tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 04 Jan 2009 10:19:20
From: Stapler
Subject: Israel - where do you stand?
Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.

(a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army

or

(b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like Hamas




 
Date: 06 Jan 2009 03:14:04
From: Alessandro
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
Stapler wrote:

> Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> or
>
> (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like
> Hamas

more or less a)


 
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:20:10
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> or
>
> (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like Ha=
mas

Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
non-violent nations on Earth these days.



  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 22:12:34
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 7, 4:30=A0am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:26=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:29:39 -0800 (PST), Fan
>
> > <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jan 6, 3:53=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 6, 1:31=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > >> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > >> > > > or
>
> > >> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the N=
azi-like Hamas
>
> > >> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are th=
e only
> > >> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > >> > This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
> > >> > tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>
> > >> > I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent.=
Its
> > >> > followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
> > >> > anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-viole=
nt
> > >> > and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destructi=
on
> > >> > of others.
>
> > >> Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
> > >> fucking ignorant Nigger.
>
> > >We call them African-Americans and we elected one of them to be our
> > >President.
> > >Show a little respect you ignorant little racist Indian monkey.
>
> > >> > Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
> > >> > monkey, as long as you behave.-
>
> > niggers don't have to be black. whisper is a good example.
>
> And Fan and his nigger brother Steven JarROAST.

Enough monkey chattering - have a banana :)



  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:30:30
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 6, 9:26=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:29:39 -0800 (PST), Fan
>
>
>
> <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 3:53=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 1:31=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> >> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> >> > > > or
>
> >> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Naz=
i-like Hamas
>
> >> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the =
only
> >> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> >> > This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
> >> > tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>
> >> > I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. I=
ts
> >> > followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
> >> > anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
> >> > and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
> >> > of others.
>
> >> Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
> >> fucking ignorant Nigger.
>
> >We call them African-Americans and we elected one of them to be our
> >President.
> >Show a little respect you ignorant little racist Indian monkey.
>
> >> > Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
> >> > monkey, as long as you behave.-
>
> niggers don't have to be black. whisper is a good example.

And Fan and his nigger brother Steven JarROAST.



  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 19:30:06
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 6, 11:29=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 3:53=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 1:31=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > > or
>
> > > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi=
-like Hamas
>
> > > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the o=
nly
> > > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > > This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
> > > tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>
> > > I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. It=
s
> > > followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
> > > anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
> > > and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
> > > of others.
>
> > Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
> > fucking ignorant Nigger.
>
> We call them African-Americans and we elected one of them to be our
> President.

I wasnt talking about them. I was talking about u. Do you know Nigger
=3D Ignorant? I guess not.

> Show a little respect you ignorant little racist Indian monkey.

The only race I am racist to is the Dumbass Race. You clearly are one
prime example of it.

>
> > > Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
> > > monkey, as long as you behave.-



  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:29:39
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 6, 3:53=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:31=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > or
>
> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-l=
ike Hamas
>
> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the onl=
y
> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
> > tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>
> > I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. Its
> > followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
> > anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
> > and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
> > of others.
>
> Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
> fucking ignorant Nigger.

We call them African-Americans and we elected one of them to be our
President.
Show a little respect you ignorant little racist Indian monkey.

> > Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
> > monkey, as long as you behave.-


   
Date: 07 Jan 2009 03:26:21
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:29:39 -0800 (PST), Fan
<TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 6, 3:53 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 1:31 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 5, 11:20 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 4, 4:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>>
>> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>>
>> > > > or
>>
>> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like Hamas
>>
>> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
>> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>>
>> > This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
>> > tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>>
>> > I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. Its
>> > followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
>> > anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
>> > and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
>> > of others.
>>
>> Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
>> fucking ignorant Nigger.
>
>We call them African-Americans and we elected one of them to be our
>President.
>Show a little respect you ignorant little racist Indian monkey.
>
>> > Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
>> > monkey, as long as you behave.-


niggers don't have to be black. whisper is a good example.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 07:29:23
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 6, 8:59=A0am, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 5:28=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:22=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On =A05-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > > or
>
> > > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi=
-like
> > > > > Hamas
>
> > > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the o=
nly
> > > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > > Christianity is non-violent? =A0Maybe in principle but not in practic=
e....
>
> > There is one nut-case country US which is involved in war all the
> > time. But most of Europe and Oceania is peaceful (well at least these
> > days). I think you can count Africa out.
>
> > If you leave out Christianity, then Hinduism and Buddhism are
> > definitely non violent. India has never invaded any country yet, not
> > even those a-holes Pakistan
>
> they should nuke pukisthan the motherfuckers??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep at least the terrorist infested areas. There will be some
collateral damage, but it will be worth it. And the added bonus will
be Bin Laden might be dead as well.


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 06:59:18
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 5:28=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:22=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On =A05-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > or
>
> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-l=
ike
> > > > Hamas
>
> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the onl=
y
> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > Christianity is non-violent? =A0Maybe in principle but not in practice.=
...
>
> There is one nut-case country US which is involved in war all the
> time. But most of Europe and Oceania is peaceful (well at least these
> days). I think you can count Africa out.
>
> If you leave out Christianity, then Hinduism and Buddhism are
> definitely non violent. India has never invaded any country yet, not
> even those a-holes Pakistan

they should nuke pukisthan the motherfuckers??


  
Date: 06 Jan 2009 06:53:51
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 6, 1:31=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > or
>
> > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-lik=
e Hamas
>
> > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
> > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
> tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.
>
> I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. Its
> followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
> anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
> and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
> of others.

Nowhere in Hinduism there is any preach of hate and destruction, you
fucking ignorant Nigger.

>
> Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
> monkey, as long as you behave.



  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 23:31:23
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 11:20=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > or
>
> > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like =
Hamas
>
> Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
> non-violent nations on Earth these days.

This is your big chance to shine my little monkey. Your task is to
tell us the name of the non-violent religion or sect.

I heard that one religion or sect in India is totally non-violent. Its
followers respect all life and do not consume any meat or kill
anything. Of all the religions, I consider them the only non-violent
and deserving of respect. All the others preach hate and destruction
of others.

Name and describe that religion or sect and I stop calling you a
monkey, as long as you behave.



  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:50:22
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 4:44=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A05-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:22=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On =A05-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > > or
>
> > > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the
> > > > > Nazi-like
> > > > > Hamas
>
> > > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the o=
nly
> > > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> > > Christianity is non-violent? =A0Maybe in principle but not in practic=
e....
>
> > There is one nut-case country US which is involved in war all the
> > time. But most of Europe and Oceania is peaceful (well at least these
> > days). I think you can count Africa out.
>
> > If you leave out Christianity, then Hinduism and Buddhism are
> > definitely non violent. India has never invaded any country yet, not
> > even those a-holes Pakistan
>
> What about the religion of Wimbledon?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tennis dont matter.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:28:36
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 4:22=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A05-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > or
>
> > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-lik=
e
> > > Hamas
>
> > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
> > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
>
> Christianity is non-violent? =A0Maybe in principle but not in practice...=
.

There is one nut-case country US which is involved in war all the
time. But most of Europe and Oceania is peaceful (well at least these
days). I think you can count Africa out.

If you leave out Christianity, then Hinduism and Buddhism are
definitely non violent. India has never invaded any country yet, not
even those a-holes Pakistan




   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 22:44:28
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?

On 5-Jan-2009, Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 5, 4:22 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On  5-Jan-2009, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 4, 4:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
> >
> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
> >
> > > > or
> >
> > > > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the
> > > > Nazi-like
> > > > Hamas
> >
> > > Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
> > > non-violent nations on Earth these days.
> >
> > Christianity is non-violent?  Maybe in principle but not in practice....
>
> There is one nut-case country US which is involved in war all the
> time. But most of Europe and Oceania is peaceful (well at least these
> days). I think you can count Africa out.
>
> If you leave out Christianity, then Hinduism and Buddhism are
> definitely non violent. India has never invaded any country yet, not
> even those a-holes Pakistan

What about the religion of Wimbledon?


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 22:22:49
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?

On 5-Jan-2009, Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 4, 4:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
> >
> > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
> >
> > or
> >
> > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like
> > Hamas
>
> Both are cunts. I say Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are the only
> non-violent nations on Earth these days.

Christianity is non-violent? Maybe in principle but not in practice....


 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 02:27:06
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army

The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.

> or
>
> (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like Ha=
mas

Palestinians defending their country against the Jew Nazi invaders are
not Nazis.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 23:19:05
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 7:39=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:28=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 7:11=A0pm, dixon <raymondanderso...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Jan, 00:37, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > > >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
> > > > >> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each oth=
er.
>
> > > > >> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh n=
ow.
>
> > > > >Dave your a real douchebag.
>
> > > > Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>
> > > > Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
> > > > people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
> > > > douchebag pal.
>
> > > This is the first time that I responded to a non Steffi post, But I
> > > have to agree with Mr Hazelwood [for once] =A0The palestinians had th=
eir
> > > country taken away from
> > > them in 1947. So it is the fuckin ikee mo's that are at fault =A0And =
by
> > > the way STAPLER your a fuckin wanker.
>
> > A lot of people consider the creation of Israel a necessary evil. They
> > hoped that the Jews would get along with their neighbors after an
> > initial period of hostilities. Zionist may be the proper definition
> > for those who want to give Jews a country of their own and the Jews
> > who desire their homeland.
> > These Jew Nazis or Zionazis are worse than the German Nazis were. They
> > are not satisfied with the UN mandate and want to push the
> > Palestinians out and steal all of their land. They will stop at
> > nothing to achieve their goal, even the genocide of Palestinians. If
> > we have any humanity, we will resist the Jew Nazis and restore some
> > sanity to the Middle East.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I still don't understand how Israel's current actions are *worse* than
> what the Nazis did.
>
> 6 million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the
> Holocaust.

In some European countries it is a crime to dispute the 6 million
figure but not in the US. If you pay attention how they try to paint
the Gaza slaughter as if it were a reasonable self-defense, you will
have to wonder about their claims about the 6 million also. I suspect
that it is a big lie.

> That's a bit tough to top in terms of atrocities, no?

Only if you believe their lies. Another thing to consider is that the
Jew Nazis have been murdering the Arabs and Palestinians for nearly
sixty years. The Iraqi war is a Jew Nazi war for Israel and the
casualties of that war number well over a million. These we know. We
know nothing for sure about Jewish claims because in Europe it is a
crime to disagree with them.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:35:58
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 5 Jan, 23:04, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:

> I didn't realize I was talking specifically about nuclear weapons. I'm
> sure the mothers of children killed by discotec bombers have nuclear
> proliferation as their #1 concern.

You asked me to provide evidence of an imaginary threat to Israel. I
did exactly that using the No.1 source of data about Iran's nuclear
program: the International Atomic Energy Agency who have been
continuously monitoring Iran's nuclear program for 6 years. Nice
evasion by dropping in the mention of suicide bombers. As wrong as
suicide bombers clearly are, the actual chances of being killed by a
suicide bomber or by a Hamas rocket are less than dying in a car crash
in Israel. The threat, although it clearly exists, is exagerrated and
doesn't warrant the endless hysteria that it generates in Israel. To
listen to the Israeli media and public in general, you'd think that
the Hamas rockets were another holocaust....This is what I mean -
Israel has lost all sense of perspective and views every problem in
military terms.

> Because, unlike you, I don't have, or am unwilling to spend, the time
> necessary to provide a bibliography consisting of hundreds of articles
> and a variety of books - or transcripts of conversations with both
> Palestinians and Israelis - for purposes of a Usenet argument.

I don't really have the time either. I work everyday but it really
doesn't take that much effort to try and provide some credible
citations.

>Take is
> as what you will (there is a very convenient, for your side,
> interpretation), but I'm fairly comfortable with my knowledge base.
> Feel free to keep throwing more "Well the UN says X" lines at me,
> though. I don't hold the UN in very high regard (and only in very
> small part due to their perception of the I/P affair). *shrug*

The reason you don't like organisations like the UN, IAEA, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, B'T Selem, is not because of *what
they are* but because of what they say - or more accurately - what
they have *shown* about Israel. Furthermore, if you don't like what
the IAEA says about Iran's nuclear program then I suggest you show me
a more credible source to contradict their findings. You of course
aren't able to because you know very well that the IAEA *is* the most
credible source of information about the nuclear program because they
are the only body actually monitoring it, producing scientific,
factual data, not the Israeli propaganda you are spoonfed.


> Not really, unless what I've said about the stance towards Israel of
> some of its neighbors and various NGO's (for lack of better,
> convenient term - hell some of these couldn't even be called 'non-
> governmental') is untrue - which it is not.

Horseshit. Again, you don't like the NGOs I cite because you don't
like what they have shown to be true about Israel's human rights
abuses: its torturing of Palestinian detainees, its unlawful killings
of Palestinians, its bulldozing of Palestinian homes, its
unwillingless to issue house-building permits for Palestinians, its
discrimination of Israeli Arabs, its monopolization of the W Bank
water supply, its refusal to let pregnant women through checkpoints,
its reckless use of force in civillian areas, the list goes on, and on
and on.

This has all been reported by respected human rights orgs as
mentioned. If you don't like what they wrote about your beloved Israel
then I suggest you produce evidence to the contrary: and Israeli
government sources don't count...............

> This is a rather narrow view. Just because the capability to destroy
> Israel may not exist doesn't mean there is no threat.

The threat is negligible and to each civillian is no greater than
being killed in a car crash.

>n fact, the
> wars of 67

Israel attacked first and didn't need to: it could have agreed to the
UN's request to re-position the UNEF forces on the Israeli side of the
Sinai frontier; it could have agreed to the UN's time-out proposal on
the Straits of Tiran (which Egypt agreed to). Israel refused all such
diplomatic efforts.

>nd 73,

Again, all Israel needed to do was agree to Egypt and Jordan's 1971
proposals to recognise and sign peace treaties with Israel in exchange
for their land that Israel stole in 1967. Israel refused these
proposals because, as usual, it preferred the land to peace. Egypt and
Jordan were perfectly within their rights to recover territory that
*legally* belonged to them once Israel had showed its intransigence to
the diplomatic efforts.

The 1973 war was a direct result of Israel's belief that it could keep
the land it illegally acquired in 1967.

as well as the rocket attacks by Iraq in the early
> 90's, and the myriad of other perpetual actions against Israel and its
> citizens demonstrates that there is, in fact, an "actual" thread. You
> can say that it's not at threat of actual destruction, but it is still
> at threat.

Sure, but doesn't justify Israel's ludicrous hysteria and over-the-top
military assaults.

>ow long would the US tolerate rocket attacks from Mexico
> before sending in ground troops, regardless of the fact that Mexico
> doesn't have much of a chance at actually destroying it? Is the US a
> bad example? Fine. Substitute France and Luxembourg. =A0Moreover,
> although they may not possess the means, there definitely exist those
> parties who would like to see Israel destroyed. This is the case for
> many countries, but for Israel, it's a much more local and immediate
> case, and one which is to one extent or another supported by a nearby
> nation.

How can you say this when its obvious that no-one in the region can
destroy Israel. Their threats are meaningless....

> Mind you, I'm very much on the fence on the Israeli incursion. Israel
> has neither completed its objectives nor endeared itself to the world
> with its other recent ground actions (or air actions, for that
> matter), and I was consequently somewhat surprised to see them trying
> this tactic again, especially considering that the people they're
> pursuing are holed up in heavily residential areas and any aggressive
> pursuit will result in generally unacceptable levels of civilian
> casualties. At the same time, it was only a matter of time until
> Israel got fed up with constant rocket attacks and the fact that these
> groups keep acquiring better and better weapons.

The cause of supporting Israel has long been morally bankrupt. This
latest muderous assault and the blockade of food and humanitarian aid
- which, as I showed already, was still in place during the ceasefire
- only re-affirms that. Israel's operation has gone way above and
beyond what is necessary to take out the rockets. People like you are
unwilling or unable to see it right now, but history will record
Israel's actions in Gaza as a bloody war crime.



  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:04:22
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 2:34 pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 22:15, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's fairly easy to talk about paranoia and imaginary threats when
> > you're not there.
>
> Er, well the supposed nuclear threat by Israel from Iran is clearly
> imaginary: successive reports by the IAEA have shown that Iran's
> uranium enrichment level is well below that required for a nuclear
> weapon (Iran enriching at about 5% purity as opposed to 90% purity
> required for a nuclear weapon) and the IAEA is continually monitoring
> the program and states that there is no connection between what the
> U.S, U.K and Israel alleges Iran is doing and what the IAEA *has
> actually found*:

I didn't realize I was talking specifically about nuclear weapons. I'm
sure the mothers of children killed by discotec bombers have nuclear
proliferation as their #1 concern.

> Why don't you actually base your arguments on evidence as opposed to
> pro-Israeli and U.S propaganda? The threat Iran's nuclear program
> poses to Israel is *imaginary* and the work of the inspectors shows
> that.

Because, unlike you, I don't have, or am unwilling to spend, the time
necessary to provide a bibliography consisting of hundreds of articles
and a variety of books - or transcripts of conversations with both
Palestinians and Israelis - for purposes of a Usenet argument. Take is
as what you will (there is a very convenient, for your side,
interpretation), but I'm fairly comfortable with my knowledge base.
Feel free to keep throwing more "Well the UN says X" lines at me,
though. I don't hold the UN in very high regard (and only in very
small part due to their perception of the I/P affair). *shrug*

> >Not quite sure how having your destruction called
> > for in various organizational charters and publicly by leading
> > officials of the surrounding countries qualifies as 'imaginary.'
>
> You've just proved my point about the paranoid mindset. You're

Not really, unless what I've said about the stance towards Israel of
some of its neighbors and various NGO's (for lack of better,
convenient term - hell some of these couldn't even be called 'non-
governmental') is untrue - which it is not.

> confusing *rhetoric* with *acual threats*. The reality is that NO-ONE
> in the Middle East has, or has had since 1948, any capability to
> destroy Israel. How is Hamas going to destroy Israel? They are just a
> disorganised rabble; that's not to say that they are not a problem for
> Israel, but they ARE NOT going to destory Israel nor do they come even
> close to posing such a threat. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? All U.S
> client states and unable to "destroy" Israel anyway. Syria and
> Lebanon? Too weak although Hezbollah are more than a handful. Iran?
> Too far away and wouldn't dare attack Israel anyway, with or without
> nukes.

This is a rather narrow view. Just because the capability to destroy
Israel may not exist doesn't mean there is no threat. In fact, the
wars of 67 and 73, as well as the rocket attacks by Iraq in the early
90's, and the myriad of other perpetual actions against Israel and its
citizens demonstrates that there is, in fact, an "actual" thread. You
can say that it's not at threat of actual destruction, but it is still
at threat. How long would the US tolerate rocket attacks from Mexico
before sending in ground troops, regardless of the fact that Mexico
doesn't have much of a chance at actually destroying it? Is the US a
bad example? Fine. Substitute France and Luxembourg. Moreover,
although they may not possess the means, there definitely exist those
parties who would like to see Israel destroyed. This is the case for
many countries, but for Israel, it's a much more local and immediate
case, and one which is to one extent or another supported by a nearby
nation.

Mind you, I'm very much on the fence on the Israeli incursion. Israel
has neither completed its objectives nor endeared itself to the world
with its other recent ground actions (or air actions, for that
matter), and I was consequently somewhat surprised to see them trying
this tactic again, especially considering that the people they're
pursuing are holed up in heavily residential areas and any aggressive
pursuit will result in generally unacceptable levels of civilian
casualties. At the same time, it was only a matter of time until
Israel got fed up with constant rocket attacks and the fact that these
groups keep acquiring better and better weapons.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:34:32
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 5 Jan, 22:15, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:

> It's fairly easy to talk about paranoia and imaginary threats when
> you're not there.

Er, well the supposed nuclear threat by Israel from Iran is clearly
imaginary: successive reports by the IAEA have shown that Iran's
uranium enrichment level is well below that required for a nuclear
weapon (Iran enriching at about 5% purity as opposed to 90% purity
required for a nuclear weapon) and the IAEA is continually monitoring
the program and states that there is no connection between what the
U.S, U.K and Israel alleges Iran is doing and what the IAEA *has
actually found*:

"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of
declared nuclear material in
Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear
material and has provided the
required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with
declared nuclear material and
activities."

"As indicated in the Director General=92s previous report, the Agency
currently has no information
=97 apart from the uranium metal document =97 on the actual design or
manufacture by Iran of nuclear
material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key
components, such as initiators, or on
related nuclear physics studies (GOV/2008/38, para. 21). Nor has the
Agency detected the actual use
of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies."

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-59.pdf

Why don't you actually base your arguments on evidence as opposed to
pro-Israeli and U.S propaganda? The threat Iran's nuclear program
poses to Israel is *imaginary* and the work of the inspectors shows
that.

>Not quite sure how having your destruction called
> for in various organizational charters and publicly by leading
> officials of the surrounding countries qualifies as 'imaginary.'

You've just proved my point about the paranoid mindset. You're
confusing *rhetoric* with *acual threats*. The reality is that NO-ONE
in the Middle East has, or has had since 1948, any capability to
destroy Israel. How is Hamas going to destroy Israel? They are just a
disorganised rabble; that's not to say that they are not a problem for
Israel, but they ARE NOT going to destory Israel nor do they come even
close to posing such a threat. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? All U.S
client states and unable to "destroy" Israel anyway. Syria and
Lebanon? Too weak although Hezbollah are more than a handful. Iran?
Too far away and wouldn't dare attack Israel anyway, with or without
nukes.

So, tell me, where is this real "threat" to Israel? There is nothing
there that the IDF can't handle in its usual brutal fashion.

Israel, OTOH, destroys Gaza, not in mere words like Hamas does, but in
*actual deeds*. Israel has long lost all perspective and won't get
itself out of its current destructive mindset until it stops
perceiving military force as the solution to every problem: bombing
the shit out of Lebanon in 2006; bombing Syria in an unprovoked attack
in September 2007; bombing the shit out of an already sieged Gaza;
threatening to bomb Iran even though their nuclear program is
safeguarded. With Israel it's just WAR, WAR, WAR...........



  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:16:51
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 5:44 pm, erdega79 <erdeg...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:08 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:53 pm, erdega79 <erdeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > > When it comes to the jews, it's all about the nazis but when I studied
> > > history I noticed that jews offered absolutelly no armed resistance to
> > > the real nazis so how come jews get to talk about it at all ? The fact
> > > is jews have no right to talk about it and everytime they do , they
> > > really talk about themselves
>
> > You must have been the worst student of history at your school, or
> > else had the worst teacher. Jews tried to offer plenty of resistance,
> > and in some cases underground movements held out for months. But it's
> > a little hard to offer *effective* resistance when you've got half of
> > Europe on your ass (figuratively). Moral of the story: seek better
> > education.
>
> apart from minor singular exceptions there is no record of any jewish
> orgaznized force anywhere that liberated any occupied territory from
> nazi Germany yet at the same time jews were able to somehow not only
> fight but defeat british and various arab troops in palestine. This is
> really clear cut lesson that jews have no right to talk about second
> world war

Your initial statement was that the Jews had offered "absolutely no"
armed resistance to the Nazis. Now you're talking about liberation?
Obviously they didn't "liberate" any territory. How could they, given
the logistics? Further, I am not sure why it's "really clear cut
lesson that jews have no right to talk about second world war." What
does that have to do with anything?


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:15:12
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 1:00 pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 18:39, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I still don't understand how Israel's current actions are *worse* than
> > what the Nazis did.
>
> They clearly aren't. Fan is generally right that Israel has become an
> immoral entity, but he does tend to present those views in
> sensationalist and provocative terms :-). The main problem with Israel
> though is that as a state it has become hysterical (exagerrating minor
> threats to it; and even sometimes imagining threats that aren't even
> there), paranoid, pretty psychotic and (since its crushing 1967
> victory) completely intoxicated with military power.

It's fairly easy to talk about paranoia and imaginary threats when
you're not there. Not quite sure how having your destruction called
for in various organizational charters and publicly by leading
officials of the surrounding countries qualifies as 'imaginary.'


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 13:00:30
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 5 Jan, 18:39, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> I still don't understand how Israel's current actions are *worse* than
> what the Nazis did.

They clearly aren't. Fan is generally right that Israel has become an
immoral entity, but he does tend to present those views in
sensationalist and provocative terms :-). The main problem with Israel
though is that as a state it has become hysterical (exagerrating minor
threats to it; and even sometimes imagining threats that aren't even
there), paranoid, pretty psychotic and (since its crushing 1967
victory) completely intoxicated with military power.




  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 12:57:09
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 5 Jan, 18:28, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> A lot of people consider the creation of Israel a necessary evil.

It certainly wasn't a necessary act but it was one that could only be
*unfair*
to the indigenous Arab population. There was simply no way that a
Jewish state
- whether in one part of Palestine (as proposed in the UN Partition
Plan) or the
whole of Palestine (what the Zionists always wanted) - could be
created without
massive expensive to the Palestinian Arabs.

The UN partition plan was clearly inequitable towards the
Palestinians and just in practical terms it was simply absurd and
unworkable. It proposed that the Jews, who represented only 1/3 of
Palestine's population and owned less than 10% of the land, would be
awarded 56% of Palestine. This is a clear injustice. Moreover, just
in
terms of the population numbers themselves, the plan was clearly
unworkable: it proposed that 400,000 Arabs live under Jewish rule in
the parts of Palestine that had been allocated to the Jews. In the
proposed Jewish state the number of Jews was proposed to be 500,000,
so the number of Jews would only have been slightly more than the
number of Arabs (55% Jews vs 45% Arabs). How would the Jewish state
as
proposed in UNGA 181 be a viable "Jewish state" if there were almost
as many Arabs in the state as Jews? The Jewish majority as proposed
in
UNGA 181 could not have been more slender. You may argue that the
Jews
would have strengthened their majority in their state through Jewish
immigration from Europe, but even in this scenario the superior Arab
birth rate would not have given Israel an assured majority in the
long-
term. And don't forget that Israel's subsequent immigration of 2
million Jews from Europe and elsewhere between 1948 to the present
day
occured under conditions in which Israel held 22% more of Palestine
than had been allocated to them under UNGA 181. So, IOW, if the
partition plan had gone ahead Jewish immigration to the Jewish state
would have been more limited as there simply would not have been as
much land available for Jewish immigrants.

But going back to the moral argument, why should those 400,000 Arabs
have lived under Jewish rule as proposed under UNGA 181? How would
they have been treated under Jewish rule? They were being asked, or
more precisely, *forced* to live under Jewish rule simply by virtue
of
the fact that 1/3 of Palestine's inhabitants were determined to have
their own state in Palestine at virtually any cost. And this was the
key problem: there were already too many Arabs in Palestine which
meant that the Jews couldn't have their own state in one part of
Palestine without having to take under their rule a large Arab
minority (which neither side wanted), and they couldn't have a Jewish
majority state in all of Palestine without expelling most or all of
the Arabs, which in the end was what happened.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:39:29
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 1:28=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 7:11=A0pm, dixon <raymondanderso...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jan, 00:37, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > > >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
> > > >> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other=
.
>
> > > >> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now=
.
>
> > > >Dave your a real douchebag.
>
> > > Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>
> > > Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
> > > people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
> > > douchebag pal.
>
> > This is the first time that I responded to a non Steffi post, But I
> > have to agree with Mr Hazelwood [for once] =A0The palestinians had thei=
r
> > country taken away from
> > them in 1947. So it is the fuckin ikee mo's that are at fault =A0And by
> > the way STAPLER your a fuckin wanker.
>
> A lot of people consider the creation of Israel a necessary evil. They
> hoped that the Jews would get along with their neighbors after an
> initial period of hostilities. Zionist may be the proper definition
> for those who want to give Jews a country of their own and the Jews
> who desire their homeland.
> These Jew Nazis or Zionazis are worse than the German Nazis were. They
> are not satisfied with the UN mandate and want to push the
> Palestinians out and steal all of their land. They will stop at
> nothing to achieve their goal, even the genocide of Palestinians. If
> we have any humanity, we will resist the Jew Nazis and restore some
> sanity to the Middle East.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I still don't understand how Israel's current actions are *worse* than
what the Nazis did.

6 million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the
Holocaust.

That's a bit tough to top in terms of atrocities, no?


   
Date: 06 Jan 2009 01:04:31
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:39:29 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 5, 1:28 pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 7:11 pm, dixon <raymondanderso...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 5 Jan, 00:37, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> > > >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> > > >news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
>> > > >> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>>
>> > > >> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.
>>
>> > > >Dave your a real douchebag.
>>
>> > > Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>>
>> > > Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
>> > > people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
>> > > douchebag pal.
>>
>> > This is the first time that I responded to a non Steffi post, But I
>> > have to agree with Mr Hazelwood [for once]  The palestinians had their
>> > country taken away from
>> > them in 1947. So it is the fuckin ikee mo's that are at fault  And by
>> > the way STAPLER your a fuckin wanker.
>>
>> A lot of people consider the creation of Israel a necessary evil. They
>> hoped that the Jews would get along with their neighbors after an
>> initial period of hostilities. Zionist may be the proper definition
>> for those who want to give Jews a country of their own and the Jews
>> who desire their homeland.
>> These Jew Nazis or Zionazis are worse than the German Nazis were. They
>> are not satisfied with the UN mandate and want to push the
>> Palestinians out and steal all of their land. They will stop at
>> nothing to achieve their goal, even the genocide of Palestinians. If
>> we have any humanity, we will resist the Jew Nazis and restore some
>> sanity to the Middle East.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I still don't understand how Israel's current actions are *worse* than
>what the Nazis did.
>
>6 million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the
>Holocaust.
>
>That's a bit tough to top in terms of atrocities, no?


too bad they missed a few.


    
Date: 06 Jan 2009 01:06:15
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?

On 5-Jan-2009, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote:

> too bad they missed a few.

You're just full of prejudices aren't you Dave?


     
Date: 06 Jan 2009 03:49:20
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:06:15 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
>On 5-Jan-2009, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>> too bad they missed a few.
>
>You're just full of prejudices aren't you Dave?


No I am not. I stand up for the "little" guy. Always have always will.

Israel is so damn worried about THEIR security but don't give a shit
about anybody elses. They have occupied and murdered Palestinans for a
LONG time but when they strike back the only way they can with suicide
bombers and rockets the Isrealis cry foul and indiscriminantly
slaughter them with their modern weapons.

That sucks.

Furthermore, if Israel is so worried about Iran having nukes let them
propose to give up their own and allow open inspections. I am sure if
they did Iran would too but as long as they have them others who feel
threatened by them will want them too. That is only natural.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:28:30
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 7:11=A0pm, dixon <raymondanderso...@btinternet.com > wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 00:37, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > >news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
> > >> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>
> > >> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.
>
> > >Dave your a real douchebag.
>
> > Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>
> > Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
> > people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
> > douchebag pal.
>
> This is the first time that I responded to a non Steffi post, But I
> have to agree with Mr Hazelwood [for once] =A0The palestinians had their
> country taken away from
> them in 1947. So it is the fuckin ikee mo's that are at fault =A0And by
> the way STAPLER your a fuckin wanker.

A lot of people consider the creation of Israel a necessary evil. They
hoped that the Jews would get along with their neighbors after an
initial period of hostilities. Zionist may be the proper definition
for those who want to give Jews a country of their own and the Jews
who desire their homeland.
These Jew Nazis or Zionazis are worse than the German Nazis were. They
are not satisfied with the UN mandate and want to push the
Palestinians out and steal all of their land. They will stop at
nothing to achieve their goal, even the genocide of Palestinians. If
we have any humanity, we will resist the Jew Nazis and restore some
sanity to the Middle East.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 10:11:19
From: dixon
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 5 Jan, 00:37, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> >news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
> >> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>
> >> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.
>
> >Dave your a real douchebag.
>
> Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>
> Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
> people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
> douchebag pal.

This is the first time that I responded to a non Steffi post, But I
have to agree with Mr Hazelwood [for once] The palestinians had their
country taken away from
them in 1947. So it is the fuckin ikee mo's that are at fault And by
the way STAPLER your a fuckin wanker.


  
Date: 05 Jan 2009 00:01:16
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 1:03=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:52:28 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
>
>
>
>
>
> <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4 jan, 15:31, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> >> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> >> > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> >> Hopefully cancer will get you this year.
>
> >> Max
>
> >Careful what you wish for...
>
> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>
> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.

Most of the lies to justify the horrors the babay killer jew nazis
visit on the Palestinians and for sucking more and more money out of
Germans.




  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 23:58:21
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 5:33=A0pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:22=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 3:31=A0pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > > Hopefully cancer will get you this year.
>
> > Did you get this from your jew-nazi prayer book?
>
> > Curses have a funny way of visiting those who cast them.
>
> You are scum.

You are baby killer jew scum.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 17:44:36
From: erdega79
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 8:08=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Jan 4, 4:53=A0pm, erdega79 <erdeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > When it comes to the jews, it's all about the nazis but when I studied
> > history I noticed that jews offered absolutelly no armed resistance to
> > the real nazis so how come jews get to talk about it at all ? The fact
> > is jews have no right to talk about it and everytime they do , they
> > really talk about themselves
>
> You must have been the worst student of history at your school, or
> else had the worst teacher. Jews tried to offer plenty of resistance,
> and in some cases underground movements held out for months. But it's
> a little hard to offer *effective* resistance when you've got half of
> Europe on your ass (figuratively). Moral of the story: seek better
> education.


apart from minor singular exceptions there is no record of any jewish
orgaznized force anywhere that liberated any occupied territory from
nazi Germany yet at the same time jews were able to somehow not only
fight but defeat british and various arab troops in palestine. This is
really clear cut lesson that jews have no right to talk about second
world war


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 17:08:04
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 4:53=A0pm, erdega79 <erdeg...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> When it comes to the jews, it's all about the nazis but when I studied
> history I noticed that jews offered absolutelly no armed resistance to
> the real nazis so how come jews get to talk about it at all ? The fact
> is jews have no right to talk about it and everytime they do , they
> really talk about themselves

You must have been the worst student of history at your school, or
else had the worst teacher. Jews tried to offer plenty of resistance,
and in some cases underground movements held out for months. But it's
a little hard to offer *effective* resistance when you've got half of
Europe on your ass (figuratively). Moral of the story: seek better
education.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 16:53:36
From: erdega79
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?

> > > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.




When it comes to the jews, it's all about the nazis but when I studied
history I noticed that jews offered absolutelly no armed resistance to
the real nazis so how come jews get to talk about it at all ? The fact
is jews have no right to talk about it and everytime they do , they
really talk about themselves

Generally I am neutral on the middle eastern issues but considering
that all the haters of my serbian people seem to proportionally
support the jews just as much , I am on the side of anyone standing up
to them.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 09:52:28
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 4 jan, 15:31, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> Hopefully cancer will get you this year.
>
> Max

Careful what you wish for...


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 22:59:49
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 6 Jan, 01:34, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:

> I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that it's very easy to call
> threats imaginary when you're sitting at home and have no experience
> with living in an area where there may be rockets fired in your
> direction at any moment. You took it upon yourself to erect a strawman
> and address it.

And my point is that the threats to Israel have been either
exagerrated beyond all proportion, or in some cases i.e. Iran, don't
even exist at all. I don't have to live in Israel in order to discuss
it.

> In point of fact, the reason I don't like organizations like the UN (I
> don't believe I've mentioned the others, but keep throwing up more
> strawman if it entertains you) has, as I said, very little to do with
> their stance on Israel. Though, the GA is an absolutely ridiculous
> body that makes ridiculous kneejerk decisions.

If you're referring to its decisions on Israel (you don't say if you
are) then there have been numerous SC and GA resolutions on Israel
that were either veteoed by the U.S or, in the case of the GA, the U.S
and a few other mighty states such as the Micronesia Islands were the
only counties voting against the resolution that related to Israel.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.2264593/k.14EE/AntiIsrael_Resolutions_at_61st_GA.htm

Futheremore, if there is any bias against Israel in the UN then that
bias is clearly *in favour* of Israel not against it. Israel is the
only country on the planet to escape sanctions for its violation of UN
resolutions. Other countries such as Iran and Iraq have never escpaed
such punishment. And then Israel supporters whine about "UN bias".

> > The threat is negligible and to each civillian is no greater than
> > being killed in a car crash.
>
> This is such a horseshit argument. In 1999, there were nearly 50K
> crash-related deaths in the US. By your logic, if the same number of
> US citizens were killed in 1999 by Hamas rockets, the threat of Hamas
> would be negligible. Christ.

But still, the chance of each civillian being killed would still be
very low. In fact, I should re-phrase it: the chance of an Israeli
citizen being killed by a Hamas rocket or suicide bomber is actually
much lower than the chance of being killed in a car crash.

> > >n fact, the
> > > wars of 67
>
> > Israel attacked first and didn't need to: it could have agreed to the
> > UN's request to re-position the UNEF forces on the Israeli side of the
> > Sinai frontier; it could have agreed to the UN's time-out proposal on
> > the Straits of Tiran (which Egypt agreed to). Israel refused all such
> > diplomatic efforts.
>
> Right. Why not go into more detail: Egypt demanded (hell, they didn't
> even demand, they just said it was so) that UNEF involvement in Egypt
> and the Sinai was ended and that they be withdrawn. When the UN
> suggested that those troops be placed on the Israeli side, instead,
> and Israel refused on the argument that the UNEF contained troops from
> countries which may seek to hinder Israel's ability to defend itself.

Except both the UN and some politicians inside Israel actually thought
that re-positioning the UNEF forces on their side of the frontier was
a good idea and would have avoided war. Furthermore, you can't
possibly maintain that the UNEF forces helped to maintain a buffer for
Israel on the Egyptian side of the border but not on the Israeli side
of the border. It didn't matter what side of the border UNEF was on:
either way there would have been no Egyptian invasion (but in reality
Nasser had no intention of attacking anyway, with or without UNEF):

In his memoirs, conveniently overlooked by Zionists as they don't
quite square with their version of events of the Six Day War, U Thant
comments "if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on
its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of
history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the
pending catastrophe might have prevailed". Moreover, despite Israel's
strange insistence that a UNEF presence on its side of the border
"had
no relevance", Finkelstein writes " Yet, Eban himself mentioned that
Egyptian preparations in the Sinai posed the chief danger to Israel.
It is unclear, then, why a UNEF presence on the Israel side of the
border with Sinai lacked "relevance" (Finkelstein, page 128).


> And while you may once again harp about imaginary threats, consider
> also that this was not yet 20 years since the 1948 attempt to
> completely wipe Israel out, and that there had been numerous
> government-sponsored terrorist groups since that time who had
> undertaken militant actions against Israel. Moreover, while the UNEF
> did not contain troops from, say, Egypt or Syria, it did contain
> troops from USSR satellites - and I'm sure you're well aware of which
> side of the I/P debacle the USSR placed itself.

Again, if there really was such a threat of extinction in 1967, I
don't think Israel would have been too worried about the composition
of the UNEF forces. They would have provided the buffer Israel claimed
it needed.

>At the same time,
> Egypt initiated an enormous troop build-up along the Sinai border.
> And, yes, they blockaded the Straits, which had been mentioned
> previously by Israel, as well as Eisenhower (who was a rather
> reasonable man) as a 'casus beli.' Sure, the UN proposed a moratorium
> on the blockade to give. Sure, Israel declined (Egypt did not - though
> many international analysts believe this is because he knew it would
> raise his status).

Or maybe it was because he was looking for a way out of the situation
and had no intention of attacking Israel. Israel also turned down
Egypt's offer to revive EIMAC which also would have helped defuse the
situation.

>However, note that prior to declining, Israel did
> agree to a several week extension in order to further try negotiation
> and diplomacy. However, they saw the UN proposal as a delay which
> would allow Egypt to continue amassing troops/armor on the border. So
> don't give me this "attacked first and didn't need to."

It's completely correct and even Menachaem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin
later admitted that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel in
1967. He could not even have invaded Israel with his mere two
divisions he sent there. Furthermore, both the U.S and Israeli
intelligence were in agreement about this *prior* to Israel's attack.
Israel then attacked knowing the Egyptian VP was arriving in the U.S
on the 7th June, and according to the U.S State Dept, there was a good
chance that he could have been persuaded to de-escalate the crisis:

Yitzak Rabin remarked after Israel's victory that 'I do not believe
that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions that he sent into Sinai on
May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against
Israel. He knew it and we knew it' (la Monde, 29 February 1968 cited
in Hirst 1977).

In a 1982 speech at the National Defence College Menachem Begin
stated
that the 'The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai do not prove
that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
ourselves. We decided to attack him' (New York Times, 21 Aug 1982)

"Yet, all the available evidence at the time pointed to the
conclusion
that Egypt did not intend to attack. In last May, Rabin, who was
chief
of staff, told the Israeli cabinet that the Egyptian forces in the
Sinai were still in a defensive posture. An exhaustive review at the
end of the month could find no evidence that Egypt was planning to
attack. US President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing
his
"experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to
be true", it was still "their unanimous view that there is no
Egyptian
intention to make an imminent attack", a conclusion, according to
Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence." Page 134.

"In February 1968, an institute expert, L. Weinstein, wrote an
article
called "Critical Incident No. 14," about the U.S. involvement in the
Middle East crisis of May-June 1967. Only 30 copies of his study were
printed for distribution. Years later the material was declassified
and
can now be read by everyone, although details that are liable to give
away
sources' identities and operational ideas have remained censored.

The general who oversaw the planning in 1967 was Theodore John
("Ted")
Conway, then 56 and a four-star general, the head of Strike Command.


In the estimation of the STRICOM commander, the Egyptian forces were
deployed defensively, whereas the Israelis were deployed in rapid-
strike
offensive capability."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851708.html


> > Again, all Israel needed to do was agree to Egypt and Jordan's 1971
> > proposals to recognise and sign peace treaties with Israel in exchange
> > for their land that Israel stole in 1967. Israel refused these
> > proposals because, as usual, it preferred the land to peace. Egypt and
> > Jordan were perfectly within their rights to recover territory that
> > *legally* belonged to them once Israel had showed its intransigence to
> > the diplomatic efforts.
>
> Legally? Heh. Sure. It's still your land when you seriously threaten
> your neighbor, get your but kicked and a buffer zone taken from you.
> Maybe we can get America, Spain, France, Russia, China, etc etc..
> etc... to return the land they stole in far less justified actions.

You're just showing your ignorance. Everyone on the planet (even the
U.S) is in agreement that the land Israel took in 1967 did not belong
to them and legally belonged to the Arab countries. Just look at UN
resolution 242 and others issued since. It is illegal to acquire
territory through war and it doesn't matter that such a war was
"defensive".

> > The 1973 war was a direct result of Israel's belief that it could keep
> > the land it illegally acquired in 1967.
>
> Of course. They should have just given it back. I'm sure the idea of a
> massive and threatening military build-up with no ultimate and long-
> term consequences wouldn't have encouraged Egypt and their friends one
> bit.

Again, you're simply wrong. The formula proposed by Egypt and Jordan
in 1971 was simple: land for peace. Ideally Israel wanted both, but it
could not have both, so it chose the land believing that the Arabs,
crushed in 1967, would not dare to take back by force what was
rightfully theris.

> The point is that it doesn't have to be a threat of total and/or
> imminent destruction to count as a threat. I'd offer to spell it out
> for you, but given the venue, I suppose I'm already doing it.

I agree. But it is Israel's response to such threats, even small ones,
that is absurd. And if anything the situation has got better for them
over the years with other countries agreeing to recognise them, etc,
etc, but the paranoid mentality and resort to excessive military force
continues.

1967 was a bad example for you to use to illustrate the immortal
threat to Israel, by the way, there was no chance of them ever losing
that war:

From Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine
Conflict:


"The mortal threat that Nasser allegedly posed to Israel in 1967 is
as
chimerical as his intention to attack it. The CIA estimated in late
May that Israel would win a war against one or all of the Arab
countries, whichever struck the first blow, in roughly a week.
Richard
Helms, then chief of CIA, took special pride that "we predicted
almost
within the day how long the war would last if it began". (Lyndon)
Johnson told Eban that "all our intelligence people are unanimous
that
if Egypt attacks you, you will whip the hell out of them". Page 135.


The Israelis were also in agreement with the U.S assessment about
Israel's vast military superiority over the Arabs, even if attacked
first:

"Ezer Weizman, who did much of the operational planning for the June
war, concurred that "there was no threat of destruction" against
Israel in 1967....."had the Egyptians attacked first, they would have
also then suffered a complete defeat", with "maybe 13 hours beind
needed instead of three" to "command control of the air". Page 136.

> It's hardly Israel's fault that the ruling Palestinian party funnels
> aid money into weapons. Moreover, why don't you compare the
> Palestinian situation, as far as amenities and rights etc.. go, of now
> vs. how things were prior to the second Intifadah. It's all well and
> good to place the blame squarely on Israel, but when it comes down to
> it, the Palestinian leadership is at least as responsible for the
> current situation. People like you are unwilling or unable to see it,
> but history has recorded it.

No. The Palestinian leaders are partly to blame but clearly most of
the blame can be apportioned to Israel who refused to withdraw from
the W Bank and E Jerusalem even when times were good after the Oslo
period leading up to the Camp David/Taba period. In fact, Israel
actually *expanded* its settlements in complete violation of the Oslo
agreement.



   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 00:03:38
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:52:28 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
<ljubitsis@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On 4 jan, 15:31, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 11:27 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 11:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>>
>> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>>
>> > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>>
>> Hopefully cancer will get you this year.
>>
>> Max
>
>Careful what you wish for...

Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.

Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.


    
Date: 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>
> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.


Dave your a real douchebag.



     
Date: 05 Jan 2009 00:37:17
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:22:08 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:tej2m4li5i2o9hmtn3dggk6vj8h701976r@4ax.com...
>> Time has shown that the German Nazi's and Jews deserved each other.
>>
>> Listening to some Jew whine about the holocaust makes me laugh now.
>
>
>Dave your a real douchebag.


Why ? Because I speak the truth ?

Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
douchebag pal.


      
Date: 05 Jan 2009 00:40:40
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:4fl2m4t2oj3nkdb5sio2qma42g9d5nuv6f@4ax.com...
> Why ? Because I speak the truth ?
>
> Some Jew whining about the holocaust while he slaughters innocent
> people in Gaza does not bother you ? I'd say that makes YOU the
> douchebag pal.


There are no innocents in Gaza. The fact that they use human shields makes
them all fair targets.



  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 09:47:57
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On 4 jan, 13:50, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Fan" <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:38dc3c7b-33fc-4b76-a4f4-0078bc31eebb@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 11:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> >The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > or
>
> > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like
> > Hamas
>
> >Palestinians defending their country against the Jew Nazi invaders are
> >not Nazis.
>
> Both as barbaric as each other from what I can see, though I fail to see a
> solution for Israel cos Hamas is obviously run by a bunch of idiots. What do
> they expect to happen after they launch yet another rocket at Israel? are
> Hamas honestly so stupid that they think a few rockets are going to bring
> down the whole of Israeli army?

There are reports of the Palestinian fishermen being fired at and
killed daily, leading up to the reports of the rockets fired by
Palestinians leading up to... etc. etc.

Classic chicken and egg dilemma.

Let's not choose sides between the innocent, but recognize the ones
benefiting from these conflicts and suspect them.

Any time piece threatens, restricting the profit of parties with an
interest in war (money creators/lenders, weapons industry and corrupt
government officials) agents will be hired to do a job on both sides
to inflame the conflict.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 08:33:05
From: Calimero
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 4:22=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:31=A0pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > Hopefully cancer will get you this year.
>
> Did you get this from your jew-nazi prayer book?
>
> Curses have a funny way of visiting those who cast them.


You are scum.


Max


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 07:24:15
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 1:50=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Fan" <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:38dc3c7b-33fc-4b76-a4f4-0078bc31eebb@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 11:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> >The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> > or
>
> > (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like
> > Hamas
>
> >Palestinians defending their country against the Jew Nazi invaders are
> >not Nazis.
>
> Both as barbaric as each other from what I can see, though I fail to see =
a
> solution for Israel cos Hamas is obviously run by a bunch of idiots. What=
do
> they expect to happen after they launch yet another rocket at Israel? are
> Hamas honestly so stupid that they think a few rockets are going to bring
> down the whole of Israeli army?

Hamas may be stupid but Nazis they are not. The only Nazis there are
the Jew Nazis.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 07:22:55
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 3:31=A0pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> > The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> Hopefully cancer will get you this year.

Did you get this from your jew-nazi prayer book?

Curses have a funny way of visiting those who cast them.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 06:31:49
From: Calimero
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 4, 11:27=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:19=A0am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> > (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
> The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>


Hopefully cancer will get you this year.


Max


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 17:35:12
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 5:06 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 5-Jan-2009, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> > too bad they missed a few.
>
> You're just full of prejudices aren't you Dave?

No he's just a moron. ;-)


   
Date: 05 Jan 2009 17:34:44
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
On Jan 5, 3:35 pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> You asked me to provide evidence of an imaginary threat to Israel.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that it's very easy to call
threats imaginary when you're sitting at home and have no experience
with living in an area where there may be rockets fired in your
direction at any moment. You took it upon yourself to erect a strawman
and address it.

> did exactly that using the No.1 source of data about Iran's nuclear
> program: the International Atomic Energy Agency who have been
> continuously monitoring Iran's nuclear program for 6 years. Nice
> evasion by dropping in the mention of suicide bombers. As wrong as
> suicide bombers clearly are, the actual chances of being killed by a
> suicide bomber or by a Hamas rocket are less than dying in a car crash
> in Israel. The threat, although it clearly exists, is exagerrated and
> doesn't warrant the endless hysteria that it generates in Israel. To
> listen to the Israeli media and public in general, you'd think that
> the Hamas rockets were another holocaust....This is what I mean -
> Israel has lost all sense of perspective and views every problem in
> military terms.

Sure, it's not like it's been a threat that's existed in one form or
another for nearly a century, at this point, or anything like that.
Feel free to just brush it off as paranoia.

> I don't really have the time either. I work everyday but it really
> doesn't take that much effort to try and provide some credible
> citations.

And were it not a usenet discussion, I'd even agree.

> The reason you don't like organisations like the UN, IAEA, Amnesty
> International, Human Rights Watch, B'T Selem, is not because of *what
> they are* but because of what they say - or more accurately - what
> they have *shown* about Israel.

In point of fact, the reason I don't like organizations like the UN (I
don't believe I've mentioned the others, but keep throwing up more
strawman if it entertains you) has, as I said, very little to do with
their stance on Israel. Though, the GA is an absolutely ridiculous
body that makes ridiculous kneejerk decisions. The reason I actually
don't like the UN is because it's a toothless organization that has,
time and time again ,absolutely failed to show its worth in situation
having nothing whatsoever to do with Israel - like Rwanda, for one
example.

> Furthermore, if you don't like what
> the IAEA says about Iran's nuclear program then I suggest you show me
> a more credible source to contradict their findings. You of course
> aren't able to because you know very well that the IAEA *is* the most
> credible source of information about the nuclear program because they
> are the only body actually monitoring it, producing scientific,
> factual data, not the Israeli propaganda you are spoonfed.

Wayne, if you are actively trying to get me to respond to every
paragraph with the appropriate logical fallacy, I'd be more than happy
to do so.

> Horseshit. Again, you don't like the NGOs I cite because you don't

I should have been more clear. The manner in which I used the term was
in reference to extremist organizations - ie: Israel experiences
threats both from governmental (nations) and non-governmental
(extremist orgs) sources. And again: strawman (and an assumptive one
at that).

> The threat is negligible and to each civillian is no greater than
> being killed in a car crash.

This is such a horseshit argument. In 1999, there were nearly 50K
crash-related deaths in the US. By your logic, if the same number of
US citizens were killed in 1999 by Hamas rockets, the threat of Hamas
would be negligible. Christ.

> >n fact, the
> > wars of 67
>
> Israel attacked first and didn't need to: it could have agreed to the
> UN's request to re-position the UNEF forces on the Israeli side of the
> Sinai frontier; it could have agreed to the UN's time-out proposal on
> the Straits of Tiran (which Egypt agreed to). Israel refused all such
> diplomatic efforts.

Right. Why not go into more detail: Egypt demanded (hell, they didn't
even demand, they just said it was so) that UNEF involvement in Egypt
and the Sinai was ended and that they be withdrawn. When the UN
suggested that those troops be placed on the Israeli side, instead,
and Israel refused on the argument that the UNEF contained troops from
countries which may seek to hinder Israel's ability to defend itself.
And while you may once again harp about imaginary threats, consider
also that this was not yet 20 years since the 1948 attempt to
completely wipe Israel out, and that there had been numerous
government-sponsored terrorist groups since that time who had
undertaken militant actions against Israel. Moreover, while the UNEF
did not contain troops from, say, Egypt or Syria, it did contain
troops from USSR satellites - and I'm sure you're well aware of which
side of the I/P debacle the USSR placed itself. At the same time,
Egypt initiated an enormous troop build-up along the Sinai border.
And, yes, they blockaded the Straits, which had been mentioned
previously by Israel, as well as Eisenhower (who was a rather
reasonable man) as a 'casus beli.' Sure, the UN proposed a moratorium
on the blockade to give. Sure, Israel declined (Egypt did not - though
many international analysts believe this is because he knew it would
raise his status). However, note that prior to declining, Israel did
agree to a several week extension in order to further try negotiation
and diplomacy. However, they saw the UN proposal as a delay which
would allow Egypt to continue amassing troops/armor on the border. So
don't give me this "attacked first and didn't need to." It may be
unnecessary to you, when you're not a tiny country surrounded by many
who dislike the very idea of you, when your neighbor isn't
deliberately hurting your economy and when he's not conducting a build-
up of military power on your border.

> >nd 73,
>
> Again, all Israel needed to do was agree to Egypt and Jordan's 1971
> proposals to recognise and sign peace treaties with Israel in exchange
> for their land that Israel stole in 1967. Israel refused these
> proposals because, as usual, it preferred the land to peace. Egypt and
> Jordan were perfectly within their rights to recover territory that
> *legally* belonged to them once Israel had showed its intransigence to
> the diplomatic efforts.

Legally? Heh. Sure. It's still your land when you seriously threaten
your neighbor, get your but kicked and a buffer zone taken from you.
Maybe we can get America, Spain, France, Russia, China, etc etc..
etc... to return the land they stole in far less justified actions.

> The 1973 war was a direct result of Israel's belief that it could keep
> the land it illegally acquired in 1967.

Of course. They should have just given it back. I'm sure the idea of a
massive and threatening military build-up with no ultimate and long-
term consequences wouldn't have encouraged Egypt and their friends one
bit.

> as well as the rocket attacks by Iraq in the early
>
> > 90's, and the myriad of other perpetual actions against Israel and its
> > citizens demonstrates that there is, in fact, an "actual" thread. You
> > can say that it's not at threat of actual destruction, but it is still
> > at threat.
>
> Sure, but doesn't justify Israel's ludicrous hysteria and over-the-top
> military assaults.

Of course. Of course 70 years of wars, threats, government sponsored
terrorist actions, murders of civilians - even those who can't yet
vote (since this is one justification they've used for said murders),
etc... - none of this justifies a country being extremely afraid.

> How can you say this when its obvious that no-one in the region can
> destroy Israel. Their threats are meaningless....

The point is that it doesn't have to be a threat of total and/or
imminent destruction to count as a threat. I'd offer to spell it out
for you, but given the venue, I suppose I'm already doing it.

> The cause of supporting Israel has long been morally bankrupt. This
> latest muderous assault and the blockade of food and humanitarian aid
> - which, as I showed already, was still in place during the ceasefire
> - only re-affirms that. Israel's operation has gone way above and
> beyond what is necessary to take out the rockets. People like you are
> unwilling or unable to see it right now, but history will record
> Israel's actions in Gaza as a bloody war crime.

It's hardly Israel's fault that the ruling Palestinian party funnels
aid money into weapons. Moreover, why don't you compare the
Palestinian situation, as far as amenities and rights etc.. go, of now
vs. how things were prior to the second Intifadah. It's all well and
good to place the blame squarely on Israel, but when it comes down to
it, the Palestinian leadership is at least as responsible for the
current situation. People like you are unwilling or unable to see it,
but history has recorded it.


  
Date: 04 Jan 2009 12:50:36
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Israel - where do you stand?
"Fan" <TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:38dc3c7b-33fc-4b76-a4f4-0078bc31eebb@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 11:19 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Simple poll for me to find out who is who in RST.
>
> (a) Israelis are behaving like Nazi SS army
>
>The Jew Nazis are behaving worse than the German Nazis did.
>
> or
>
> (b) the Israelis are simply defending themselves against the Nazi-like
> Hamas
>
>Palestinians defending their country against the Jew Nazi invaders are
>not Nazis.

Both as barbaric as each other from what I can see, though I fail to see a
solution for Israel cos Hamas is obviously run by a bunch of idiots. What do
they expect to happen after they launch yet another rocket at Israel? are
Hamas honestly so stupid that they think a few rockets are going to bring
down the whole of Israeli army?