Time To Tell The Truth About Israel …Without Fear Of The Mind Police

Search

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
I really don't think you and this Icke fellow care so much for the Palestinians as you hate Jews.

The one-sided misrepresentations in the article about the current situation aside, if you really are interested in the truth about the creation and legitimacy of Israel - which I doubt - the facts (Cliff Notes version, since I realize your attention span is limited) are these:

Prior to WWI, the area, known as Palestine, was controlled by the Ottoman empire. There has been a Jewish and an Arab presence in the area for thousands of years. In the early 20th century, European Jews started moving to the area in greater numbers, largely the result of rising anti-Semitism in Europe that was exemplified by the Dreyfuss trial in France and the pograms in Russia. The Jewish settelement in the area was completely legal - in fact, most of the land was purchased at above market prices. (It's ridiculous to think that the Moslem Ottoman empire would have allowed Jews to steal land from Muslim Arabs.)

Following WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British gained control of Palestine and promised to create a Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration. Half of the territory was to be given to the Jews, and half to the Arabs. However, they reneged on that promise in the early 1920s, established the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan in the entire area east of the Jordan River, and closed that area to all Jewish migration. Jews continued to migrate to the section of Palestine west of the Jordan, as did many Arabs. (Most of the people who today call themselves "Palestinians" are actually decendants of other Arab countries, and only moved to Palestine after the Jews began settling there and the area began to flourish. Yasser Arafat, for example, was born in Egypt.)

There were numerous massacres of Jews at the hands of Arabs in the 20s, re-inspiring the call for a Jewish homeland. Still, the British refused to establish one. Finally, with the end of WWII, the British withdrew and the United Nations divided what was left of the original Palestine mandate between Jews and Arabs. Although the Jews were given less than 10% of what was originally promised in the Balfour Declaration, they accepted the UN resolution. The Arabs didn't, and immediately began a military campaign to drive the Jews into the sea. More than 1% of the entire Jewish population of Israel died in that original conflict, but they prevailed, and thousands more in the wars and terrorism that have continued virtually unabated for the last 60 years.

And to be fair, this is a very one-sided account that paints the Jews in a positive light and the Arabs in a negative one.

It only mentions land in the Balfour Declaration which was inherently pro-Israel, while ignoring other agreements and the demographics of the land at the time.

You know why Israel accepted this and Arabs didn't?

At the time of the UN partition, 2/3's of the population of Palestine was Arab. However 54% of the land was given to Jews. That is the reason Israel accepted the plan and the Arabs didn't.

Also you fail to mention that both sides never thought the partition would work. Ben-Gurion himself said that he wanted to assemble an army to take the rest of Palestine for the Jews by force and he has published as saying that partition could never be a long-term solution.

Honestly, how could either side think this would work long-term? Look at this map.

240px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png


Effing retarded. At least the powers that be didn't fuck up as massively as they did the 1885 Treaty of Berlin, but it is still a poor solution.

But now you know the real reason why the Jews accepted it and the Arabs didn't. Honestly, the Jews would have accepted much less just to get official recognition of sovereignty and than proceed about taking over the rest of Palestine.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
And to be fair, this is a very one-sided account that paints the Jews in a positive light and the Arabs in a negative one.

It only mentions land in the Balfour Declaration which was inherently pro-Israel, while ignoring other agreements and the demographics of the land at the time.

You know why Israel accepted this and Arabs didn't?

At the time of the UN partition, 2/3's of the population of Palestine was Arab. However 54% of the land was given to Jews. That is the reason Israel accepted the plan and the Arabs didn't.

Also you fail to mention that both sides never thought the partition would work. Ben-Gurion himself said that he wanted to assemble an army to take the rest of Palestine for the Jews by force and he has published as saying that partition could never be a long-term solution.

Honestly, how could either side think this would work long-term? Look at this map.

240px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png


Effing retarded. At least the powers that be didn't fuck up as massively as they did the 1885 Treaty of Berlin, but it is still a poor solution.

But now you know the real reason why the Jews accepted it and the Arabs didn't. Honestly, the Jews would have accepted much less just to get official recognition of sovereignty and than proceed about taking over the rest of Palestine.


What the UN mandate gave the Jews was TEN PERCENT of the land originally designated in the Balfour declaration, so don't try to convey the impression that the final agreement was heavily weighted in their favor. Eighty percent of the land (Transjordan) had already been taken off of the table not only given to the Arabs, but barred from Jewish settlement for God's sake. And, as apparent on your map, what was finally designated as Israel was three small, unconnected slivers of land.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
December 14, 2008
feature-world-flags.jpg

Who Gets U.S. Foreign Aid
The U.S. will give an estimated $26 billion in foreign aid in 2008—70% more than when President George W. Bush took office (the figure doesn’t include funds related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). More than 150 countries get financial assistance from the U.S. Here are the six that received the most this year.

<table style="font-size: 14px;" class="tableTD" summary="" width="599" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="10"><tbody><tr><td valign="bottom" width="110" align="left"> COUNTRY </td><td valign="bottom" width="90" align="left">AID </td><td valign="bottom" align="left">PURPOSE </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">1. Israel </td><td valign="top" align="left">$2.4 billion</td><td valign="top" align="left">Virtually all of this money is used to buy weapons (up to 75% made in the U.S.). Beginning in 2009, the U.S. plans to give $30 billion over 10 years.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">2. Egypt </td><td valign="top" align="left">$1.7 billion</td><td valign="top" align="left">$1.3 billion to buy weapons; $103 million for education; $74 million for health care; $45 million to promote civic participation and human rights.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">3. Pakistan </td><td valign="top" align="left">$798 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">$330 million for security efforts, including military-equipment upgrades and border security; $20 million for infrastructure.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">4. Jordan </td><td valign="top" align="left">$688 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">$326 million to fight terrorism and promote regional stability through equipment upgrades and training; $163 million cash payment to the Jordanian government.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">5. Kenya </td><td valign="top" align="left">$586 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">$501 million to fight HIV/AIDS through drug treatment and abstinence education and to combat malaria; $15 million for agricultural development; $5.4 million for programs that promote government accountability.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">6. South Africa </td><td valign="top" align="left">$574 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">$557 million to fight TB and HIV/AIDS; $3 million for education.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">7. Mexico </td><td valign="top" align="left">$551 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">Click here for details.
</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">8. Colombia </td><td valign="top" align="left">$541 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">Click here for details.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">9. Nigeria </td><td valign="top" align="left">$491 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">Click here for details.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">10. Sudan </td><td valign="top" align="left">$479 million</td><td valign="top" align="left">Click here for details.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Our largesse toward Israel (and Egypt) is the result of Jimmy Fuckup's Camp David agreement. Now, of course, he tries to blame it all on the Israeli lobby, but prior to that we basically only provided them with loans and loan guarantees (which, incidentally, they paid back 100%).

Personally, I think we should end all foreign aid to all countries. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground - Hamas has brought this situation entirely on themselves.
 

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
What the UN mandate gave the Jews was TEN PERCENT of the land originally designated in the Balfour declaration, so don't try to convey the impression that the final agreement was heavily weighted in their favor. Eighty percent of the land (Transjordan) had already been taken off of the table not only given to the Arabs, but barred from Jewish settlement for God's sake. And, as apparent on your map, what was finally designated as Israel was three small, unconnected slivers of land.

First, the land proposed to be given to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration was proposed to be given to other nations besides the Jews as well. It's not like the Jews were the only nation promised that land.

Second, do you really think the Jews should have gotten all of the land in the Transjordan? I mean jesus man, there was a massive influx of Jews into the region after WWII and they STILL only made up 1/3 of the population. I can't imagine that they made up more than 5-10% of the population of Transjordan, so why should they get all the land? That makes no sense.

Third, the Jews got a majorly favorable land distribution from the UN for the demographics of the time. There is no arguing this. 33% of the people getting 54% of the land is ridiculous. THAT is why the Arabs protested and a major reason why the Jews accepted. I mean, isn't it totally logical for the Arabs to protest the decision?
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
First, the land proposed to be given to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration was proposed to be given to other nations besides the Jews as well. It's not like the Jews were the only nation promised that land.

Second, do you really think the Jews should have gotten all of the land in the Transjordan? I mean jesus man, there was a massive influx of Jews into the region after WWII and they STILL only made up 1/3 of the population. I can't imagine that they made up more than 5-10% of the population of Transjordan, so why should they get all the land? That makes no sense.

Third, the Jews got a majorly favorable land distribution from the UN for the demographics of the time. There is no arguing this. 33% of the people getting 54% of the land is ridiculous. THAT is why the Arabs protested and a major reason why the Jews accepted. I mean, isn't it totally logical for the Arabs to protest the decision?

Sir, you are missing the point. The percentages you are quoting (actually, it was closer to 50-50 than 67-33) are only considering the remaining portion of the mandate AFTER Transjordan was given to the Arabs. I never said that the Jews should have been given Transjordan. But it is not arguable that the Arabs were given close to NINETY percent of the land in the orginal mandate, not thirty three percent as you continue to imply.
 

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
Sir, you are missing the point. The percentages you are quoting (actually, it was closer to 50-50 than 67-33) are only considering the remaining portion of the mandate AFTER Transjordan was given to the Arabs. I never said that the Jews should have been given Transjordan. But it is not arguable that the Arabs were given close to NINETY percent of the land in the orginal mandate, not thirty three percent as you continue to imply.

No I'm not. My numbers are for Palestine. It is very hard to find Transjordan demographical numbers.

Here are some numbers for Palestine

<table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="sortable wikitable"><tbody><tr><th>Year </th> <th>Total </th> <th>Muslim </th> <th>Jewish </th> <th>Christian </th> <th>Other </th> </tr> <tr> <td>1922</td> <td>752,048</td> <td>589,177(78%)</td> <td>83,790(11%)</td> <td>71,464(10%)</td> <td>7,617(1%)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1931</td> <td>1,036,339</td> <td>761,922(74%)</td> <td>175,138(17%)</td> <td>89,134(9%)</td> <td>10,145(1%)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1945</td> <td>1,764,520</td> <td>1,061,270(60%)</td> <td>553,600(31%)</td> <td>135,550(8%)</td> <td>14,100(1%)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Now, only 11% of Palestine itself was Jewish in 1922, five years after the Balfour Declaration and there were probably <1% of Jews in the remaining TransJordan area outside of Palestine. There were very few, if any, Jews in the TransJordan so what is the big deal about saying Jews can't move there? Makes sense to me. TransJordan was over 90% Arab so why can't they receive over 90% of the land? Makes sense.

Also, the 1945 Census tells us that only 1/3 of the population was Jewish at the time of the mandate. It wasn't anywhere close to 50/50.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
No I'm not. My numbers are for Palestine. It is very hard to find Transjordan demographical numbers.

Here are some numbers for Palestine

<table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="sortable wikitable"><tbody><tr><th>Year </th> <th>Total </th> <th>Muslim </th> <th>Jewish </th> <th>Christian </th> <th>Other </th> </tr> <tr> <td>1922</td> <td>752,048</td> <td>589,177(78%)</td> <td>83,790(11%)</td> <td>71,464(10%)</td> <td>7,617(1%)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1931</td> <td>1,036,339</td> <td>761,922(74%)</td> <td>175,138(17%)</td> <td>89,134(9%)</td> <td>10,145(1%)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1945</td> <td>1,764,520</td> <td>1,061,270(60%)</td> <td>553,600(31%)</td> <td>135,550(8%)</td> <td>14,100(1%)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Now, only 11% of Palestine itself was Jewish in 1922, five years after the Balfour Declaration and there were probably <1% of Jews in the remaining TransJordan area outside of Palestine. There were very few, if any, Jews in the TransJordan so what is the big deal about saying Jews can't move there? Makes sense to me. TransJordan was over 90% Arab so why can't they receive over 90% of the land? Makes sense.

Also, the 1945 Census tells us that only 1/3 of the population was Jewish at the time of the mandate. It wasn't anywhere close to 50/50.

I was referring to the division of the land, not the population. And the idea that it's OK that Jews were barred from the land that Arabs controlled (90%) - but if Arabs were barred from Jewish land (which they weren't) it would be somehow racist - is preposterous.

Bottom line, you have to be pretty narrow minded to view the final UN declaration as being decidedly pro-Jewish.
 

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
I was referring to the division of the land, not the population. And the idea that it's OK that Jews were barred from the land that Arabs controlled (90%) - but if Arabs were barred from Jewish land (which they weren't) it would be somehow racist - is preposterous.

Bottom line, you have to be pretty narrow minded to view the final UN declaration as being decidedly pro-Jewish.

Who said it would be racist?

How do you have to be narrow-minded to view the final UN decision as pro-Jewish? It was pro-Jewish. There is no dispute. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I posted the figures. 31% of the population of Palestine was Jewish according to the 1945 Census. The Jews received 54% of the land in Palestine. These are facts. Knowing these facts, how can you conclude that the decision wasn't pro-Jewish?

You have said the population was at about 50/50, if the population was 50/50 than the case could be made that it only slightly favored the Jews. However, I have seen no census numbers that say the population was 50/50. Here is an estimate of what the population was at the time of the partition taking into account many factors:

http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_population_un_1.htm

Finally, you acted with such indignation that the Jews were only given 10% of the land promised in the Balfour Declaration. Like I have said before, that land was promised to more than just the Jews. Also, the population in all of Trans-Jordan at the time was probably right around 5%, so getting 10% of the land is a pretty good deal. You also say that you was referring to the division of the land, not the population. You HAVE to divide the land by the population. If you don't take populations into account, you are getting the partition of Africa all over again and NO ONE wants that.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
Who said it would be racist?

How do you have to be narrow-minded to view the final UN decision as pro-Jewish? It was pro-Jewish. There is no dispute. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I posted the figures. 31% of the population of Palestine was Jewish according to the 1945 Census. The Jews received 54% of the land in Palestine. These are facts. Knowing these facts, how can you conclude that the decision wasn't pro-Jewish?

You have said the population was at about 50/50, if the population was 50/50 than the case could be made that it only slightly favored the Jews. However, I have seen no census numbers that say the population was 50/50. Here is an estimate of what the population was at the time of the partition taking into account many factors:

http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_population_un_1.htm

Finally, you acted with such indignation that the Jews were only given 10% of the land promised in the Balfour Declaration. Like I have said before, that land was promised to more than just the Jews. Also, the population in all of Trans-Jordan at the time was probably right around 5%, so getting 10% of the land is a pretty good deal. You also say that you was referring to the division of the land, not the population. You HAVE to divide the land by the population. If you don't take populations into account, you are getting the partition of Africa all over again and NO ONE wants that.

Please don't characterize my statement of the FACTS based on your prejudices. You have no idea of my mindset, so don't call me indignant, OK?.

Based on your logic, the Jews - especially after Hitler took care of about 6 million or so of them - wouldn't be a majority anywhere, so they wouldn't be entitled to a state anywhere. Ninety percent of the original land of Palestine, ninety-nine percent of the land in the Middle East, is controlled by Arabs. Jews are either completely barred or persecuted in many of these countries. But apparently that's not good enough for the Arabs or for folks like you. Fine. But don't act like the Arabs are the ones who got the short end of this whole deal.
 

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
Please don't characterize my statement of the FACTS based on your prejudices. You have no idea of my mindset, so don't call me indignant, OK?.

Based on your logic, the Jews - especially after Hitler took care of about 6 million or so of them - wouldn't be a majority anywhere, so they wouldn't be entitled to a state anywhere. Ninety percent of the original land of Palestine, ninety-nine percent of the land in the Middle East, is controlled by Arabs. Jews are either completely barred or persecuted in many of these countries. But apparently that's not good enough for the Arabs or for folks like you. Fine. But don't act like the Arabs are the ones who got the short end of this whole deal.

My prejudices? I have used facts, logic, and knowledge of other partitions and land distributions to come up with my assessments. I have yet to see you use any statistical analysis to come up with this. This started because you criticized one persons biased view and than added a totally biased view of your own. You stated that there was close to a 50/50 split in population, there wasn't. That was a falsehood.

I have also never said that the Jews should not have their own nation-state. I said that the UN resolution favored the Jews (which it unequivocally did). The Jews should absolutely have their own nation-state (IMO as should the Kurds, the people that have been REALLY fucked over but no one talks about). I have no idea where you perceived "my logic" as what you characterized it as. What I have inferred is that I believe that the Jews should have gotten a third of the land of Palestine, roughly proportionate to the population in the region.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
My prejudices? I have used facts, logic, and knowledge of other partitions and land distributions to come up with my assessments. I have yet to see you use any statistical analysis to come up with this. This started because you criticized one persons biased view and than added a totally biased view of your own. You stated that there was close to a 50/50 split in population, there wasn't. That was a falsehood.

I have also never said that the Jews should not have their own nation-state. I said that the UN resolution favored the Jews (which it unequivocally did). The Jews should absolutely have their own nation-state (IMO as should the Kurds, the people that have been REALLY fucked over but no one talks about). I have no idea where you perceived "my logic" as what you characterized it as. What I have inferred is that I believe that the Jews should have gotten a third of the land of Palestine, roughly proportionate to the population in the region.

For the third time - I never stated there was a 50-50 population split. I stated that the LAND was divided roughly 50-50. The point of a Jewish homeland was that there would be a place for Jews around the world to go if they were persecuted. Their numbers in Palestine would have been much greater, btw, if European Jews were allowed to migrate there during WWII to avoid extermination - which they weren't. So it made sense for them to be given territory that was marginally larger than their population in the area. However much territory they were given, it's laughable to think that the Arabs would have accepted a Jewish state.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
11,091
Tokens
Lawyer: Fired waiter may have been rebelling against dadBY MATTHEW CHAYES

matthew.chayes@newsday.com

1:08 PM EST, January 10, 2009

A waiter at a Jewish wedding who is considering converting to Islam interrupted the celebration's final prayers with recorded Arabic chants of "God is great," sparking fear among the 700 guests of a terrorist attack, Nassau County police said Friday in announcing his arrest.

Stephen Buttafuoco, who police say was fired "on the spot" from the catering service at the Woodbury Jewish Center, had attended a pro-Palestinian rally in Manhattan a day earlier opposing the Israeli campaign.

Buttafuoco recorded the audio on his cell phone of the rally, which he then used to replay for the wedding guests, police said.

Following a police investigation, Buttafuoco, 23, was charged with aggravated harassment, a felony, police said. The crime with which he is charged makes it illegal to "harass, annoy, threaten or alarm" via electronic means. A grand jury will consider whether to also charge Buttafuoco with the crime of disruption of a religious service, police said.

At his arraignment Saturday, Buttafuoco pleaded not guilty, his attorney, Thomas H. Spreer, said, adding that his client's mother intended to post the $1,500 cash bail.

Spreer said Saturday that his client may have been rebelling against his father -- the preacher of a born-again church in Babylon who apparently supports Israel's war against Hamas -- by airing the tape of the pro-Palestinian protest.

The wedding guests early Jan. 4 couldn't at first decipher the angry-sounding chants blaring over the public address system shortly after 1 a.m.

"They just figured it was the children playing with the DJ's microphone," said Nassau Det. Sgt. Michael Marino.

But when they heard "Allahu akbar" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- the guests became worried.

"They thought that this could lead to some kind of terroristic act," Marino said. He said the recording "put the guests in fear that something was going to happen to them."

Because of the Sabbath, neither the caterer, Morrell Caterers, where Buttafuoco had worked for about two years, nor the synagogue could be reached for comment.

Buttafuoco told detectives that he was trying to disrespect Judaism privately and that he didn't think the recording was being played throughout the building, just in the sanctuary, where he was, police said.

Police, who called the recording "an offensive Palestinian chant," said he was not arrested until Friday because detectives wanted to rule out terrorist connections.

Attorney Spreer, of Babylon, said charging his client with a felony may have been heavy-handed.

"On the other hand, I can understand the concern of the members of Jewish community who were at this wedding," Spreer said. "I can certainly see both sides of the coin."

Police said Buttafuoco told detectives that he is not related to Joey Buttafuoco, the man involved in a notorious love triangle in the 1990s with Amy Fisher, though people ask him often about the shared name.

Speaking of the confusion, Sgt. Marino said: "He actually told the detective he went through that his whole life."

Copyright © 2009, Newsday Inc.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I don't mind when people criticize Israeli actions, as long as they are fair-minded and not using the same old boiler-plate rhetoric. I would hope Israel's critics would view everything on this page and keep an open mind. The death of innocent people is the most tragic result of any war. However, terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizb'allah are fucking animals with no value for human life on either side. See for yourself:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Israel_at_War_-_Day_15.asp
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
688
Tokens
Do you remember the movie Little Big Man where the heroic US cavalry murdered any living human and animal in the indian village with background of patriotic flutes and piccolos? Same US/Israel military killing going on here in this penned-up starved out Gaza 'village'. Time was ticking away on the Israel Military to bolster their pro war vote in elections approaching in February and sore up advertising agency imagery following their humiliation in the 2006-7 Lebanon defeat. Timing also coincides (rhymes with genocide) with the merciful time clock extermination of the Bush brainiacs and their merry band of patriotic corporate/military profiteers which presented this last deadly window through which the proud Israel money/war machine exploited and marched their assault against defensles civilians. Gaza is being starved, watered, hospitaled, and electriced out by Israel blockade; Hamas could have picked fatter citizens to hide behind than these starved skeletons. Believe all the US media you want (same advertising media that brought you Iraq WMDs and Kuwait babies slaughtered in incubators) but something like 20-30 Isreal citizens have been killed by Gaza rocket attacks on innocent civilians over the last decade -same time frame like 3000 Israel citizens perished in auto accidents (meanwhile in the last three weeks 800 men, women, and children civilians have been added to the countless thousands perished and suffering under the Israel/US war machine). The world community is fed up with the Israel/US military profiteers. Things will damn well change soon.
 

New member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
257
Tokens
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Things will change for sure but not soon my friend. It may take 8 or 10 years.

That is the best guess as to how long it will take Iran to make it's bomb. ;)
 

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
85
Tokens
The world community is fed up with the Israel/US military profiteers. Things will damn well change soon.

No, it won't. You can say the world community is fed up, but they really aren't. Only the Middle East is truly fed up. The rest of the world pretends to be, but they are safe from the violence so they do not care.
 

Everything's Legal in the USofA...Just don't get c
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,199
Tokens
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Things will change for sure but not soon my friend. It may take 8 or 10 years.

That is the best guess as to how long it will take Iran to make it's bomb. ;)

Good to know which side you're on - as if there were ever any doubt. Also good to see that even its allies are now admitting that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons for other than "peaceful" purposes.

Actually, I don't know of any intelligence estimates that say that Iran is that far away from having a deployable nuclear weapon. In any case, be careful what you wish for. The Saudis and Egyptians aren't about to let Shiite Iran become the only Muslim power in the Middle East with a bomb. Once Iran gets the big one, the arms race in the Arab world will commence at breakneck speed. And it will only be a matter of time before one of those crazies launches.

Again, I urge everyone to read the Bible, starting with Matthew 24, and be prepared. The final days are approaching rapidly.
 

Last night I drank enough to kill a small Asian fa
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,839
Tokens
Good to know which side you're on - as if there were ever any doubt. Also good to see that even its allies are now admitting that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons for other than "peaceful" purposes.

Actually, I don't know of any intelligence estimates that say that Iran is that far away from having a deployable nuclear weapon. In any case, be careful what you wish for. The Saudis and Egyptians aren't about to let Shiite Iran become the only Muslim power in the Middle East with a bomb. Once Iran gets the big one, the arms race in the Arab world will commence at breakneck speed. And it will only be a matter of time before one of those crazies launches.

Again, I urge everyone to read the Bible, starting with Matthew 24, and be prepared. The final days are approaching rapidly.

And there it is.

Also, how do you know this? What IR or Political or CP training do you have that makes you think this?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,985
Messages
13,589,829
Members
101,038
Latest member
azerbaijanevisa
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com