all comes down to the inability to allow for diversity of religions in the middle east.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 02:45 pm
@Foofie,
Your whole schmear of mumbo jumbo makes no sense. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists 'support' all other religions. Atheists tolerate all religions, and do not hate anyone for their religious belief. It's what any group does that is antisocial and inhumane that most atheists are against. As for some extremist group in any religion, that can also be found within cultures.

The majority of Muslim countries live in peace with other religious sects.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 03:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:

Absolutely, Israel is an ethnocracy.


To the extent that only members of one ethnic group can expect to hold the reins of power, I agree, but this is matter of demographics, not codified exclusion. There are no laws on the book that prohibit an Israeli-Arab from being elected to the PM position. As you know, there are Israeli-Arab members of the Knesset There are 12 current members and 57 past members (Two of whom were members of Likud). Five Israeli-Arabs have served as Deputy Knesset Speaker, and two have served as Ministers in former Israeli governments. Only three of the current members are members of the United Arab List and the rest are not all members of anti-Zionist parties as one might expect. It will be a long time before an Israeli Arab hold a major position in the government, but it is not impossible. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ever resolved peacefully, I don't think it's at all far fetched to imagine an Israeli-Arab holding heading a major ministry, or even making it to PM.


It's rather simplistic to suggest that ethnocentrism manifest itself solely through laws barring inclusion of minority members in a state's government.

In regard to Israel, ethnocentism is why the Israelis refuse to honor the Palestinians' Right of Return, so as to maintain a demographic majority of Jews in Israel, as I've already pointed out.


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Refusing the Palestinians the Right of Return is necessary to maintain Israel as a “Jewish state,” as the Zionists see it, because of the loss of a demographic majority of Jews therein. To them, to lose that majority is to destroy “the Jewish state.”

As long as the Palestinians demand it I disagree that refusing them their Right of Return is not oppression. Sure, they can opt to waive that right, but as long as they claim it, and the Zionists refuse, it is oppression. If they waive their right then the problem of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people would become moot.


Well, you have a very broad definition of "oppression," with which very reasonable people can disagree. If African-Americans in the US demanded "reparations" as a "right," would it be an act of oppression for the US government to deny it? Groups around the world demand all sorts of "rights." Is it always an act of "oppression" to refuse to grant them what they demand? And if no, what makes the Right of Return different?


What makes the Right of Return so different is that it is granted through various international resolutions and treaties.

Sure, you argue that these resolutions and treaties are irrelevant, but that only holds until states argue otherwise when they're convenient to their own ends, e.g. the US’ pointing to UN resolutions as a pretext for its invasion of Iraq.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
People are entitled to their beliefs. People are not entitled to discriminate or oppress. The Zionists can believe that they have the right to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel by oppressing the Palestinian people through denial of their right, they do not have the right to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel by oppressing the Palestinian people through denial of their right.


I agree with you that there is no valid concept of a right to oppress, but I don't believe we necessarily agree on what constitutes "oppression."


You haven't explained your concept of what constitutes "oppression."


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Europe is a prime example of the problems of ethnocentricity. They have issues with the ideas of nationality and ethnicity that result in discrimination against their minorities. The states are democratic but also suffer, in various ways from country to country, from systematic discrimination against their minorities in the form of policies that resemble those of the Southern states of the US before the civil rights movement and attitudes that result in de facto segregation and discrimination.


It appears that you answered my question as to whether or not European countries with ethnic majorities are undemocratic in the negative. As I wrote, every nation with ethnic minorities have, to one degree or the other, related difficulties. I think you would agree that not all minority complaints are legitimate, but apparently those that are (in Europe, at least) do not render the nation de facto undemocratic. So, in theory at least, a "Jewish State" need not be undemocratic. Sweden may not call itself a "Swedish State," but as the majority of key positions in governmental, industrial and cultural institutions are Swedish, it is, in practical terms, a "Swedish State." I agree that it would be an undemocratic Swedish State" if there were laws prohibiting Swedish citizens who were members of any other ethnic group form holding these positions (or not being admitted to college, or being able to vote etc). As far as I can tell, (and I'm open to being corrected if you can prove otherwise) , Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel are not subject to these sort of legal restrictions.


Again, yours is a simplistic take on what constitutes ethnocentrism.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
A Kurdish state would be ethnocentric if its policies would lead to discrimination and oppression of non-Kurds therein.


Here again, I think you have an expansive definition of "ethnocentric." I can practically guarantee you that the average Kurd (or at least a majority of them) believe that the Kurdish culture is superior to others. It's always a matter of degree with these sentiments. Taking pride in one's culture or feeling it generally "superior" to all others is very common throughout the world, and I would argue it is the norm. However there is a world of difference between Nazi ethnocentrisim, and Americans who believe they live in the "greatest country in the world." One can feel one's culture is to one extent or the other superior to someone else's without oppressing or illegally or immorally discriminating against them. It may irritate or amuse at Turks living in "Kurdistan" that Kurds feel their culture superior to to the Turkish culture, but they don't have a case for "oppression" as long as they are not being significantly disadvantaged by Kurdish ethnocentrism (realistically, we cannot include such impacts as being denied the local banker's daughter's hand in marriage because one is a Turk as a serious disadvantage).

It might be wonderful if people all over the world didn't feel superior to others or focus on differences instead of similarities, but the chances of this happening any time soon are nil, and the impact is not, at all, always significant.


We're not speaking about the marriages of bankers' daughters when we talk about ethnocentrism on an offical state level, however. Your red herring notwithstanding.

It manifests itself in forms such as Iraq's Maliki effecting policies that discriminate against the minorities in Iraq and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
You sure are making a lot of assumptions.

You’re forgetting that not all Palestinians are Muslim, and the major Palestinian liberation movement, from which the Palestinian Authority derives, is nationalistic in nature and has a history of socialistic governmental ideals. A member of Fatah, Uri Davis, is Jewish. The unification effort can lead to the mitigation of the religionism of Hamas and the Islamic factions, seeing as how the unification agreement calls for the appointment of technocrats to head the government before elections are held.

The Israelis tolerate the religionism of the Haredi and aren’t leaving Israel en masse because of their influence.

I would think that the people of a bi-national, single-state Israel would effect laws that would ensure religious freedom and tolerance.

If Jews were to leave Israel within this scenario, so what?


You are right that I have made a number of assumptions but then so have you. In one sense its simply a matter of whose assumptions are based on stronger foundations, but for Israelis it's an existential concern. If your assumptions are correct and the unification process sufficiently tempers the Islamist dynamic of Hamas, and a Palestinian majority is desirous of and intent upon the establishment of a democratic state where religious freedom is valued and protected and the Israeli minority is not "oppressed," Israelis might have a difficult time offering a reasonable argument against a single state Israel with a Palestinian majority. If Jews left under such a scenario it would likely be because they didn't like being "in charge" and I don't know that that's what Zionism is truly about. However if your assumptions are wrong, and mine are right, they will have invited the wolves into the flock. Mine may be overly tinged with cynicism, but yours are too optimistic. Given the history of Jews in this world, they have no reason to be optimistic about how any other group will treat them, let alone a people with whom they have been, to one extent or the other, at war for the last 100 years.


The experience of Jews in the US and other parts of the world gives the lie to your slippery slope fallacy.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
What exactly do you mean by Israel remaining a Jewish State if not the maintenance of a Jewish majority there?


Your response seems to indicate you believe that should the Right of Return be granted, it is a foregone conclusion that Jews will (eventually) no longer be in the majority. I agree which is why I suggested it was an impossible hypothetical, but was just trying to gauge the extent of your antipathy to the concept of a "Jewish State."


You skirted the question.


I don't think I did. Israel won't be a "Jewish State" without a Jewish majority, anymore than Sweden would be a "Swedish State" without a Swedish majority. The hypothetical that gave rise to your question was forced and the scenario it described, impossible. There are not many nations in the world that can sustain massive demographic changes based on ethnicity and maintain their historical identities. America may be one because there is no ethnic group that has been in the majority for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but if Swedes, the French, the Japanese etc became the ethnic minorities in a only several generations, the character of their nations would change dramatically. It would not necessarily represent disasters, but certainly it is not something any of these peoples are hoping for, and it's one of the reasons right-wing parties are gaining traction in Europe.


These are problems that arise when ideas of nationality and ethnicity are intertwined and migrants are taken in in large numbers. In regard to the birthrates in some of these European countries, the minorities will reach majorities within a few generations much like what is happening in the US.

Israel's problem is that it excludes the majority of the indigenous population of Palestine and maintains them in restricted concentration camps in order to maintain this Jewish identity. I don't know what you call it. I call it oppression.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 03:55 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Try to be honest for once.


In other words:

Quote:
Agree with me and admit you are a racist who delights in the deaths of children.


Pardon me, but I don't think I will izzy.

I've no reason to doubt Unicef's count and it is tragic that even one child, whether Palestinian or Israeli should die as a result of this or any other of the numerous conflicts taking place on this planet. It is an all too common practice of yours to twist the statements of others and present them as evidence of a horrid characteristic of the people with whom you disagree, and if there isn't a comment that is even remotely susceptible to your warping you have no problem in creating one that never existed.

I would challenge you to provide your evidence for the charges you level such as that I delight in the death of children, but I know you would ignore the challenge as you have in the past.

You challenged my assertion that you would like to maintain this thread as a bulletin board for hyperbolic criticism of Israel and those who support it, and off the number of Palestinian children killed in the conflict as somehow representative of the comments you have been posting. Unlike you, I don't need to shrink from offering evidence:

izzythepush wrote:
You have to realise that as far as BillRM is concerned the Israeli soldier is living the dream. He can rape torture and murder children with impunity, and if anyone tries to stop him they're a terrorist.


izzythepush wrote:
The Palestinians biggest crime is being there, and as long as they stay there they will be bombed by planes and used for target practice by Israeli soldiers.


izzythepush wrote:
Don't compare our stand against the Nazis with the fascists oppressing the indigenous population.


izzythepush wrote:
Civilians are illegally detained, denied medical treatment and spat on every day. There are numerous cases of pregnant women dying on the way to hospital because they've been detained at checkpoints.


izzythepush wrote:
You're a fine one to talk about selective empathy, the only people you empathise with are rapists, paedophiles and racist murderers.


izzythepush wrote:
Considering you said the Palestinians should do absolutely nothing and Israel should be given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, it's clear you have no place talking about humanity.


izzythepush wrote:
What is it you love about Israel, like BillRM do you get off on the dead children, or is it because Israeli terrorists kidnapped, tortured and murdered British servicemen? I bet that's it.


izzythepush wrote:
Finn makes a big song and dance about 1 Israeli while the deaths of 200+ Palestinians leave him cold, if not gloating like Oralboy.


izzythepush wrote:
35 newborn babies killed by Israeli soldiers.


izzythepush wrote:
BillRM has a very primitive mind as is evidenced by his garbled attempt at language. If you'd read many of his posts you'd know that compassion doesn't come into it, (unless you're a sex offender.) He cannot comprehend anyone feeling for fellow human beings suffering a brutal occupation. So his monochromatic mind switches to something he does understand, hate. He just assumes everyone critical of Israel hates Jews like he hates African Americans. Not only does he not want to know the truth of what's going on, he is incapable of understanding what's going on. He just sees the world in black and white.


izzythepush wrote:
They definitely do not have the right to force women to give birth at checkpoints resulting in the deaths of newborn babies and mothers.


izzythepush wrote:
What sort of sick nation could ever view a woman in labour as a terrorist threat?


izzythepush wrote:
Israel has always targeted innocent Palestinians


izzythepush wrote:
The Israelis are the mass murderers. The Israelis are acting just like the Nazis did when they stormed the Warsaw ghetto.


izzythepush wrote:
Whenever BillRM is asked why is prose is so terribly bad, (whether or not he's had a stroke, early stage Atzheimers or some sort of brain injury,) he shuts right up.

That's quite something for someone with a pathological need to get the last word. Whatever it is, not only has it affected the centre of the brain that deals with speech it affects that part that deals with morality.


izzythepush wrote:
With BillRM the only morality is might, and that makes the Palestinians, like abused children, and rape victims guilty.


And then there are the contributions of Usman, EYC, and your anti-Semitic pals, CI and MIT. Wouldn't want my discussion with InfraBlue to divert attention away from these gems:

EYC wrote:
Netanyahu like Sharon before him is a psychopath.


EYC wrote:
You are empty of empathy you psychopath.


"EYC" wrote:
You cannot comprehend these feelings, they're alien to you and that's a fact.


Usman wrote:
Israel is the biggest terrorist organization.


CI wrote:
NEVER AGAIN is about as inhumane as the holocaust were to the Jews of Germany and Poland, and that was over 50 years ago.


CI wrote:
You can't even rationalize simple concepts in your calcified brain. When did you brain die? LOL


CI wrote:
Zionists may think they are superior, but only in terms in their ability to kill more innocent Palestinians.


MIT wrote:
What we are witnessing is the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians by the Israelis, a hybrid consequence of Hitler's mass kill of European Jews. The survivors, led by seemingly crazed Israeli leaders intent on "never again" are creating a world in which only the Jewish people are worth being saved. The Israeli leaders are killing as many Palestinians as they feel like killing, with no remorse.


IMT wrote:
The average American doesn't spend their quality time thinking about Israel with the Holocaust happening over 60 years ago, two generations later. But Israel keeps the Holocaust alive as if it happened yesterday in the minds of many unlearned Americans, especially the religious susceptible who believe there is something blessed and godlike with respect to the Jews.


It's quite a body of work.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 03:56 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Bye bye
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 04:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I agree; it's quite a 'body of work,' when one can understand what they all mean.
You claim killing of children is wrong, but you don't have the capacity to say what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is wrong. Do you know how many children the Jews have killed thus far?

Quote:
9 things the American media isn't telling you about Israel ...
Mondoweiss ‎- 7 hours ago
Since 2000, approximately 1,500 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli security forces. That's one child every three days for thirteen years. Within that same time period, Palestinians have killed 132 Israeli children....


You wouldn't understand humanity and compassion if your life depended on it!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 04:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You can't handle the truth so you dismiss it.


I stand by everything I've written. You've taken it all out of context to prove a point, and to stop people talking about Gaza.

Why do you casually dismiss the deaths of so many children? Why do you swallow everything Israel says without question?

It's because you like to be an ostrich.

Just to comment on some of the things I've written.

Quote:
You're a fine one to talk about selective empathy, the only people you empathise with are rapists, paedophiles and racist murderers.



To BillRM. Look at the rape thread, at every opportunity BillRM blames the victim, sympathises with the perpetrator. He tries to redefine rape as "real rape" and other rape. Despite the fact that most rapes go unreported, he typifies most rapes as resulting from a drunk woman regretting a night of passion and making the whole thing up.

He described someone caught watching graphic child pornography as a "useful member of society," and he sympathised with convicted child abusers Max Clifford and Stuart Hall, saying their cases should never have come to court due to the fact that most of their crimes happened in the 1970s. He tries to portray watching child pornography as a victimless crime. Not once has he shown an ounce of sympathy for the children.

And he's been an enthusiastic supporter of Trayvon Martin's killer.

Quote:
35 newborn babies killed by Israeli soldiers.


This sums up everything that's wrong with you. 35 newborn babies were killed by Israeli soldiers, but that's not what's wrong as far as your concerned. What's wrong is that I dare point it out.

I notice that none of my quotations have links so people can see the context in which they were written, and more importantly the evidence that 35 newborn babies were killed by Israeli soldiers, amongst other things..

You're the worst type of liar, taking things out of context in order to deceive, just like the Devil. And like the Devil you'd rather argue about how things are reported than what's actually going on.

You're quite a piece of work.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2014 05:36 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
The West has been bribing the Pakistani regime with massive "foreign aid" to keep them sweet and friendly, but friendly regimes have a habit of changing for less friendly ones further down the line, and when that happens they'll hand out freebie nukes around the muslim world.

Pakistan is going to keep all their nukes for themselves.


Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Iran has built several nuke reactors but they say "We're not making nukes with them, honest", so Obama said "That's alright then, carry on!".

If Iran does not agree to dismantle their illegal nuclear weapons program, Obama will bomb them.

The US does not object to reactors that are part of a civilian electrical power program.


Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Chubbychops who runs Nth Korea has got nukes,

He's also got crushing global sanctions.


Romeo Fabulini wrote:
so has "Adolf" Putin,

Russia is allowed by treaty to have nuclear weapons.


Romeo Fabulini wrote:
so it's just a matter of time before muslims get them too, one way or another

No one who doesn't already have them is going to get them.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2014 08:34 am
Quote:
Oralloy said about nuke weapons: No one who doesn't already have them is going to get them.

There's an old saying in warfare- "Expect the unexpected".
9/11 was a classic example, and so was Pearl Harbor.
Gen. Billy Mitchell had warned the American top brass 16 years before PH, but they chose to ignore him, thinking it could never happen-
"A Pacific war would start with a Japanese air and sea attack upon the U.S. military bases at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands"- Maj. Gen Billy Mitchell 1925
http://liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/major-general-billy-mitchells-1925.html


and it's no secret muslims dream of getting their hands on nukes.
Osama Bin Laden responded to the question "are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?" with this reply-
"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." Bin Laden in Time Magazine Dec 1998
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Israel's Shame
  3. » Page 29
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 04:58:40