France condemns Iran

marine1 said:
Crap any Jew who has lived or lives in Israel had to go to the army, therefore they are all soldiers.
A jew in the army there doesn't mean he is an Israeli, I would go to their army to help them against Pricks hell bent on their destruction, does not make me an Israeli.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat myself. Not all Jews are soldiers or Zionists ergo not all Jews live in Israel or support the policies of its government. Conflating Israel with all Jews everywhere is collectivized nonsense; just as you would not conflate Iran with all Muslims just because it is an Islamic state.

In any case, the irony is it's the religious Jews who refuse conscription.
 
Hard Rain said:
The Prince was a satirical work, btw...
Click to expand...

Crap! It was not a satirical work. From the introduction – The Prince was presented to Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli. He was a Venetian diplomat and it was intended as advice on wielding power.
 
Palimino said:
Crap! It was not a satirical work. From the introduction – The Prince was presented to Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli. He was a Venetian diplomat and it was intended as advice on wielding power.
Click to expand...

Another point greatly debated, and supportive of The Prince as a satire, is the idea that Machiavelli wrote The Prince after he drafted the first part of The Discourses on Livy. His thinking and the theme of his works shift from republicanism in The Discourses to pragmatism and recognition of the need for a prince’s control in The Prince. Scholars believe that Machiavelli may have written The Prince before The Discourses on Livy and therefore always believed that a republic is the ideal government. The Prince challenges all of Machiavelli’s other works and what we know of his life. This inconsistency and the knowledge of Machiavelli’s opinions give evidence that perhaps The Prince is a satire.
Click to expand...

Link.

Link.
 
HumanoidTyphoon said:
I do support their stance against saudi arabia though, for cutting down protesters in bahrain.
Click to expand...

All Arab squabbles revolve around tribalism and if you are Sunni or Shiite. Generally, the ruling caste seems to be Sunni (hence Saudi A. helping Bahrain – both Sunni). Iran is Shiite (hence the original Iran/Iraq war – Saddam was Sunni). The protestors in Bahrain are Shiite. The rulers of Bahrain are Sunni. Saudi A is Sunni. Saudi A. helped their Sunni brethren in Bahrain against those uppity Shiites. Iran helped the protestors because they are Shiite (so is Iran).

Don’t look any deeper. There is nothing there.
 
Palimino said:
All Arab squabbles revolve around tribalism and if you are Sunni or Shiite. Generally, the ruling caste seems to be Sunni (hence Saudi A. helping Bahrain – both Sunni). Iran is Shiite (hence the original Iran/Iraq war – Saddam was Sunni). The protestors in Bahrain are Shiite. The rulers of Bahrain are Sunni. Saudi A is Sunni. Saudi A. helped their Sunni brethren in Bahrain against those uppity Shiites. Iran helped the protestors because they are Shiite (so is Iran).

Don’t look any deeper. There is nothing there.
Click to expand...

You make a valid and salient point initially, but I disagree with the conceited generalizations. It's hardly good advice to tell someone not to look any deeper. What are you concerned they might discover? ;-)
 
I know there is a historical reason for modern conflict, the fact the temple currently sits on the old temple of Soloman, but didn't Israel "win" Gaza by force during the 6 day war?

Is it right to remove innocent civilians from land won during war?

PS: Soz, could be wrong, my history is not as good as it could be.
 
WilD_CaT said:
I know there is a historical reason for modern conflict, the fact the temple currently sits on the old temple of Soloman, but didn't Israel "win" Gaza by force during the 6 day war?

Is it right to remove innocent civilians from land won during war?

PS: Soz, could be wrong, my history is not as good as it could be.
Click to expand...

I think it's best to have this in a new thread, Wildy. It deviates quite a bit from the issue as relating to the West, Israel and Iran.

They occupied Gaza following the 1967 war, yes, but unilaterally withdrew in the early 2000s.
 
WilD_CaT said:
I know there is a historical reason for modern conflict, the fact the temple currently sits on the old temple of Soloman, but didn't Israel "win" Gaza by force during the 6 day war?

Is it right to remove innocent civilians from land won during war?

PS: Soz, could be wrong, my history is not as good as it could be.
Click to expand...

The temple is an Islamic one and sits where you say, Israel want their own temple there but demolishing that temple would bring israel to it's knees. Yes you can claim land won in a war and kick the locals out but you need to claim the land which israel has yet to do.

I watched a very interesting doccie on that temple the other day actually. Very interesting stuff.
 
marine1 said:
Was it right to be attacked on all sides by a bunch of Arab lunatics? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Was it right for the Jews to show up and try establish a state surrounded by hostile enemies? Debatable point, I guess, but I don't think it was wise.
 
killadoob said:
Well i think it is right, if you want to start a war then face the consequences of said war. One of them is losing land.
Click to expand...

Notice how he said innocent civilians? How do you sort out who to get kicked out, never mind the morality of it...
 
marine1 said:
:eek: I am shocked !!
Click to expand...

I thought you would be hahah because you think i hate jews and i love them Islamic arabs :D which is not true, i don't particularly like israel nor the do i like the islamic states but that doesn't mean i hate jews even though you think disliking israel is hating all jews :D

Well why didn't the countries involved with the war think of the innocents? Sadly war is horrible for innocent people. Israel must decide either they claim the land or they don't in which case they must move their people out of the land they occupy which is not theirs or claim it.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
I thought you would be hahah because you think i hate jews and i love them Islamic arabs :D which is not true, i don't particularly like israel nor the do i like the islamic states but that doesn't mean i hate jews even though you think disliking israel is hating all jews :D
Click to expand...
I do indeed think you have a strong dislike for Jews but that's just my perception and yes I may be wrong.
 
marine1 said:
I do indeed think you have a strong dislike for Jews but that's just my perception and yes I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

That is mostly because i never speak kindly of israel. I don't speak kindly of the americans either so that must mean i hate americans as well :p
 
killadoob said:
The temple is an Islamic one and sits where you say, Israel want their own temple there but demolishing that temple would bring israel to it's knees. Yes you can claim land won in a war and kick the locals out but you need to claim the land which israel has yet to do.

I watched a very interesting doccie on that temple the other day actually. Very interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

hmmm, key piece of information missing in this post killa - the mosque is built on top of the Jewish temple, its not a new temple that Israel wants to build there.. also Israel has no intention of destroying the al aqsa mosque, that was born out of pro palestinian propaganda.. Israel does want to excavate on the site though, and they can do this without destroying the mosque, but the arabs wont allow this, because they know the findings will just further confirm Jewish existence in Jerusalem before they got there
 
Last edited:
nivek said:
hmmm, key piece of information missing in this post killa - the mosque is built on top of the Jewish temple, its not a new temple that Israel wants to build there.. also Israel has no intention of destroying the al aqsa mosque, that was born out of pro palestinian propaganda
Click to expand...


It was a Nostradamus special they had on and they were thinking of things that could spark the end of the world as Nostradamus claims the end of the world will start in the middle east sometime after 2000

One of the things they said that could get the ball rolling is israel tearing the mosque down which they would never do because the islamic world would go kill israel crazy over night. What i never got to see though:

What happened to the temple and how did it become an Islamic temple?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X