What Isael can do to save itself -?

[toomuchtime_]

...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.

Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.

You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.

 

[JStone]

...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.

Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.

You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.

"Rep System Guidelines: Our reputation system is designed to provide a feedback and credibility mechanism."

P F Tinmore Rep Power: 0
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,512
"PF Tinmore is off the scale"

Eminent Historian Sir Martin Gilbert, Author of 10 Books on Middle East History and History of Jerusalem

Jerusalem became the capital of the first Jewish kingdom in 1004 BC, over 3000 years ago. With the brief exception of the Crusader period, no other non-Jewish ruling power of Jerusalem made the city a capital but it was consistently a capital for the Jews. Driven into partial exile by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, the Jews returned fifty years later and rebuilt Jerusalem as their capital. It was their capital, too, under the Maccabees. The unity of the city achieved in 1967, then, was more than a quirk of military geography. It was the fulfillment of unbroken historical longings.

In 1210, following the defeat of the Crusaders, groups of Jews began to return Jerusalem. Henceforth, without interruption, and in every decade, individual Jews and groups of Jews reached the city from the Maghreb [north Africa] and elsewhere forming an ever-growing community. Driven out by the Tartar invasion of 1244, they had returned by 1250. Three times a day the Jews repeated in their prayers, "And to Jerusalem Thy city mayest thou return to mercy, and dwell in its midst as Thou hast spoken, and rebuild it soon in our days for evermore

Areas from which some 300 Rabbis travelled to Jerusalem, Acre and Ramla in 1210 AD, to strengthen the Jewish communities weakened by the Crusader massacres and expulsions. Jews are known to have traveled from throughout the region to Jerusalem [after 1267], settling permanently and forming by 1841 the largest single community in Jerusalem.

1000 AD: Jews take part in the defence of Haifa against the Crusades

1099:AD: Jews take part in the defence of Jerusalem against the Crusaders

1211: Several Rabbis from France and England settle in Jerusalem

1267: Maimonides arrives in Jerusalem and establishes a synagogue . During the next 500 years, Jerusalem is reinstated as a centre of Jewish learning.

In 1500, there were an estimated 10,000 Jews living in the Safed region

1563: Establishment of a Hebrew printing press in Jerusalem, the first printing press on the Asian Continent

By 1880 the Jews formed the majority of the population Jerusalem

During the 17th and 18th centuries, many Jerusalem Jews, scholars and rabbis, travelled from Jerusalem to teach in Jewish communities elsewhere, and also to seek alms and charity for the poorer members of their own community. there was also a regular movement of families, in both directions, between Jerusalem and several towns of the eastern Mediterranean region

Jewish villages in Israel 1855--1914...

Deganya
Jerusalem
Safed
Tiberias
Kinneret
Merhavya
Zikhron Yacov
Ekron
Mikveh Israel
Rishon le-Zion
Ben Shemen
Rehovot
Hulda
Kastinia
Artuf
Hebron
Ruhama
Beer-Toviya
Hartuv
Gedera
Kfar Uriya
Motza
Nes Ziona
Beer Yaakov
Nahalat Yehuda
Mahane Yehuda
Ein Ganim
Petah Tikvah
Kfar Sava
Kfar Mahal
Hadera
Gan Shmuel
Nahliel
Karkur
Givat Ada
Bat Shelomo
Tantura
Shefeiya
Yavneel
Beit Gan
Kfar Tova
Poriya
Sejera
Menahemya
Beitanya
Mizpa
Kfar Hittim
Bnei Yehuda
Mishmar Hayarden
Ayelet Hashashar
Ein Zeitim
Metulla

 

[P F Tinmore]

...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.

Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.

You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.

Of course that completely ignored what I said.

 

[JStone]

Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.

You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.

Of course that completely ignored what I said.

Have you demanded that Jordan, representing 80% of palestine, surrender their country to the fakestinians?

 

[ima]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

 

[JStone]

Warren Buffett

If you go to the Middle East looking for oil, you don't need to stop in Israel. But, if you're looking for brains, for energy, for integrity, for imagination, it's the only stop you need to make"
Warren Buffet on Israel - YouTube

Wall Street Journal: Google to Launch Start-Up Incubator in Israel Google to Launch Start-up Incubator in Israel - Digits - WSJ

Google is setting up an “incubator” for technology start-ups in Israel, one of several ways the California-based Internet giant is trying to get an early look at innovations

Numerous technology giants including Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, AT&T, and Hewlett-Packard also have offices or research centers in Israel.

Initially, Google’s incubator will host roughly 20 “pre-seed” start ups, or about 80 people, for a period of a few months, after which new companies will come into the incubator to replace them, and the project will be open to many types of start-ups but has an emphasis on open-source technologies.

Google’s move is “very significant,” said Shuly Galili, executive director of the California-Israel Chamber of Commerce. “Google will have more accessibility to the talent and the know-how and what’s going on in that community,” she said, adding that she expects more U.S. tech companies to make similar moves in the future.
Galili is involved in a new “accelerator” for Israeli startups called Upwest Labs that will be based in Silicon Valley, providing a chance for Israeli entrepreneurs to work on their projects and meet with investors and technology companies based in the U.S. Google is one of Upwest’s sponsors, she said.

Israel has long been known as a tech hub, sometimes called “start-up nation.” An Israeli company called PrimeSense is a key technology provider for Microsoft’s Kinect, a motion-activated video game system. Several years ago SanDisk bought Israel-based M-Systems, which made flash drives, for $1.5 billion. In the late 1990s, AOL bought an Israeli company that made ICQ, an instant-messaging service, for hundreds of millions of dollars.

“The Israeli developer community is hugely innovative and has the potential to create many more ground-breaking technological developments,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement on Monday. “This project was initiated with a desire to encourage entrepreneurship and to provide support at exactly the stage when developers are often most in need of it. The technology incubator is part of Google’s efforts to strengthen its connections with the developer community,” the spokeswoman said.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ1Q761ODbE]Google to set up startup incubator in Israel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ima]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

 

[ima]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

 

[Artevelde]

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

The risk is not that Iran will give a nuke to terrorists. The risk is that it will unleash Hizbollah to use all the weapons it has given them against Israel, including weapons that would cause an unacceptable number of casualties for Israel. At that point Israel will potentially retaliate with nuclear weapons. Not really a nice prospect, as it may lead to a much wider exchange and the death of a hundred million people or so.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

 

[JStone]

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

You're wasting your obvious intelligence.

 

[ima]

Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?

 

[Hossfly]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!

The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?

No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

 

[ima]

The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?

No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.

 

[JStone]

No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?

No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.

As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole ******* country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.

What? No replies? (and JStoned, **** off, you don't count)

Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.

 

[JStone]

Sahih Muslim Hadeeth

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?

No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.

To try to be absolutely sure they didn't have anymore launchers or warheads hidden somewhere we'd have to turn the whole country into a nuclear wasteland, killing all 80,000,000 people in Iran and depending on weather conditions, perhaps killing millions more in the surrounding countries from radioactive drift. Even then, could we be certain they didn't have launchers and warheads buried deep within some mountain? We could be safer from attack with conventional weapons by destroying their military and destroying their oil refineries and enough of their fuel storage tanks so that they would only have enough fuel to provide the most basic services to keep the country going and not enough to rebuild.

I am confident that the US would look to the future and realize our safety would be better secured by limiting the proliferation of WMD's than by wreaking vengeance on a whole people for the actions of a few of their leaders as you suggest we should.