Munich

[CruelEdict]

None of this argument was ever about the claim either group has to the region, as I stated. The point is that Israel and its extension in the United States are dangerous to our national security. I don't care if both sides ravage one another for the next thousand years over their "ancestral claims". Force will solve the problem, not rationale (in their case), and I say let the victors decide what happens and keep the United States out of it. I don't care what the historical claims are - Israel came in with force and would not be as powerful as it is now without endless American aid (hell, their economy is weak and supported directly with American taxpayer dollars each year). If America didn't prop up Israel, the Arab nations would most likely reclaim the land they see as theirs through force and would not be wrong in doing so - nor would the Israelis be wrong if they rightfully won the war, etc.

It is not about "ancestral claims" anymore, it is about the dangers of Zionism. All this talk of Balkanizing America to restore "ancestral" claims is ridiculous - no one has a true claim to land through simply having been living there. Blood, toil, sweat, and tears are what establish a group in a specific region, much as my people did in America.

Chayesh, how is the Iranian President a "loon". Nothing he has said once was unreasonable. Iran is a peaceful nation that seeks a civilian nuclear program - who are we to deny them that ability? That would be beyond hypocrisy! We being the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons in war and backing the only other nation in the region with them 100%! Israel has nuclear weapons and is just as apt to fire them off as anyone else in the region (especially with some of the more radical Orthodox groups in power (such as Hammas and Likud, etc).

Behrens, do you mean Semites have the right to defend a nation composed of entirely Semitic people (and by an extension of that, expel Palestinians in the process?).

My point was, again, that Israel has harmed us as an "ally" and should not be supported by the American people. That is all.

[Chayesh]

He's a loon because he claims that the Holocaust never happened. That, in my book, makes him a loon.

[CruelEdict]

He said that? Or did he say it should be examined in further depth to shed a bit more light on the realities of the event? The Holocaust is protected by law in Europe and anyone who dares question the events is automatically an Anti-Semite.

Plenty of people, not just him, are calling the Holocaust into question because the events as described by "survivors" are ridiculous (on a mathematical/factual basis). I can back this up with fact, if you like. I don't see him as a loon for questioning the Zionist cash-cow (hell, even the Jews acknowledge that it is a huge source of their income, not to mention support for their State).

He's a loon because he claims that the Holocaust never happened. That' date=' in my book, makes him a loon.[/quote']

[Warpnow]

Seen the movie yet?

NEITHER sids end in a good light in the movie...

[Chayesh]

He said that? Or did he say it should be examined in further depth to shed a bit more light on the realities of the event? The Holocaust is protected by law in Europe and anyone who dares question the events is automatically an Anti-Semite.

Plenty of people, not just him, are calling the Holocaust into question because the events as described by "survivors" are ridiculous (on a mathematical/factual basis). I can back this up with fact, if you like. I don't see him as a loon for questioning the Zionist cash-cow (hell, even the Jews acknowledge that it is a huge source of their income, not to mention support for their State).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/world/main1124255.shtml

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/3/11674

I'd say those are pretty clear that he says it didn't happen, not let's re-examine it.

[CruelEdict]

That doesn't change a thing. He questions the validity of a historical event and is being criticized for it. God forbid we actually examine the Holocaust, lest we see the immense problems with the various claims that have been made.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/world/main1124255.shtml

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/3/11674

I'd say those are pretty clear that he says it didn't happen, not let's re-examine it.

[Chayesh]

Okay...I'm exiting this debate simply because that's just absurd.

A completely documented historical event occurred that he claims just didn't happen. That's plain nuts.

[CruelEdict]

Documented, but incorrectly. Again, I can support my claim of historical discrepencies with fact, if you like. The Iranian President denies it happened, I just question the circumstances of it - that being the entire genocide slant given to it, despite evidence that suggests otherwise.

Okay...I'm exiting this debate simply because that's just absurd.

A completely documented historical event occurred that he claims just didn't happen. That's plain nuts.

[Chayesh]

Last post for me:

Minutes of the Wannsee Conference were turned into a movie called "Conspiracy".

Here are the minutes of that meeting. Nazi language for dealing with the Jewish people have been decoded from viewing other Nazi documents. Here is what the Germans said they were doing. Doesn't matter what others think they did or didn't intend. They told us what they intended with their own words. Any other assumption is pure revisionist history.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-wannsee.htm

I recommend seeing "Conspiracy". I found it...chilling.

[CruelEdict]

You say "revisionist" as though it was some crude, intolerable thing. Instead, it questions things rendered dogma by historians - in this instance, I will just refer you to the Institute for Historical Review. There is plenty of historical documentation there and much of it deals with the Holocaust.

Last post for me:

Minutes of the Wannsee Conference were turned into a movie called "Conspiracy".

Here are the minutes of that meeting. Nazi language for dealing with the Jewish people have been decoded from viewing other Nazi documents. Here is what the Germans said they were doing. Doesn't matter what others think they did or didn't intend. They told us what they intended with their own words. Any other assumption is pure revisionist history.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-wannsee.htm

I recommend seeing "Conspiracy". I found it...chilling.

[WarriorCleric]

No amount of proof is going to change tindals opinions of anything, he is a hardlined idiot and has some truely bigoted beliefs. Any arguement with him is sorta like an arguement with me, you know, you just come down to my level, except his level is much, much, lower. This is the reason I blocked him over a year ago, and the reason that I still just skip over anything he posts. I may not agree with a lot of you guys, but I've still got respect for you(yes even Zroth and Warp), but Tindal, none, I'm sure if you look through his posts, you'll see what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to go looking for it, he's just not worth the time it takes to read his thoughts, and besides, it's summer, we've got more than enough hot air already.

WC

[CruelEdict]

Thank you, WC, for generally lowering the quality of the thread. From what I saw, there was a discussion going on between intelligent people of totally differing takes on a single topic.

Of course, your post is just what I would expect. Without any other ammunition than insults, you shut down the argument instead of contributing. Throwing around words like bigot and idiot show me just what level you are going to take any discussion to.

At least Chayesh is responding with well-reasoned responses, which I do not agree with, but won't simply call idiotic just because I don't see things the same way.

No amount of proof is going to change tindals opinions of anything, he is a hardlined idiot and has some truely bigoted beliefs. Any arguement with him is sorta like an arguement with me, you know, you just come down to my level, except his level is much, much, lower. This is the reason I blocked him over a year ago, and the reason that I still just skip over anything he posts. I may not agree with a lot of you guys, but I've still got respect for you(yes even Zroth and Warp), but Tindal, none, I'm sure if you look through his posts, you'll see what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to go looking for it, he's just not worth the time it takes to read his thoughts, and besides, it's summer, we've got more than enough hot air already.

WC

[Malchaeius]

And that would be my cue.

[Behrens]

I have little use for conspiracy theory liberalism, but I am curious, since I seem to have found the genuine article. (I assume you're not just doing this to be offensive, although my assumption may be totally invalid)

I am curious why you believe Israel is a destabilising influence. Israel has undertaken precisely one war of aggression. (Iran has undertaken one as well, and is a known supporter of extra-border terror). Yet, nobody says that Iran is a destabilizing influence. Why not?

Iran supports terrorism. Israel does not.

Iran is not a free state. Israel is.

Iran has threatened all regional powers with war (including nuclear). Israel has not.

What makes Israel and the Jewish people uniquely singled out for saying that their country has no right to exist and is destabilising?

A country has the right to exist and defend their citizens. Iran does, and Israel does. Now, if they piss off another country, they also have the result of war, but that is just one part of the relations with any other country.

A representative country chooses itself what its course of action is. Israel, through democracy, has chosen to protect itself and keep itself Semetic (actually Jewish, since Arabs are mostly Semetic as well). Why is this offensive? There are many Arab countries that the Palestinians share heritage with (notably Jordan). Why is it Israel's responsibility?

Of course, we must also balance countries by ideology. We must not be relativists, saying that no system is better than any other. Freedom IS better. Those countries that have, and allow, freedom, are to be supported and commended. Islam is a tyrannical religion, especially towards women. That an Islamic nation should be restricted in its possesion of weaponry, even when we allow free nations those weapons is right if you believe a free nation is superior, which we must, or debate becomes useless.

Lastly, the US is a capitalist republic. If the people of the Republic choose to trade money for weapons with any state, they can do so, and have chosen to do so to support Israel. We were not the primary supplier of arms during Israel's most warfilled period. We did not take that role until after the 1967 Six Days War. France supplied most of Israel's weapons until then. After that point, the French, through the same process as the US, decided they would rather support Iraq.

Edit: Bugger, didn't see that Malch had locked this. I didn't mean to be unable to be responded to, but this is what I believe.

[Anume]

Sorry to add to a locked thread but:

Until you have personally been to one of these "Konzentrationslagers" and felt really sick deep inside, you have no idea just how bad it really was. (I visited Dachau when having a look at the city Munich about 12 years ago and it gave me nightmares for weeks.)