Israel Should Move to Canada or Alaska, Ahmadinejad Says

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You know what? All sides are no good, but man those people in Iran really hate us. If I can make peace I would, but that will never happen, so long as a gov built on Islam exist. C'mon the religion teaches u to kill someone if he/she don't believe or if a person leaves the religion. People even get shot in the streets for wearing shorts. It's rediculous.
Sometimes war is inevitable for peace to come. Maybe we do need one united world, but to get there u would have to eliminate all your enemies. The only major country that is in our way for peace is Iran. If we eliminate them, then peace might happen. China, N Korea, and Russia is a exception, they are more civilized, their people don't hate us, so I'm okay with them.




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Would any of you be interested in seeing how big israel really is? this speck this is the speck people are fighting for a speck when you see how small the speck you will laugh.i still do!

That millions and millions of people are fighting for a speck lol how funny is that?
Check it out.

[url=http://www.mapsofworld.com...]



[edit on 10/5/2007 by 1111111111111]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I read on the news somewhere that Isreal and Palastine actually belong to the Jews because King Soloman was a Jew and he and his people were their before the Palestinians. His temple today happens to lay beneath a Islamic Mos.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Here u go I found this on Wikipedia.

Solomon's Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers. •Jump to: navigation, search
Solomon's Temple (Hebrew: בית המקדש, transliterated Beit HaMikdash), also known as the First Temple, was, according to the Bible, the first Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

It functioned as a religious focal point for worship and the sacrifices known as the korbanot in ancient Judaism. Completed in the 10th century BCE, it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The reconstructed temple in Jerusalem, which stood between 516 BCE and 70 CE, was the Second Temple.

So if the Muslims built a temple over King Solomans temple, which was discovered recently, I think. Than that means King Soloman and his people were there first, who belived in Judaism. So I guess the Jews would have the right to claim the land because it originally belong to them before it was taken away.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
There have been numerous posts on who was there first in this thread but these fall on deaf ears.

Israel came before Palestine, so mentioning anything else is not going to work unless you are too ignorant to do any research on world history. I think this is the case with some of the members of this site.

I won't go into the Muslim versus Hebrew arguement on who built what first, this is a no brainer and the Hebrews should ask the Muslims to leave the land that they lived on for thousands of years before Muhammed was even thought of. The Hebrews already tried to share the area, but we know who said no to that.

Why is this part of history hard to understand? Why do so many people think Palestine was around first? I think history is too hard to swallow for some since it will instantly change the way they think and understand that the Hebrews have a right to live in Israel no matter what anyone else says.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   


Why is this part of history hard to understand? Why do so many people think Palestine was around first? I think history is too hard to swallow for some since it will instantly change the way they think and understand that the Hebrews have a right to live in Israel no matter what anyone else says


History according to the bible? This is what your trying to get at?

The Jews are God's chosen people and he promised them the land of Israel?

The bible is an interesting read, I may read it to my children one day, but is it not a factual account of history. You have no proof that it is.

CT



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


What I would like to know is, why any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The act of possessing them is a terrorist act against all of humanity. In light of the fact that the US has used nuclear weapons against humanity, why should it be allowed to continue to possess them? And it is clearly evident that the United States, Germany, and Israel are not historically known for allophilia. These countries do a good job of promoting that they are not prejudiced, but their actions otherwise speak a whole lot louder than their words.

It is not enough to make the call that a country should not have nuclear weapons based on its record of treatment of other human beings. Such arguments are meaningless precisely because of a cancer that is slowly, yet surely consuming the souls and minds of all humans. How can one say that it is a good thing to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of one regime when other regimes have them? That is the sickness! The sickness the permits one to say, "Oh well, some have nukes and there is nothing we can do about it, but we really have to make sure that others who do not deserve nukes do not get them." That is bona fide insanity. A woman has cervical cancer and so the doctor prescribes her L'Oreal cosmetics?! Pure insanity.

In case some do not follow, when it comes to nukes, Iran is not the cancer. Presumably, Iran wants to become just as malignant as the other nations who already are armed with nuclear weapons, but Iran is not yet a part of that cancer. Iran is an indeterminate growth with no real indication of whether it is benign or malignant. Iran states that it is benign and its enemies state that it is malignant. The most Iran has done so far is to make its enemies itch. So, it is possible that Iran is a Carcinoma in situ, we do not know for sure, but Iran's nuclear armed enemies are demonstrated Carcinomas -- full blown malignants. Now, truly, where do the emergencies really exist?

Nuclear weapons should be eradicated from the possession of all regimes. The current scenario is that countries with nuclear weapons want to powder puff a country that is not known to have such weapons, so that the countries that have the nuclear weapons will look and feel better.

If a man, woman or child straps a bomb to its chest, walks into a restaurant, detonates the bomb and kills 15-30 people, the act is considered a terrorist act. Dropping two nuclear bombs on to other humans, immediately killing 150,000 of them certainly qualifies as terrorist acts. And the 150,000 humans who died over the long term as a result of cancers and other complications related to being exposed to those bombings qualifies as a continuation of those terrorist acts. The human memory of those terrorists acts qualifies as a continuation of those acts.

Sure, it's possible to love the country and hate the cancer. Though, the willingness to overlook the disease and directly address it qualifies as a malignancy of its own.


[edit on 7-10-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This is the basic point:

If some of you knew how to interpret my posts, you'd know that I'm referring to the point in time around the 1947 Partition, and slightly before. If you don't know how to interpret it, then don't make assumptions.

I don't know if it was a Jew or a Muslim who first set foot on the land that is now Israel. That's not what I'm debating, because frankly, I don't care.

The FACTS are this: Palestinians were displaced. They had control of this land, everything was fine in that area, and they were displaced.

Really - is it just coincidence that the violence in the Middle East has skyrocketed in such a short period of time since that partition?

Another FACT is that Israel is allowed to do what ever it pleases. They're allowed to have nuclear weapons. They're allowed to bully other nations, bomb other nations, and if any of those nations retaliates, it's terrorism.

Another FACT is that the Holocaust happened in Europe. If we, the British, and the Soviets were so damn sympathetic of the Jewish people during that time, we could have sacrificed a little land in our respective controlled areas of Germany and formed a Jewish state.

I don't care what the Bible says. You don't make political decisions based on religion. You can't stop every last lunatic from doing it, but the all mighty UN should be above it. You make the Jewish state in Germany because it HAPPENED in Germany.

So - again - who was the first to set foot on the land? A Jew or a Muslim? Maybe a Christian? I don't know, and I don't care. If I did care, I'd like to see anyone truly prove which one set foot there first. And when I say truly prove, I mean don't give me Bible text.

So who was truly there first is up for debate - but is pretty much worthless, because the facts that Palestinians were displaced, Israel is now given special treatment and is allowed to violate international law, and is allowed to have nuclear weapons when others aren't, is horrible all on it's own, and shouldn't be supported.

Yet, of course, it is, because they're poor and defenseless and concerned about their well being - and those scary Muslims are terrorists.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Since I now understand what some of you are talking about please check out these links.

www.eretzyisroel.org...
This is the main page
www.eretzyisroel.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.mideastweb.org...

So if we are going to discuss what happened in the last century I hope that everyone reads up on this. The Palestinians had a chance to live in a country they can call their own but didn't like the deal presented to them by the British and UN.

So if there is any fingers to be pointed it should be at the Palestinians for not taking the deal. Why do I think like this? It is better to have something then nothing and the Palestinians wanted everything instead of having a smaller part they can call their own. Greedy people is what I see.

I still think that the Hebrews have a better arguement to live there since they were around much longer then the Palestinians, but that's not going to be mentioned from me anymore since it doesn't add to this discussion.

I think the Palestinians are lucky to have a chance to live there today after causing so much trouble with thier opinion of having a right to this land. They could have had a country of their own but said no. Sometimes you gotta take what you can get, but I still think they are greedy and unaware of world history.

So now that more of the members are aware of what happened in the past century what is going to be done, or what do you think should be done to clear up this mess? If you want to start a new thread on ideas for resolving this conflict let us know.

Iran's president isn't happy with the decisions made by the UN when it comes to Israel. I am seeing a trend coming from him, he doesn't listen to what the UN is asking him to do now and he doesn't agree with what they have already done. I think his issue is with the UN and not Israel, the US, or anyone else. He has to understand that the world has spoken, not just a few countries, so is he against the UN?

I don't like the UN, but it is there for a reason. I also don't care about the area that we are speaking about, but this mess has to be sorted out. I want to make these points clear incase anyone is thinking i'm a supporter of any specific group. I also don't care for any religion since they are all wrong.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


So if World War III happened, 6 million Muslims were exterminated, the UN chose the United States as the Muslims new nation, the UN offered Americans a deal of splitting the United States with Muslims, and Americans didn't like that deal, do you think they should just take what they're offered and shut up? Or do you think Americans would have a right to be pissed and fight back?

If you're not American and you're not living in the US or from the US, then just replace the United States with the country you live in.

Again, as I said to someone else, I know this scenario will never happen, so I'm not asking for your odds on it. I just want to know how you'd react.

[edit on 10/7/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
If some of you knew how to interpret my posts, you'd know that I'm referring to the point in time around the 1947 Partition, and slightly before. If you don't know how to interpret it, then don't make assumptions.

I don't know if it was a Jew or a Muslim who first set foot on the land that is now Israel. That's not what I'm debating, because frankly, I don't care.

The FACTS are this: Palestinians were displaced. They had control of this land, everything was fine in that area, and they were displaced.

So basically you are admitting that you were wrong and are now trying to save face by saying you were talking about one little particular time period. Yeah right!!


Of course you don't care to look further back because it throws your entire opinion out the window and proves you are wrong! Using your analogy all we have to do is look at one particular battle of WWI or WWII to decide who won the war instead of who won the war entirely. Don't you see the fallacy of your argument?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   


You could just as easily say that isreal is antagonizing Iran as well as her direct neighbors like Syria with thier latest attack eh?
reply to post by FredT
 

You have a next door neighbor. He says to you every morning, "I am going to kill you". Next thing you notice is the UPS guy delivering cannon parts to his house. He is still threatening to kill you. Then, your neighbor starts building a cannon pointed right at your house and family. All the while he is repeating "I am giong to kill you". At what point do you go over there and shoot the sunofabitch first?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The FACTS are this: Palestinians were displaced. They had control of this land, everything was fine in that area, and they were displaced.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


The Palestinians are not an oppressed people, but rather the irreconcilable remnants of a once-victorious but now defeated empire, living in a dream world in which a new Salahuddin will drive the Crusaders into the sea. Pour a few bourbons into the average white citizen of the US state of Georgia, and the same fantasy will bubble up: "The south shall rise again!"

The Palestinians are tools for the Syrians, Iranians and other Jihadi's. It is the one true crime behind all of this.


[edit on 7-10-2007 by DrBedlam]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 



OK, so how do we disarm the nations of the world? We cant.

What can we do? Our best to stop any more proliferation.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jgruh4e
 


If you want to learn more about middle eastern history maybe you should travel to the middle east first hand, Before you make assumptions.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


No one is looking at the deal though, everyone seams to be talking about who the country belongs to, rather than who should try to help the two live in a normal balance.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by humanunnaki
(I lived in AK for eleven years. It is not survivable without help from the southern 48 unless you go native and eat muktuk


You must have lived here a long time ago


The household mean income in Anchorage is $10,000.00 a year higher than the lower 48. We have Sam's Clubs, Walmarts, Fred Meyers, Safeway's, Best Buy and should I keep going? We are getting ready to build a bridge to expand Anchorage because it is out of land and is still growing really fast. No not the bridge people were laughing about south of Juneau. The bridge we really need that Democrats are lying about here in Anchorage. The main reason we need it is the Military is hogging all the best land so a bridge is the only solution.

Like I said you lived here a long while ago I think. Keep telling people that though. Too many people moving here for my liking. My favorite is when people drive up expecting the old gravel Alcan Highway that was replaced in 63 I think
They are surprised when its a paved road with plenty of gas stations and motels.

To the Iran Apologists. Hezbollah is Iran. Iran has never made a secret of that. Whenever Hezbollah blows up a wedding or a restaurant it is actually Iran doing it. But then you know that but it does not help you with your hatred of America or your hatred of Jews. As to the mistranslations. What a bunch of crap. These translations of that nuts threats are being made by people who speak the language as well as any Iranian and you know that too. Don't you. Why do you feel it necessary to rewrite what he says. Are you embarrassed about him?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
This is the basic point:

If some of you knew how to interpret my posts, you'd know that I'm referring to the point in time around the 1947 Partition, and slightly before. If you don't know how to interpret it, then don't make assumptions.



Wait, so now we have to interpret you posts? Say what you mean!

Sounds to me like you don’t know the history you keep telling us to learn so you speak in these vague terms about the past so as not to sound ignorant.



I don't know if it was a Jew or a Muslim who first set foot on the land that is now Israel. That's not what I'm debating, because frankly, I don't care.


You dont care? Are you saying that you WANT to remain ignorant because knowledge of the truth doesnt help your view point!

Wow.


The FACTS are this: Palestinians were displaced. They had control of this land, everything was fine in that area, and they were displaced.
The facts are this, willfully ignorant grasshopper: Jews were there first, and they were DISPLACED. They had control of this land, and they were displaced.


Really - is it just coincidence that the violence in the Middle East has skyrocketed in such a short period of time since that partition?

Again, if you didn’t run from history you would realize how ridiculous that is. That region has been at war for ever. First the Jews had it, then the Romans ruled them, then the Muslims came and finished DISPLACING them. Then there were the crusades, where Christians and Muslims fought over it, then some more crusades, then some more. Then, after Israel was done being kicked around by every nation and people on earth, the world felt bad and gave them their home back.


Another FACT is that Israel is allowed to do what ever it pleases. They're allowed to have nuclear weapons. They're allowed to bully other nations, bomb other nations, and if any of those nations retaliates, it's terrorism.
The war monger Israel view point only works if you don’t think they have a right to be there. If you do recognize Israel as a state, then you can see defense for what it is.


Another FACT is that the Holocaust happened in Europe. If we, the British, and the Soviets were so damn sympathetic of the Jewish people during that time, we could have sacrificed a little land in our respective controlled areas of Germany and formed a Jewish state.
What? They were a ME peoples. They lived in Palestine before any other group still around to stake a claim.

And what person in his right mind thinks that they would have wanted in stay in Germany after all that happened to them there?

Thats just sick.

How about we build them homes on top of the concentration death camps?


I don't care what the Bible says. You don't make political decisions based on religion. You can't stop every last lunatic from doing it, but the all mighty UN should be above it.


Hold your horses there.

Iran makes most of its decisions based on religion. In fact, Ackmenjihad came to our county recently and spoke of the return of the umpteenth
Imam. This is reference to the ushering in of the end times, of Armageddon, of the end of the world, where all those evil Jews will be killed.

And he needs the bomb?


You make the Jewish state in Germany because it HAPPENED in Germany.
Again, thats just sick.


So - again - who was the first to set foot on the land? A Jew or a Muslim? Maybe a Christian? I don't know, and I don't care.


Maybe a Muslim or a Christian? You ignorance on this matter is overwhelmingly self induced. The very basics of Islam and Christianity make it impossible for them to have been there before Jews.

They are all Abrahamic religions worshiping the same God.

First was the Jews. Then The Christ came (thats Jesus, FYI) and he was a Jew, and Jews existed for over a thousand years before him, so it would stand to reason that they were there first.

Then, 7 hundred years or so after The Christ ascended to Heaven, Mohamed claimed that the Quran was given to him.

So, the Jews were there first and you cant stick you head in the sand any longer.



If I did care, I'd like to see anyone truly prove which one set foot there first. And when I say truly prove, I mean don't give me Bible text.
It doesnt require bible text, no one really disputes what I said above. Well, there are some who think Jesus never walked the earth, but there aren’t really any solid arguments to that, however in this context it doesn’t really matter because Christianity was there before Islam even if there was no Christ and no Mohamed.


So who was truly there first is up for debate

Only in your head.


- but is pretty much worthless, because the facts that Palestinians were displaced,


How can you say that it doesnt matter who was there first and that you dont know and dont care, but that the Palestinians were there first?

That makes no sense!

Whoever was there first was displaced and is just trying to take back what is theirs.







[edit on 7-10-2007 by cavscout]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by cavscout
 


What I would like to know is, why any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.


In a perfect world where all countries could be trusted that would be the ideal. We live in the real world however. A world that includes Russia, China, and too many Dictators to name. Maybe sometime in the distant future. Until then I'd prefer we be armed to the teeth.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jgruh4e
 


Zionism playes big part of the occupation of palestine and the middle east. The Israeli Gov are a bunch of Zionists did you not know this? So if you are against Zionism then why are you agreeing with the Israeli policy?

In reality Palestinians are mostly the general population in allot of the cities and towns in israel, for example the town of Shfaram'ar, is nothing but Palestinians, and has been so for 50+ yrs, Same situation in Nazareth, and Akko,a big part of Jerusalem.. and these towns are within " the state" of israel, so why do you that these towns are mostly populated with Palestinians? something to think about maybe?




top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join