What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ilhan Omar denied a Holocaust

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
58,665
Reaction score
17,873
Points
2,250
Then simple enough solution. Let every Palestinian vote in Israeli elections, and send members of Hamas and Fatah to the Knesset. As opposed to just the Quisling Parties that Zionists allow to exist.



Not this old tired story again.

Riddle me this, Batman. If most of the Zionists are from Palestine and the Middle East, then why is it EVERY LAST ZIONIST leader is someone who was either born in Europe or his parents or grandparents were? Were the ME majority just so awed by their European features they said, "Yeah, I got to vote for that guy!"
How about Jordan releases 1.6 million Palis from their 1992 entrance into prison camps?

It’s obvious you never check out Reuters or AP to see how Arabs treat each other.

I realize you have no idea how the Arab nations surrounding Israel Treat their Arab citizens.

You are a pathetic liar.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
Then simple enough solution. Let every Palestinian vote in Israeli elections, and send members of Hamas and Fatah to the Knesset. As opposed to just the Quisling Parties that Zionists allow to exist.



Not this old tired story again.

Riddle me this, Batman. If most of the Zionists are from Palestine and the Middle East, then why is it EVERY LAST ZIONIST leader is someone who was either born in Europe or his parents or grandparents were? Were the ME majority just so awed by their European features they said, "Yeah, I got to vote for that guy!"
Because they are the ones that have leadership capabilities. Didn’t you ever read the book Exodus? Explained pretty clearly there.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
How about Jordan releases 1.6 million Palis from their 1992 entrance into prison camps?

It’s obvious you never check out Reuters or AP to see how Arabs treat each other.

I realize you have no idea how the Arab nations surrounding Israel Treat their Arab citizens.

You are a pathetic liar.

Nobody treats anyone as badly as Israel does to native Arabs.
All old nations tend to be tribal and have preferential treatment for its tribal majorities.
But Israel is the only nation in the world where recent invaders are intent on genocide of the natives who are the vast majority.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Because they are the ones that have leadership capabilities. Didn’t you ever read the book Exodus? Explained pretty clearly there.

The book of Exodus is likely totally fake.
Hebrew in Egypt were never slaves, lived there for over 400 years and likely then were just a cult of monotheistic Egyptians.
They did not come from the Land of Canaan, and yet massacred Canaanite women and children, like at Jericho.
That means there is something wrong with their values, not just for creating lies and believing them, but for showing such a total disregard for the harm they were caused to other tribes.
All tribes tend to have some xenophobia and narcissism, but modern Zionists are the only ones who do not see this as harmful or bad.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
The book of Exodus is likely totally fake.
Hebrew in Egypt were never slaves, lived there for over 400 years and likely then were just a cult of monotheistic Egyptians.
They did not come from the Land of Canaan, and yet massacred Canaanite women and children, like at Jericho.
That means there is something wrong with their values, not just for creating lies and believing them, but for showing such a total disregard for the harm they were caused to other tribes.
All tribes tend to have some xenophobia and narcissism, but modern Zionists are the only ones who do not see this as harmful or bad.
Not that Exodus. Exodus about Israel becoming a sovereign nation. So modern Zionists are the only bad people in the world? That is your claim?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Not that Exodus. Exodus about Israel becoming a sovereign nation. So modern Zionists are the only bad people in the world? That is your claim?

Modern Zionists are not the ONLY bad people in the world, but are pretty clearly the worst.
That is not just because their goals are so immoral, stealing the homes of the natives after killing them all, but that they also so are so large in number and so effective.
People with such corrupt morals usually are not much of a problem because they can not join together to multiply the harm they can do.
But Zionists share such a corrupt and evil fantasy, that they are much more dangerous than any other group.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
Modern Zionists are not the ONLY bad people in the world, but are pretty clearly the worst.
That is not just because their goals are so immoral, stealing the homes of the natives after killing them all, but that they also so are so large in number and so effective.
People with such corrupt morals usually are not much of a problem because they can not join together to multiply the harm they can do.
But Zionists share such a corrupt and evil fantasy, that they are much more dangerous than any other group.
So Zionists are worse than ISIS, North Korea, etc...just want to get you on record. Because I am a Zionist.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
So Zionists are worse than ISIS, North Korea, etc...just want to get you on record. Because I am a Zionist.

I think ISIS was fake.
The US was desperate for an enemy for their propaganda, and we had already defeated Saddam and had him killed.
We had already killed off Qaddafi and had Morsi arrested. So that Assad was about the only one left.
Since ISIS was supposed to Sunni Iraqi, and they were notoriously secular, the whole ISIS thing seems totally fake.
They had no cleric backing at all.

North Korea seems also fake.
South Korea were the industrialists who collaborated with the Japanese.
They were not the good guys by any means.
And North Korea are not effecting anyone else at all.

Modern Zionist is intent on European immigrants taking over Palestine by murdering the natives, based on obviously made up mythology.
That is pretty evil in my opinion.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
I think ISIS was fake.
The US was desperate for an enemy for their propaganda, and we had already defeated Saddam and had him killed.
We had already killed off Qaddafi and had Morsi arrested. So that Assad was about the only one left.
Since ISIS was supposed to Sunni Iraqi, and they were notoriously secular, the whole ISIS thing seems totally fake.
They had no cleric backing at all.

North Korea seems also fake.
South Korea were the industrialists who collaborated with the Japanese.
They were not the good guys by any means.
And North Korea are not effecting anyone else at all.

Modern Zionist is intent on European immigrants taking over Palestine by murdering the natives, based on obviously made up mythology.
That is pretty evil in my opinion.
You didn’t answer my question
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You didn’t answer my question

When I read Albert Einstein condemn the genocide by Zionists in Israel, he still considered himself to be a Zionist, but just not necessarily in Palestine or at that time.
He considered Zionism to mean trying to be good according to some theological standards, so that it would be rewarded.
He seemed to consider Zionism more like a way to get to heaven when you die.
So when I condemn Zionists, I am using that as a short hand to denote violent European immigrants attempting genocide in Palestine.
There are many other types of Zionists, and I do not intend them to be included.
Zionism is an old word with an old meaning before being hijacked by David ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann.
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
When I read Albert Einstein condemn the genocide by Zionists in Israel, he still considered himself to be a Zionist, but just not necessarily in Palestine or at that time.
He considered Zionism to mean trying to be good according to some theological standards, so that it would be rewarded.
He seemed to consider Zionism more like a way to get to heaven when you die.
So when I condemn Zionists, I am using that as a short hand to denote violent European immigrants attempting genocide in Palestine.
There are many other types of Zionists, and I do not intend them to be included.
Zionism is an old word with an old meaning before being hijacked by David ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann.
To me being a Zionist means believing Israel has the right to exist. Period. End of Story. Exist as a mostly Jewish country.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
To me being a Zionist means believing Israel has the right to exist. Period. End of Story. Exist as a mostly Jewish country.

Even during the high point of Jewish rule in Israel, Sumaria, and Judea, the Jews were never a majority in Palestine.
And that rule only lasted from about 1000 BC to 725 BC.
The pretend rule under the Romans, from about 100 BC to 67 AD, does not really count.

The natives have never been mostly Jewish.
What country ever has the right to raise one religion over another?
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
Even during the high point of Jewish rule in Israel, Sumaria, and Judea, the Jews were never a majority in Palestine.
And that rule only lasted from about 1000 BC to 725 BC.
The pretend rule under the Romans, from about 100 BC to 67 AD, does not really count.

The natives have never been mostly Jewish.
What country ever has the right to raise one religion over another?
Every mostly Muslim country...
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Every mostly Muslim country...

No, not really.
Islam is actually just a variant of Judaism, so it not a separate religion, and differs mostly because it is also a system of social structure.
It takes care of widows and orphans, etc.
Since Islam uses the same Old Testament, it does not differentiate between Judaism or Christianity.
The only country that suppresses other religions is Saudi Arabia, and that should not be done according to the Quran.
The trouble with Saudi Arabia is they are not really Islamic, but Wahhabis.

Since the original Islamic leadership was all massacred by the Mongols around 1200, the 1700 Wahhabists got it totally wrong, and were just tribal primitives, Turks, Moguls, and other Asian invaders.

{...
Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, romanized: al-Wahhābyyah, lit. 'Wahhabism') is a term used to refer to the Islamic revivalist and fundamentalist movement within Sunni Islam which is associated with the Hanbali reformist doctrines of the Arabian scholar Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).[a][1][2][3][4] It has been variously described as "orthodox",[5] "puritan(ical)";[6][7] and as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" by devotees.[8][9] The term "Wahhabism" was not used by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself, but it is chiefly used by outsiders polemically as an exonym and adherents reject its use, preferring to be called "Salafi" (a term used by followers of other Islamic reform movements as well),[7][10] and view themselves as Muwahhid (meaning "monotheistic"),[11][12][13] to emphasize the principle of Tawhid[14] (oneness of God).[15] The term has also been described as a Sunniphobic slur.[16][17][18][19] It adheres to the Athari theology.

Wahhabism is named after the 18th-century Islamic scholar, theologian, preacher, and activist Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[8][20][21][22][23] He started a reform movement in the region of Najd in central Arabia,[8][24] advocating a purging of widespread practices such as veneration of Muslim saints and pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines that were practiced by the people of Najd, but which he considered idolatrous impurities and innovations in Islam (bidʻah).[8][15][25] Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and his followers were highly inspired by the influential thirteenth-century Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 - 1328 C.E/ 661 - 728 A.H) who called for a return to the purity of the first three generations (Salaf) to rid Muslims of inauthentic outgrowths (bidʻah), and regarded his works as core scholarly references in theology.[26][27][28]

Eventually, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab formed a pact with a local leader, Muhammad bin Saud, offering political allegiance and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement meant "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men".[29] The alliance between followers of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) proved to be a durable one. The House of Saud continued to maintain its politico-religious alliance with the Wahhabi sect through the waxing and waning of its own political fortunes over the next 150 years, through to its eventual proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and then afterwards, on into modern times. For more than two centuries, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings had been the official, state-sponsored form of Islam and the dominant creed[30][31] in Saudi Arabia.[32] As of 2017, changes to Saudi religious policy by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman have led some to suggest that "Islamists throughout the world will have to follow suit or risk winding up on the wrong side of orthodoxy".[33] In 2018 Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, denied that anyone "can define this Wahhabism" or even that it exists.[34] By 2021, the waning power of the religious clerics brought forth by the social, religious, economic, political changes and a new educational policy asserting a "Saudi national identity" that emphasize non-Islamic components; have led to what has been described by some as the "post-Wahhabi era" of Saudi Arabia.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

The "boundaries" of Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[42] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are sometimes used interchangeably, and they are considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[43]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism#cite_note-hybridation-46 However, Wahhabism is generally considered as "a particular orientation within Salafism",[45] or as a conservative, Gulf branch of Salafism.[46][47]
...}
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
No, not really.
Islam is actually just a variant of Judaism, so it not a separate religion, and differs mostly because it is also a system of social structure.
It takes care of widows and orphans, etc.
Since Islam uses the same Old Testament, it does not differentiate between Judaism or Christianity.
The only country that suppresses other religions is Saudi Arabia, and that should not be done according to the Quran.
The trouble with Saudi Arabia is they are not really Islamic, but Wahhabis.

Since the original Islamic leadership was all massacred by the Mongols around 1200, the 1700 Wahhabists got it totally wrong, and were just tribal primitives, Turks, Moguls, and other Asian invaders.

{...
Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, romanized: al-Wahhābyyah, lit. 'Wahhabism') is a term used to refer to the Islamic revivalist and fundamentalist movement within Sunni Islam which is associated with the Hanbali reformist doctrines of the Arabian scholar Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703-1792).[a][1][2][3][4] It has been variously described as "orthodox",[5] "puritan(ical)";[6][7] and as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" by devotees.[8][9] The term "Wahhabism" was not used by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself, but it is chiefly used by outsiders polemically as an exonym and adherents reject its use, preferring to be called "Salafi" (a term used by followers of other Islamic reform movements as well),[7][10] and view themselves as Muwahhid (meaning "monotheistic"),[11][12][13] to emphasize the principle of Tawhid[14] (oneness of God).[15] The term has also been described as a Sunniphobic slur.[16][17][18][19] It adheres to the Athari theology.

Wahhabism is named after the 18th-century Islamic scholar, theologian, preacher, and activist Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).[8][20][21][22][23] He started a reform movement in the region of Najd in central Arabia,[8][24] advocating a purging of widespread practices such as veneration of Muslim saints and pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines that were practiced by the people of Najd, but which he considered idolatrous impurities and innovations in Islam (bidʻah).[8][15][25] Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and his followers were highly inspired by the influential thirteenth-century Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 - 1328 C.E/ 661 - 728 A.H) who called for a return to the purity of the first three generations (Salaf) to rid Muslims of inauthentic outgrowths (bidʻah), and regarded his works as core scholarly references in theology.[26][27][28]

Eventually, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab formed a pact with a local leader, Muhammad bin Saud, offering political allegiance and promising that protection and propagation of the Wahhabi movement meant "power and glory" and rule of "lands and men".[29] The alliance between followers of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's successors (the House of Saud) proved to be a durable one. The House of Saud continued to maintain its politico-religious alliance with the Wahhabi sect through the waxing and waning of its own political fortunes over the next 150 years, through to its eventual proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and then afterwards, on into modern times. For more than two centuries, Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's teachings had been the official, state-sponsored form of Islam and the dominant creed[30][31] in Saudi Arabia.[32] As of 2017, changes to Saudi religious policy by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman have led some to suggest that "Islamists throughout the world will have to follow suit or risk winding up on the wrong side of orthodoxy".[33] In 2018 Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, denied that anyone "can define this Wahhabism" or even that it exists.[34] By 2021, the waning power of the religious clerics brought forth by the social, religious, economic, political changes and a new educational policy asserting a "Saudi national identity" that emphasize non-Islamic components; have led to what has been described by some as the "post-Wahhabi era" of Saudi Arabia.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

The "boundaries" of Wahhabism have been called "difficult to pinpoint",[42] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are sometimes used interchangeably, and they are considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[43]Wahhabism - Wikipedia However, Wahhabism is generally considered as "a particular orientation within Salafism",[45] or as a conservative, Gulf branch of Salafism.[46][47]
...}
Open your eyes
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,934
Reaction score
5,997
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Open your eyes

I disagree.
For example, there are over 30,000 Jews living in Tehran alone.
Jews can and do live everywhere, and it is wrong to claim they need their own country, especially since the one they picked already was packed with Arab Moslems.

This is a synagogue in northern Tehran, Iran.
OIP.JqJEBY82OUpjdbnalXlwSAHaFd

{...

Iranian Jews attend one of the biggest synagogue in Northern Tehran, Yusef Abad Synagogue to celebrate Rosh Hashanah or Jewish New Year, Tehran, Iran​

...}

Does not look oppressed to me?
 
OP
AzogtheDefiler

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
53,466
Reaction score
21,697
Points
2,300
Location
Boston, MA
I disagree.
For example, there are over 30,000 Jews living in Tehran alone.
Jews can and do live everywhere, and it is wrong to claim they need their own country, especially since the one they picked already was packed with Arab Moslems.

This is a synagogue in northern Tehran, Iran.
OIP.JqJEBY82OUpjdbnalXlwSAHaFd

{...

Iranian Jews attend one of the biggest synagogue in Northern Tehran, Yusef Abad Synagogue to celebrate Rosh Hashanah or Jewish New Year, Tehran, Iran​

...}

Does not look oppressed to me?
Speak with them. You may be surprised
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top