• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Does Israel have a right to exist? Whats your solution?

I just found out about this anti-Muslim group in Europe called the Soldiers Of Odin. Sort of like the Guardian Angels except they're guarding against Muslims. I need to figure out how to join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers_of_Odin
 
This is the Zionist propaganda lie. The reason they promote this lie is so people like you will continue to believe that the problem is not fixable, and either support Israeli Apartheid or tolerate it as the lesser of two evils. But the fact of the matter is, Jewish people lived in relative peace for LONG PERIODS under Islamic rule. Read about Saladin. Read about the Ottoman Empire, which was largely welcoming to the Jews when Christian whites in Europe were massacring Jews during the Pogroms and Catholic Inquisition.

It's not your fault that the media has lied to you. But at some point, you've got to look at things from the other side. I've read your posts in other threads. You are one of the few genuinely reasoned voices on this board. I beseech you to consider the Palestinians position more thoroughly.

What is the stuff you are posting but Hamas propaganda? Why do you take that as verbatim truth but ignore anything that contradicts it?

We could go back and forth debating how this all started and who was originally at fault and who throughout history was more brutal and violent. The fact is that TODAY...this is a conflict between a modern democratic government which believes in women's rights, exhibits tolerance of other races and religions, and it a staunch US ally, and a brutal totalitarian radical Islamist terrorist organization which seeks to exterminate Jews, subjugate women, slaughter gays, and ultimately force the rest of the world to accept its backward savage religious beliefs, even if it costs them their own lives and the lives of their children. You want to side with the latter, be my guest. The vast majority of Arabs who live in Israel and have experienced modern life don't want what you're selling.
 
The problem is no one is fighting terrorists or an army. It is fighting a mindset / religion. Armies can be destroyed, but trying to destroy Isis or Al-queda is near impossible. There are always people waiting in the wings.

Therein lies the dilemma.

Folks that opine on the subject generally agree that 10+% of muslims are muzloids (read: radicals). That translates to between 130-160 million muzloids that would gleefully serially anally rape ('conventional' rape seems to elude these primitives) your wives and daughters after gleefully separating you from your head. But the thing is that when asked about slaughtering Jews and Christians, the rest of them seem to be fine with it, according to the polls that have inquired. In fact, but a small minority disagree with the "jihad" being waged against the West, and they only object because it's bad for business..

This much we know. A muslim is loyal to islam before any and all other affections. The Ishmaeli maxim "I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger" permeates their "interactions" with each other and the RoW. It isn't possible for muslims to assimilate into the cultures they invade. Nor is it their purpose to do so. Their purpose is to invade and establish islam.

I'm not "cool with that". Inasmuch as their jihad is active warfare against any and all who are not muslim, as is born out in every poll, and displayed in most of the violence on the planet, EVERY muslim is a muzloid. So when I hear a Trump say, we need to put the brakes on the wholesale invasion from muzloid lands, I hear common sense. In fact, I would applaud any pol that would step up and proclaim the obvious - all muzloids here need to go. I don't care who they are, how long they've been here, who they're connected to, what they own, or what they have "contributed", all muzloids are a bloodbath looking for a place to happen.
 
<<<<<<< Consult the av.
I did get this sticker for my truck a few months ago. Sorry it came out sideways. If you click twice it straightens out.
 

Attachments

  • Knight.jpg
    Knight.jpg
    69.6 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
This much we know. A muslim is loyal to islam before any and all other affections. The Ishmaeli maxim "I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger" permeates their "interactions" with each other and the RoW. It isn't possible for muslims to assimilate into the cultures they invade. Nor is it their purpose to do so. Their purpose is to invade and establish islam.

I'm not a lawyer but I think that in this country while we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that does not extend to that which advocates overthrowing the government which the Quoran urges all good Muslims to do when they are living in a non-Islamic state. Therefore, practicing Muslims are by definition guilty of treason. Treason is a crime punishable by execution, therefore the government is within its right to execute all Muslims. Do I have that right? Remember, their religion tells them to kill or convert all of us.
 
I'm not a lawyer but I think that in this country while we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that does not extend to that which advocates overthrowing the government which the Quoran urges all good Muslims to do when they are living in a non-Islamic state. Therefore, practicing Muslims are by definition guilty of treason. Treason is a crime punishable by execution, therefore the government is within its right to execute all Muslims. Do I have that right? Remember, their religion tells them to kill or convert all of us.

Well Ron, an argument could be made on the same basis that muzloids are committing genocide as we speak, but it might be viewed as "extreme". It's extreme when the West suggests such a course of action, but anyone pointing out the identical muzloid behavior is quickly labeled a racist. Y'falluh?

I would be comfortable merely jettisoning all muzloids from this hemisphere and letting them kill each other in the other hemisphere, which BTW, they are in the process of doing.
 
I dont have a problem with Israel or Jewish people, but I dont know why we are so invested w/ them. They are supposedly our greatest ally, but what are we getting out of the deal? We give them money, guns, protection and what do we get from them?


They ( Israel ) give us intel / spying ( Many Israelis are darker skinned and blend in with the Arabs ). The nation is possibly our most reliable ally, and a very strategically placed ally as they are front line to fight or offer counter-terrorism in the Middle East.

A hedge if you will against the madmen with power in the middle east, they also own nuclear weapons. Or someone best located to do the dirty work when needed. There are close trade and business ties as well. While some of the USA aid is flushed down the toilet ( Example: 3 billion to Pakistan ), Isreal at least is for us.

There has never been a state known as Palestine and Isreal as a nation has been around about the average lifespan of a Palesitan. The problem is the leadership on the Palestinian side. They vote for war and commit 1,000's of terrorist acts against Isreal. Let's pause for a moment. Imagine if some rouge part of Mexico or Canada or Cuba was controlled by a Jihad like group firing 1000's of missiles at the USA. What would happen to that group of people? I'll tell you what, they and 1,000 of innocents would be destroyed. I am in awe of Israel's restraint.

I'd like to see Isreal give up the most of the West bank, and some water / resources, and even give the Palestinians, a road ( controlled by Israel ) for port access to the sea, but only if the Palestinian's can grow up behave, policing their own against terrorism, and proving to be a good group of people on the world stage.
 
You are correct. Obama trying to use them as an example Christian aggression was comical. Who was he trying to fool?

Obama's deal with Iran I think had something to do with his private religious beliefs. You just don't open up billions to a nation who hates us and threatens to destroy. Kerry, his secretary of state aptly put it. We are now funding terrorism. And we are giving Iran a path to the bomb.
 
Interesting that Trump didnt offer unilateral support to israel but instead offered to be neutral, whereas mrs Rodham Clinton gave unwavering support to Israel and condemned the palistinians for fostering terrorism...
 
Obama's deal with Iran I think had something to do with his private religious beliefs. You just don't open up billions to a nation who hates us and threatens to destroy. Kerry, his secretary of state aptly put it. We are now funding terrorism. And we are giving Iran a path to the bomb.

Why would that surprise anyone? The lintons gave North Korea that same path. And here we are.

Its who the party of satan is. Its what they do.
 
Interesting that Trump didnt offer unilateral support to israel but instead offered to be neutral, whereas mrs Rodham Clinton gave unwavering support to Israel and condemned the palistinians for fostering terrorism...

S'all right, the Palestinians and Israelis know she doesn't mean it and the Jooz in the U.S. think she does.

Clintons-and-Arafat.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Clintons-and-Arafat.jpg
    Clintons-and-Arafat.jpg
    76.1 KB · Views: 0

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/
Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.


Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
 
Interesting that Trump didnt offer unilateral support to israel but instead offered to be neutral, whereas mrs Rodham Clinton gave unwavering support to Israel and condemned the palistinians for fostering terrorism...
Growing up in New York with a father who worked on Wall Street ( He was a VP of Municipal Bonds for large banks and sold some stuff for Trump projects ) I've heard my share of Trump stories and most of them are positive.

The negative one is Trump knew when to throw his weight around, especially on the smaller projects where he had the capital reserves, but that goes back to him just making good deals for business. He can do the same for the USA.

Trump is being very wise not to pick sides, but in all reality with his anti-Muslim immigration stance, do we really need to guess who he supports?

New York City has a large Jewish population, and many of them are big shots in the banks, hedge funds, politics, and such. Trump worked with lots of Jews who usually vote Democratic well before he thought of Politics.

If Trump was anti-Semitic, or biased against the Jews, there would be 100 stories about it. But he's not. His daughter converted and he's most trusted attorney is Jewish.
 
Group C didn't have JACK **** to do with the slaughter of Group A, but they live on land that Group A likes.

Group A then proceeds to the land of Group C and begins killing them and taking their land, forcing the survivors onto reservations.

Ehh, not quite.

In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa.

In 1936 widespread rioting, later known as the Arab Revolt or Great Uprising, broke out. The revolt was kindled when British forces killed Izz al din El Qassam in a gun battle. Izz al Din El Qassam was a Syrian preacher who had emigrated to Palestine and was agitating against the British and the Jews. The revolt was coopted by the Husseini family and by Fawzi El Kaukji, a former Turkish officer, and it was possibly financed in part by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Jews were killed in the revolt, which spread rapidly owing to initial unpreparedness of the British authorities. About half the 5,000 residents of the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem were forced to flee, and the remnant of the Hebron Jewish community was evacuated as well.

At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. There were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine, almost all living in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the internationalized zone of Jerusalem, and about 1.2 million Arabs.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
 
Prove what wrong. You made a nonsensical statement. You say anti-semitism is a Liberal trait, but that most Jewish people are Liberal. That doesn't make any damn sense.

All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

Get it?
 
Jews are not actually liberals, they just vote that way. Jews are overwhelmingly conservative in their own daily lives and beliefs but their historical persecution has ingrained in them a victim mentality. Since victim identity politics is a major tenet of liberal campaigns, many Jews are essentially guilted into voting for liberal causes.
 
Top