Zionism= World Domination??? [Archive]

View Full Version : Zionism= World Domination???

parky76

26th January 2007, 04:40 PM

Im not sure if this has been debated before but I thought with all this stuff about the Holocaust and various accusations about Israel and 9-11, it would be good to get this out in the open.

I have read in various places, that one of the goals of Zionism is at the very least, control of the Middle East and the destruction of Muslems/Arabs...and at the most..Zionism is bent on total world domination.

As a Jew who went to Hebrew school, I find it hard to see how anyone could have such rediculous beliefs. Jews have lived in Palestine (Israel/Judea) for the last 3,000 years. After 2,000 years of exile, persecution, pogrom, and genocide, we decided enough is enough and its time to make our own way in our own land. I have never, ever, read any writings by any Zionist leaders or thinkers who have stated that Israel is but a stepping stone to global world domination...or even domination of the Middle East. There have however been crackpots who wanted to conquer all the lands of ancient Israel, which includes small parts of Jordan and Egypt...but conquer the whole Middle East?...please.

What I would like to know is....do those of you who have these crazy ideas...have any actual quotes? Can you site any articles, speeches, lectures, given by prominent Zionists to back up your claims?

I mean..if Israel wanted to rule the Middle East..they would have NOT pulled out of the Sinai and Gaza. They would NOT have made a peace treaty with Jordan. They would NOT have secret talks with the Palestinians.

Zionism and world domination?..Sorry...it just doesn't add up.

pagan

26th January 2007, 04:52 PM

parky76

26th January 2007, 05:47 PM

well, as an enlightened Jew, I can entertain the argument that a Jew from Russia or Ethiopia or India doesnt really have the right to displace a local Bedouin or Arab Palestinian.

But on the flip side, what gives you the right to live in the USA? This land was stolen from the natives...as was Canada...as was Australia. If Israel should pack up and leave..shouldnt these other countries aswell?

The best solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict..is compromise. The Geneva Accords is one of those compromises. Neither side gets everything they want...but both sides get what they need.

maccy

26th January 2007, 05:47 PM

I think those CTists who talk about Zionism being behind the conspiracy have a Protocols of the Elders of Zion idea of secret cabals and suchlike. Here's something I posted about this subject before:

One of the many strands of CT thought that I don't understand is where Zionism fits in with the whole New World Order business.

It sort of makes (warped) sense if Zionists=Jews=International Bankers (and possibly Communist Masons and Satanists as well). But, even then, if the Jooos are the secret rulers of the world (or are at least trying to be) what use is Israel to them? It doesn't seem to have much by the way of resources or strategic value. Also, it's a predominantly Jewish state out in the open with international diplomacy and a free press and everything. Surely everybody knows that Jooos only do things in secret? And, given that, aren't they better off staying in the most powerful nations in the world, infiltrating and stuff?

But, we're told, Zionist doesn't mean Jew: in fact not all Jews are Zionists (although people who go on about Zionists only ever seem to be worried about the Jewish ones). No, a Zionist is someone who believes in the pernicious state of Israel, the only state in the history of the world to have been founded as the result of conflict - breaking the age-old tradition of harmony, peace and reasonable behaviour in the self-determination of peoples and the establishment of nation states.

However, even if we are extreme enough to accept the existence of the state of Israel in any form as unequivocally a bad thing (and I know I'm straying into politics a bit here), how does that make it a stepping stone for world domination? If the Zionists are the NWO, what use is Israel to them in controlling our lives? If the NWO plot doesn't rely on Israel, why blame the Zionists? Why blather on about "fighting wars for Israel"?

There is one answer: the Zionists are Satanists and they need Israel restoring to its Biblical state so that the Antichrist(s) will do something nifty (possibly involving plate glass and the handbrake of a truck). Unfortunately, the only people who definitely believe in this prophecy are a bunch of crazy evangelicals who really want it to happen because it means the rapture and all those nasty people who dare to enjoy their lives being left behind (ha!).

Bit of a conflict of interest for your CrazyFundieTruther there...

Of course some amateur psychologist may well speculate about all this Zionism talk just showing a desire for an other to fear, hate and ultimately destroy - a fantasy demon to distract from the world. Yes, but the father of Psychology was well known as a Jew (sorry, Freudian slip) as a Zionist.

Calcas

26th January 2007, 05:58 PM

Shouldn't this be in the Politics forum?

parky76

26th January 2007, 06:12 PM

zionist conspiracy theories and discussions regarding them fit quite well in a conspiracy theory forum, dont you think?

Calcas

26th January 2007, 06:18 PM

zionist conspiracy theories and discussions regarding them fit quite well in a conspiracy theory forum, dont you think?

Perhaps. I just thought it was a little off topic.

If not, then mea culpa.

Horatius

26th January 2007, 06:22 PM

I mean..if Israel wanted to rule the Middle East..they would have NOT pulled out of the Sinai and Gaza. They would NOT have made a peace treaty with Jordan. They would NOT have secret talks with the Palestinians.

Zionism and world domination?..Sorry...it just doesn't add up.

I don't know about world domination, but the simple fact that Israel doesn't rule the entire Middle East is pretty much proof positive that they don't want to. Because if they did want to, no one else in the Middle East could stop them. I mean, when has Israel ever lost a war, no matter what the odds were against them?

Despite all the talk of driving Israel into the sea, if push came to shove, I'd put my money on Israel driving everyone else out....

TellyKNeasuss

26th January 2007, 06:34 PM

I think that the idea of Israel controlling the Middle East comes from so-called "Christian Zionism", which is based on an interpretation of the Book of Revelations in which Jesus will return after Israel rules the Tigris-Euphrates region (the area in which the Garden of Eden supposedly was). American millenialists have always interpreted the bad guys in the Book of Revelations to refer to whomever the US was having trouble with. In the 1930's, it was Japan. In the 1950's and 60's, it was the USSR. Now it's the subset of Muslims who aren't cooperative with Western interests.

Sleepy

26th January 2007, 07:07 PM

I don't know about world domination, but the simple fact that Israel doesn't rule the entire Middle East is pretty much proof positive that they don't want to. Because if they did want to, no one else in the Middle East could stop them. I mean, when has Israel ever lost a war, no matter what the odds were against them?

Despite all the talk of driving Israel into the sea, if push came to shove, I'd put my money on Israel driving everyone else out....

When has Israel ever lost a war? Try last year in Lebanon. Their invasion destroyed a lot of property, killed a lot of people, and made Hezbollah's popularity skyrocket. A resounding success.

If that's the kind of victory they have against one faction in one little country like Lebanon, then, conspiracy or no conspiracy, they have *zero* chance of conquering the whole middle east.

Then there's the ongoing colonial war against the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing is proceeding at an excruciatingly slow pace, so they might win this one in a few hundred years.... if:

* The Israeli populace has the stomach for it.
* The demographics don't change so that a democratic government of Israel will be Arabic.
* The US doesn't go the way of the Soviet Union.
* The Iraq situation doesn't turn the whole region into a warzone.
* No new technology gives terrorists enough of an edge to force a stalemate.
* The world political situation doesn't change too much.

Whether they want to conquer the whole region... well... certainly their crackpots do, and their crackpots tend to be overrepresented in their government, so...

On a tangent, imagine if enough people there renounced their incompatible imaginary friends and chose to live in peace... now *there's* an unlikely scenario. The world needs some atheist missionaries.

mailman

27th January 2007, 02:49 AM

When has Israel ever lost a war? Try last year in Lebanon.
You may want to check your facts again, heck, why not have a look at a few quotes from the morons in hisbulla who kicked the whole event off because even they realise they f7cked up when they antagonised Israel in to attacking them.

Maybe open your eyes because not everyone sees hisbulla as being the best thing since sliced bread...people do realise the **** these morons have created at the expense of your average lebanese, because lets face it if hisbulla REALLY was interested in the welfare of the lebanese they wouldnt be antagonising and carrying out terrorists attacks would they?

Then there's the ongoing colonial war against the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing is proceeding at an excruciatingly slow pace

Oh for f8cks sake...what ethnic clensing? IF these mythical people were being "ethnically" cleaned then why are they still in Gaza? Why do they still have large tracks of land around Jewish settlements?

* The Israeli populace has the stomach for it.
The Israelis have the stomach for it. The soft ones are those who live outside of Israel and refuse to see the reality of the situation but instead blame Israel for every ill under the sun :mad:

* The demographics don't change so that a democratic government of Israel will be Arabic.
Wont change, then again Israel already has Muslim members of Parliament who take an active role in the running of the Government. Cant say the same about any "Arabic" government can you?

* No new technology gives terrorists enough of an edge to force a stalemate.
Wont happen because both Iran and Syria know what would happen if they passed on new technology that could change the political landscape of the area.
* The world political situation doesn't change too much.
Hisbulla, hamas and all the other muslim terrorist groups rely on the world political situation staying the same (ie. anti-Israel) because if the worlds political opinion changed to one of support for Israel I can guarantee you that the "palestinian" problem would go away over night.

Whether they want to conquer the whole region... well... certainly their crackpots do, and their crackpots tend to be overrepresented in their government, so...
Bullsh1t, show me where the Israeli Government has openly declared they will destroy countries? Show me where the Israeli Government has declared they want to rule the middle east?

Come on...and Im not talking about crackpots...Im talking about the Government? Show me ANYTHING similar to that moron in Iran who talks daily of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

On a tangent, imagine if enough people there renounced their incompatible imaginary friends and chose to live in peace... now *there's* an unlikely scenario. The world needs some atheist missionaries.
As long as there are people in the Arab world who see benefit in having an unstable middle east this will never happen.

The Palestinian problem could be over tomorrow if the arab world stopped supporting terrorism. The problem could go away if palestinians stopped detonating in public places. The Palestinians have so much more to gain economically, socially, culturally if they put down their arms and became friends with Israel, its as simple as that.

But as long as there are people in Tehran and co, who benefit from instability AND sponsoring terrorism around the world then this wont change.

BTW, it always amuses me when people talk about the historical right Palestinians have to those areas of Israel they now live in...but when you consider it was the Romans that established Palestinia and that the palestinians then have absolutely no ties to the palestinians today.

And lets not forget the role Egypt, Syria, Jordan have played in using the Palestinians as their political play thing over the years.

Mailman

maccy

27th January 2007, 05:58 AM

a_unique_person

27th January 2007, 06:00 AM

Zionism and world domination?..Sorry...it just doesn't add up.

I've never believed it.

Sleepy

27th January 2007, 09:41 AM

If some of my response below seems abusive, forgive me. I'm just matching your tone.

You may want to check your facts again, heck, why not have a look at a few quotes from the morons in hisbulla who kicked the whole event off because even they realise they f7cked up when they antagonised Israel in to attacking them.

Israel's stated objectives, before the invasion, were to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers, and to militarily cripple Hezbollah. They achieved neither. Defeat.

What they did do was kill somewhere between 250 (if you believe Hezbollah) and 600 (if you believe the IDF) guerillas, and destroy a lot of civillian infrastructure. This inconveniences Hezbollah, badly hurts a lot of south Lebanese civillians, and makes the IDF look like brutes to most of the world.

The IDF took considerable losses, considering the technological disparity. More than 50 soldiers dead, more than 10 tanks destroyed. That was in just that short engagement. The post I replied to implied that Israel could conquer the whole region if they were so inclined. No way. Not with that rate of attrition.

Maybe open your eyes because not everyone sees hisbulla as being the best thing since sliced bread...people do realise the **** these morons have created at the expense of your average lebanese, because lets face it if hisbulla REALLY was interested in the welfare of the lebanese they wouldnt be antagonising and carrying out terrorists attacks would they?

I am not a Hezbollah or Israel supporter. I don't doubt that Hezbollah provoked the whole thing for selfish reasons. Even the Hezbollah leader has admitted he made a big mistake.

Oh for f8cks sake...what ethnic clensing? IF these mythical people were being "ethnically" cleaned then why are they still in Gaza? Why do they still have large tracks of land around Jewish settlements?

The ethnic cleansing referred to by almost every Israeli prime minister ever. My first google search turned up http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm and it would be easy to find many, many more examples. Googling for Israeli PM quotes is the fastest way to convince yourself that ethnic cleansing has taken place.

What ethnic cleansing, indeed.

The Israelis have the stomach for it. The soft ones are those who live outside of Israel and refuse to see the reality of the situation but instead blame Israel for every ill under the sun :mad:

They have the stomach for it now. My opinion is that this could change in the future. Just an opinion, though.

Wont change, then again Israel already has Muslim members of Parliament who take an active role in the running of the Government. Cant say the same about any "Arabic" government can you?

The percentage of the population that is Jewish has been slowly but steadily declining pretty much since the founding of the state. The change will barely be noticed over a 5 year period, but over 50 years, it will be huge. Unless the Jewish birthrate turns around, or they expel non-Jews, maths tells us that eventually Jews will be a minority in Israel. That's not including the occupied territories.

Wont happen because both Iran and Syria know what would happen if they passed on new technology that could change the political landscape of the area.

Both Iran and Syria are still funneling weapons to Hezbollah. Some of the rockets Hezbollah fired in 2006 were Iranian designs. They've been doing it for decades. So, whatever was going to happen, already has.

Hisbulla, hamas and all the other muslim terrorist groups rely on the world political situation staying the same (ie. anti-Israel) because if the worlds political opinion changed to one of support for Israel I can guarantee you that the "palestinian" problem would go away over night.

The US is backing Israel for whatever reason (there's one for CT's). US support is what makes or breaks Israel on the world political stage. I see two possible changes that would alter Israel's political fortunes. One, the US decides Israel is no longer useful and withdraws it's support. Two, US power declines to the point where their support is no big deal.

Bullsh1t, show me where the Israeli Government has openly declared they will destroy countries? Show me where the Israeli Government has declared they want to rule the middle east?

Who said anything about destroying? Have a look at what some of the Israeli leaders have said throughout history. It mostly revolves around the "necessity" of kicking Arabs out of the lands they want to claim for themselves. Some of them were honest, greedy bastards, who talk about expelling Arabs 'cos they're taking up prime real estate. Some were religous nutcases who honestly believe God told them to take Arab lands.

Come on...and Im not talking about crackpots...Im talking about the Government? Show me ANYTHING similar to that moron in Iran who talks daily of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

Once again, google for some quotes by Israeli leaders. You don't need to go beyond Ben-Gurion to get some real cold-blooded doozies, but every Israeli leader has said some pretty callous things about Arabs.

As long as there are people in the Arab world who see benefit in having an unstable middle east this will never happen.

The Palestinian problem could be over tomorrow if the arab world stopped supporting terrorism. The problem could go away if palestinians stopped detonating in public places. The Palestinians have so much more to gain economically, socially, culturally if they put down their arms and became friends with Israel, its as simple as that.

But as long as there are people in Tehran and co, who benefit from instability AND sponsoring terrorism around the world then this wont change.

Ah, the good old blame game... not something I really want to venture into. Nobody has clean hands in the middle east, you can cherry-pick your history to paint anyone as villain or victim. If only X did what Y wants them to do the whole problem would be solved... wow, that's some real insight you've got there.

BTW, it always amuses me when people talk about the historical right Palestinians have to those areas of Israel they now live in...but when you consider it was the Romans that established Palestinia and that the palestinians then have absolutely no ties to the palestinians today.

It nauseates me when people feel the need to go that far back in history to determine who has a rightful claim to the place. Living there for more than a generation or two is claim enough.

And lets not forget the role Egypt, Syria, Jordan have played in using the Palestinians as their political play thing over the years.

Hardly needs mentioning. Everyone tramples over the poor bastards for their own ends, is it any wonder they're resorting to desperate tactics?

Anyway, just had to knock down the notion that Israel could possibly conquer the middle east, since they haven't even managed to grab all of Palestine yet. I don't want to spend too much time educating jingoists, however. They have trouble absorbing facts they don't want to hear.

Now, to get back to conspiracy theories, and I hope this is the only bit that gets replies: I think the high level of US support for Israel is contrary to America's best interests... so why do they do it?

jhunter1163

27th January 2007, 09:43 AM

ktesibios

27th January 2007, 09:52 AM

OK if we are going to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Isreal's conflicts with other nations then somebody should request that this be moved into politics.

I'm more interested in the conspiracy theorist idea of Zionism as a force for world domination and the secret power behind 9/11.

Hear, hear.

What I've observed in the spewings of 9/11 cranks and in surfing Indymedia sites in search of something to get my blood pressure up to going-to-work-and-contending-with-idiots level is that the word "Zionist" seems to have much the same function for the thoroughly modern paranoid conspiracist that "Communist" did for those earlier masters of political paranoia, the Birchers.

First, it provides something no proper paranoid can do without- an enemy, preferably an abstraction which can be reified into a preternaturally powerful evil Other which has extended its tentacles into all parts of society, where they can be seen only by the paranoid initiate. It creates a handy demarcation between Us and Them for the benefit of black/white thinking.

Second, it provides an off-the-rack ready-made explanation for all and any political or social conflicts, in a way that provides for the instant dismissal of any uncomfortable thoughts that they might provoke.

Why, black people would be prefectly happy riding in the back of the bus, well away from the polls, if it weren't for those !@#$ Communists stirring them up to weaken Our society and take it over.

Workers wouldn't be joining unions and striking over wages and conditions if it weren't for those @$#% Communist agitators trying to undermine Our society and take it over.

The Middle East would be a garden flowing with milk and honey if it weren't for those @#$% Zionists messing everything up to further their plans for world domination.

There would be no unrest in the Muslim world to spill over into Our lives, irrespective of any religious, economic or political issues, if it weren't for those @#$% Zionists controlling our media, economy and governmental policies to undermine Our society and take it over.

There's no need to think about present conditions, their historical roots or their moral implications, nor to try to bring practical problem-solving skills to bear. We can't have that; it's got to be someone else's fault- Their fault. If We devote Ourselves to rooting out Them and destroying Their power We can solve all Our problems without having to think about the details of how We got here and where it's possible to go.

Third, it serves as a club to wield against opponents. Is someone advocating ideas that don't fit into your ideology or refuting your claims with pesky facts? Just call them a [fill in the blank]ist and presto! You've absolved yourself of any need to consider ideas or evidence on their own merits and magically pre-rejected whatever your interlocuter might say in the future. You can also demand that since so-and-so has been identified as one of Them, they should be deprived of all opportunity to speak. (This works like a charm on certain Indymedia sites, where the editors consider enforcing ideological conformity their primary duty.)

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could examine the apparent parallels between the paranoid style Hofstadter looked at back in the '60s and old-fashioned "Protocols of Zion"-style historical anti-Semitism and how, with "Zionist" replacing "Communist" as the bogeyman of choice, the paranoid style has come around in a circle.

jhunter1163

27th January 2007, 10:42 AM

Hear, hear.

What I've observed... <snip>

Nominated. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Sleepy

27th January 2007, 11:09 AM

The last intelligence estimate I heard was that Israel had between 800 and 1,000 nuclear weapons. They don't publicly admit this, though, which begs the question, why not? Why not say "OK, we have nukes, and we want you all to leave us alone. If you don't, Tehran or Baghdad or Damascus or Cairo or Amman or Beirut will be glowing like a movie marquee in 24 hours. That is all."

If Israel wanted to dominate Middle Eastern politics, they would. Obviously, they don't want to.

Then the nuclear NPT wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.
Everyone within nuking distance of Israel would have no choice but to shut up and work like crazy on their own nuclear deterrent. They'd be completely justified in doing so. I don't think Israel really wants that.

If they let off those nukes, the fallout would poison Israel itself, and they'd be surrounded by a wasteland full of pissed-off mutants with dirty-bomb material at hand. No winners in that scenario.

Triterope

27th January 2007, 11:47 AM

Here's another thing I've noticed about the use of the word "Zionism" in CT literature. This may be a bit contentious, but it's on-topic and I think it needs to be said.

Zionism gives the conspiracy theorists a way to blame everything on the Jews, without actually blaming everything on the Jews.

If the word "Zionist" couldn't exist in CT literature, the fundamental bigotry of CT literature would be obvious. Blaming everything on "Zionists" instead of "Jews" gives the CTs a convenient fallback position when allegations of anti-Semitism arise: "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Zionist!" Yeah, sure, buddy.

This is a well-known tactic of bigots. Instead of attacking an ethnic group, create an arbitrary subgroup, give them an unflattering name, and pretend that all your venom is about only that subgroup. I'm sure you can think of other examples.

The problem with isolating this usage is that the word has so many other meanings in CT-speak, as ktesibios eloquently explains. Not to mention its myriad real-world meanings. The word "Zionism" (note that I did not say "the concept of Zionism") permeates and dominates CT thinking. Conspiracy theory without Zionism is like psychology without Freud. You can agree or disagree with its role, but you can't ignore it, or isolate its influence.

jhunter1163

27th January 2007, 12:42 PM

Then the nuclear NPT wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.
Everyone within nuking distance of Israel would have no choice but to shut up and work like crazy on their own nuclear deterrent. They'd be completely justified in doing so. I don't think Israel really wants that.

If they let off those nukes, the fallout would poison Israel itself, and they'd be surrounded by a wasteland full of pissed-off mutants with dirty-bomb material at hand. No winners in that scenario.

What makes you think the NPT is worth the paper it's printed on anyway? Everyone and their dog is trying to get nukes. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and God knows who else.

The reason the Israeli nuke option isn't on the table is world public opinion. If Saddam had launched a chemical or biological attack against Israel, Baghdad would have been eight inches high and glowing. And the world would have, if not condoned it, at least tolerated it.

Iran won't get nukes because the Israelis won't permit it. They'll do what they have to do before the Iranians get to the point of being a nuclear power. We've seen that before.

Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arabic sworn enemies. The hatred goes back 2,000 years. It didn't start in 1948. I'm not surprised that the Israelis feel the need to defend themselves with whatever means are at their disposal.

a_unique_person

27th January 2007, 03:52 PM

Hear, hear.

What I've observed in the spewings of 9/11 cranks and in surfing Indymedia sites in search of something to get my blood pressure up to going-to-work-and-contending-with-idiots level is that the word "Zionist" seems to have much the same function for the thoroughly modern paranoid conspiracist that "Communist" did for those earlier masters of political paranoia, the Birchers.

First, it provides something no proper paranoid can do without- an enemy, preferably an abstraction which can be reified into a preternaturally powerful evil Other which has extended its tentacles into all parts of society, where they can be seen only by the paranoid initiate. It creates a handy demarcation between Us and Them for the benefit of black/white thinking.

Second, it provides an off-the-rack ready-made explanation for all and any political or social conflicts, in a way that provides for the instant dismissal of any uncomfortable thoughts that they might provoke.

Why, black people would be prefectly happy riding in the back of the bus, well away from the polls, if it weren't for those !@#$ Communists stirring them up to weaken Our society and take it over.

Workers wouldn't be joining unions and striking over wages and conditions if it weren't for those @$#% Communist agitators trying to undermine Our society and take it over.

The Middle East would be a garden flowing with milk and honey if it weren't for those @#$% Zionists messing everything up to further their plans for world domination.

There would be no unrest in the Muslim world to spill over into Our lives, irrespective of any religious, economic or political issues, if it weren't for those @#$% Zionists controlling our media, economy and governmental policies to undermine Our society and take it over.

There's no need to think about present conditions, their historical roots or their moral implications, nor to try to bring practical problem-solving skills to bear. We can't have that; it's got to be someone else's fault- Their fault. If We devote Ourselves to rooting out Them and destroying Their power We can solve all Our problems without having to think about the details of how We got here and where it's possible to go.

Third, it serves as a club to wield against opponents. Is someone advocating ideas that don't fit into your ideology or refuting your claims with pesky facts? Just call them a [fill in the blank]ist and presto! You've absolved yourself of any need to consider ideas or evidence on their own merits and magically pre-rejected whatever your interlocuter might say in the future. You can also demand that since so-and-so has been identified as one of Them, they should be deprived of all opportunity to speak. (This works like a charm on certain Indymedia sites, where the editors consider enforcing ideological conformity their primary duty.)

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could examine the apparent parallels between the paranoid style Hofstadter looked at back in the '60s and old-fashioned "Protocols of Zion"-style historical anti-Semitism and how, with "Zionist" replacing "Communist" as the bogeyman of choice, the paranoid style has come around in a circle.

Zionism is no more or less than what it claims to be, a Jewish movement for a state in Israel. It also lobbies various governments and people around the world in pursuit of that claim, with varying degrees of success and determination. That's where it stops, IMHO. Zionism as bogeyman is where criticism of Zionism goes off the rails.

Many people seem to have an inbuilt need to find the 'one true' cause of the their ills, real or imaginary, in life. If only this problem was gone, the world would be good again. Unfortunately, Jews in general seem to fit that role for many people, with Zionism as another form of that. If Zionism didn't exist, or Jews, the world would still have myriad problems, and some other group would be elected to fit the role.

The demise of communism for some, as Fukuyama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama found out with his 'end of history' debacle, was going to be the dawning of a new age of peace and prosperity. It didn't happen. If Israel was 'wiped off the map', the middle east would still be in a turmoil.

mailman

27th January 2007, 05:27 PM

Israel's stated objectives, before the invasion, were to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers, and to militarily cripple Hezbollah. They achieved neither. Defeat.
Haha, defeat you say...what are you 6 years old?

Objectives werent achieved, YET they still ruled the battle field? So much for being defeated :)

What they did do was kill somewhere between 250 (if you believe Hezbollah) and 600 (if you believe the IDF) guerillas[quote]
The death toll amongst the terrorists is likely several times higher BUT you will never know the real number simply because Hisbulla wont ever release their actual losses.

[quote]and destroy a lot of civillian infrastructure.
Which wouldnt have been destroyed had Hisbulla not attacked in the first place.

This inconveniences Hezbollah, badly hurts a lot of south Lebanese civillians, and makes the IDF look like brutes to most of the world.
So let me see if I got this right. Hisbulla attacks and kills 8 soliders, this is an unprovoked attack, israel has not had forces inside Lebanon for a number of years YET you consider Israel to be the Brutes? They werent the ones that dragged Lebanon in to another conflict.

The IDF took considerable losses, considering the technological disparity. More than 50 soldiers dead, more than 10 tanks destroyed. That was in just that short engagement.
Hold on here...in your first sentence you say CONSIDERABLE losses, but then only list 50 soldiers and 10 tanks?

Since when has that ever been considered CONSIDERABLE losses?? Farken hell, if you believe this is CONSIDERABLE loss then what do you call all those terrorists killed by the Israelies? Genocide? :D

The post I replied to implied that Israel could conquer the whole region if they were so inclined. No way. Not with that rate of attrition.
Mate, if Israel wasnt hindered by world opinion or concern for civilians there would be no palistinian "problem". There would be no Hisbulla terrorist organisation and most likely bugger all left of Syria and Tehran.

The only thing that saved hisbulla from being wiped out was world opinion (that was massaged quite nicely by the MSM eagerness to show anything anti-israeli at any chance they could get. Do a google on dodgy news stories or photoshopped images and you will see what Im talking about, thank you AP and Reuters!).

The ethnic cleansing referred to by almost every Israeli prime minister ever. My first google search turned up http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm and it would be easy to find many, many more examples. Googling for Israeli PM quotes is the fastest way to convince yourself that ethnic cleansing has taken place.

Ah yes, that link you posted is the bee's knees of objectiveness isnt it :D

What ethnic cleansing, indeed.
Yes, Im still waiting for you to show me some ethnic cleansing, all you have done is post a website with a whole bunch of "selective" quoting mining...the sort of tactic 9/11 conspiracist cnuts are well known for.

Then again, perhaps if you wrapped some context around those quotes (if you are a 9/11 conspiracist cnut then you may need to look the word "context" up) you'd understand the bigger picture :)

They have the stomach for it now. My opinion is that this could change in the future. Just an opinion, though.
Understood.

The percentage of the population that is Jewish has been slowly but steadily declining pretty much since the founding of the state. The change will barely be noticed over a 5 year period, but over 50 years, it will be huge.
Where did you get this from?

Both Iran and Syria are still funneling weapons to Hezbollah. Some of the rockets Hezbollah fired in 2006 were Iranian designs. They've been doing it for decades. So, whatever was going to happen, already has.
Probably not, especially if them moolahs in tehran do get ahold of working nukes...after all, arma...ajma...the president of Iran states daily his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet (that is of course when he can find time between holocaust denial conferences :D).

One, the US decides Israel is no longer useful and withdraws it's support.
Not likely ever to happen, not when Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east AND both countries have considerable business investment in each other.

Once again, google for some quotes by Israeli leaders. You don't need to go beyond Ben-Gurion to get some real cold-blooded doozies, but every Israeli leader has said some pretty callous things about Arabs.
Lets see the quotes AND have those quotes in CONTEXT!

Because last time I checked them evil jooooooooooos arent clamouring for the total destruction of the Palestinians. Heck, if you are wanting the total destruction of your enemies why pull out of disputed settlements? Seems a strange way of going about totally destroying your enemies isnt it? :D

Nobody has clean hands in the middle east
Something we both agree on.

you can cherry-pick your history to paint anyone as villain or victim.
Ill cherry pick my history as long as you cherry pick your quotes.

It nauseates me when people feel the need to go that far back in history to determine who has a rightful claim to the place. Living there for more than a generation or two is claim enough.
Actually this is quite interesting, how did the muslims come to live in "Palestine"? Was it through peaceful relocation or was it due to conquest?

Anyway, just had to knock down the notion that Israel could possibly conquer the middle east, since they haven't even managed to grab all of Palestine yet. I don't want to spend too much time educating jingoists, however. They have trouble absorbing facts they don't want to hear.
IF Israel really wanted all of Palestine you, me, Bob Dobalina wouldnt be able to stop them however considering they arent even trying to take Palestine I see your arguement as being a moot point.

Now, to get back to conspiracy theories, and I hope this is the only bit that gets replies: I think the high level of US support for Israel is contrary to America's best interests... so why do they do it?
Why do they do it? gee, you think they are doing it because Israel is the only functioning, transparant, stable democracy in the middle east? Good ally to have dont you think?

Or do you think them yankees are only doing it cause the joooooooooos control the white house? :p

Mailman

mailman

27th January 2007, 05:30 PM

There would be no unrest in the Muslim world to spill over into Our lives, irrespective of any religious, economic or political issues, if it weren't for those @#$% Zionists controlling our media,

You know, if the "Zionists" really did control the media then they have been ripped off! :D

Mailman

mailman

27th January 2007, 05:32 PM

parky76

27th January 2007, 08:08 PM

Why would they fear a Nuke armed Israel?

After all, when was the last time Israel threatened to wipe Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran off the face of the planet?

The very fact that Israel HASNT nuked anyone inspite of many countries around them supporting terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine, is a pretty good indication that Israel isnt a nuclear threat to anyone.

Mailman

Mailman

thats a good point.

gumboot

27th January 2007, 11:18 PM

Can we please keep this on topic?

This is about the theory of Zionism being a policy of world domination, rather than a nationalistic movement. To my mind, that fits into the CT sub-forum. If you want to discuss the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Israel-Lebanon War, Palestine/Israel, or any other assorted political topics, there's an entire sub-forum dedicated to it.

-Gumboot

Anti-sophist

27th January 2007, 11:29 PM

I checked the Unabridged Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist Dictionary and found zionism defined fairly succintly.

Zi·on·ism, n. : A concept that shelters me from being called Anti-Semitic but lets me hate the Jews.

I've often tried to figure out why conspiracy theorists also tend to be virulently anti-semitic, and I really can't explain it. I guess the protocols is just too tasty of treat for their paranoid pysche, and once something like that gets into the cycle of craziness, it never escapes.

David Swidler

28th January 2007, 12:39 AM

Zionism is no more or less than what it claims to be, a Jewish movement for a state in Israel. It also lobbies various governments and people around the world in pursuit of that claim, with varying degrees of success and determination. That's where it stops, IMHO. Zionism as bogeyman is where criticism of Zionism goes off the rails.

Many people seem to have an inbuilt need to find the 'one true' cause of the their ills, real or imaginary, in life. If only this problem was gone, the world would be good again. Unfortunately, Jews in general seem to fit that role for many people, with Zionism as another form of that. If Zionism didn't exist, or Jews, the world would still have myriad problems, and some other group would be elected to fit the role.

The demise of communism for some, as Fukuyama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama found out with his 'end of history' debacle, was going to be the dawning of a new age of peace and prosperity. It didn't happen. If Israel was 'wiped off the map', the middle east would still be in a turmoil.

I seldom agree 100% with a_unique_person. This particular post, however, is a well written exception.

As a Jew, the whole Jews-control everything attitude cheeses me for two reasons: 1) It's not so nice to see my (extended) peeps blamed, abused, killed, etc. for the world's ills, and 2) We don't even get the benefit of it being true. I mean, what I wouldn't give to have access to all that money and power I'm said to have...

beachnut

28th January 2007, 12:59 AM

I seldom agree 100% with a_unique_person. This particular post, however, is a well written exception.

As a Jew, the whole Jews-control everything attitude cheeses me for two reasons: 1) It's not so nice to see my (extended) peeps blamed, abused, killed, etc. for the world's ills, and 2) We don't even get the benefit of it being true. I mean, what I wouldn't give to have access to all that money and power I'm said to have...

Where can anyone go to get an even view and dialog on Zionism and Israel that is factual?

How can someone be more even on Zionism, Jews, Israel, and the Middle East; where can you find some sources to shut down the lies spread from all sides on the topic. There seems to be a new source of junk pouring out from the left. Did I miss something? Where is all the blaming Israel stuff coming from and where is a balanced source to moderate what seems to be fringe idiots speaking lies.

I am saying left only because one person who hates bush is pushing the junk on Jews; but it sounds more like from what ever direction Alex Jones is; some fringe idiot type rant.

(and reading this thread helps point out some areas to study; nice)

William Rea

28th January 2007, 03:00 AM

William Rea

28th January 2007, 03:02 AM

William Rea

28th January 2007, 03:28 AM

The minority of people who can't decide whether we are being taken over by Judaism, Lizards, Illuminati or whatever their next flight of fancy is are as inconsequential as any of those other groupings on the extreme right and left of politics (easy to get them mixed up).

World domination is not a stated aim of Zionism, whose political aims are clearly defined by themselves. Leading political Zionists would no doubt see themselves as significant players in the political world order but not uniquely powerful in that grouping.

As stated in another thread I don't understand why you patronise Zionists by trying to make them out to be uniquely without flaw in the world of political self interest. While they may not be behind 911 in any way, it is not unreasonable to believe that they would act in their self interest to benefit from it.

I believe that this denial is fuel to those who believe the world domination Zionist conspiracy.

Crying "anti-Semite" will eventually become the same as crying "Wolf" if we are not careful.

William Rea

28th January 2007, 03:28 AM

------------------

Sleepy

28th January 2007, 03:45 AM

Crying "anti-Semite" will eventually become the same as crying "Wolf" if we are not careful.

Anti-semite is a bit of a weird term, since the label gets attached to a lot of semites as well. Semites include Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc etc... they're all cousins if you go back far enough.

Why not just say "anti-Jew"?

William Rea

28th January 2007, 03:52 AM

Anti-semite is a bit of a weird term, since the label gets attached to a lot of semites as well. Semites include Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc etc... they're all cousins if you go back far enough.

Why not just say "anti-Jew"?

It is pretty well known that many Semitic tribes exist, that's not news anymore.

Anti-Semite (however flawed its usage) is a shorthand that is recognised as meaning that someone holds racial views about "Jewish" people. I don't think there is a need to have another term invented is there?

Zep

28th January 2007, 03:57 AM

Actually, not "Jewish" at all. Semites. And Semites != Jews. There are plenty of Jews who are not Semites, and Semites who are not Jews.

Brainache

28th January 2007, 04:29 AM

a_unique_person

28th January 2007, 05:11 AM

For a similar mindset, check out www.littlegreenfootballs.com .

Foolmewunz

28th January 2007, 05:19 AM

William,
It's quite correct that an anti-Zionist need not be anti-semitic. There are (albeit not that common) Jews who are not Zionists. I will grant you that. However, there are very few, if any, holocaust deniers who are not anti-semites.

No, I'm not going to give you a list, I'm really not going to be bothered with it, so if you disagree with the bolded statement, I don't really care.

The point being made by several (especially Anti-Sophist, I believe) is that anti-zionist has become a convenient shorthand for right wingers in order that they can nudge and wink at each other and yet pretend to use acceptable terms. Do you actually deny this common usage?

It's like "welfare cheats" was used in the 80's. I've heard callers on Rush using "them" and "those people" so often that I've wanted to scream at the radio.

Please don't dignify this by wrapping it in intellectual sophistry. There is a strict literal meaning of the term "anti-zionist", we'll all agree. But the common usage is as a byword so that you don't have to say in public, "Well, I don't trust Jews."

And please don't chirp in on another thread with the same mis-directed comment. What you last time described as the "last refuse of a scoundrel" is totally wrong, both in that particular thread and in general on these forums. Calling someone who speaks anti-semitic doctrine (in the case of the previous thread) an anti-semite is accurate, if unpleasant. If I were to call you a baby-raper because I don't like your political ideas, or a fascist because you're a little to the right of me, then that's the act of a scoundrel.

If you would research some of the posts and the referrals before getting out the soap box, you would fare better.

As to the OP: Zionism has nothing to do with world domination. Period. It is even argued amongst Zionists as to whether it justifies past expansion in their own tiny area. The world-domination coin is played by the mental midgets who believe in the crap handed down from the notorious Protocols.

Skeptic

28th January 2007, 05:50 AM

If you are prepared to cut the world domination stuff, and that Israel is behind 9-11, I am happy to engage in a debate with you on the Palestinian Israel issue.

Oh great, just what JREF needs--more Israpalestine, I mean Palisrael, threads.

In any case, to reply to the original poster: whatever the virtues or faults of zionism, few of the people who claim zionism wants to control the world have the slightest idea what zionism is.

The "zionism wants to control the world" conspiracy theory is nothing more than the old "Jews want to control the world" conspiracy theory. It became popular after the holocaust made it socially inconvenient to be openly antisemitic, so ranting against the "zionists" instead became popular.

Similarly, while it's certainly possible to be anti-zionist without being antisemitic (and, theoretically at least, vise-versa), in practice, the more extreme and deep someone's "anti-zionism", the more likely it is that they're simply antisemites who find it socially convenient to claim they are "just anti-zionists".

Certainly not every "I think zionism is a bad idea" anti-zionist is an antisemite; but when you reach "zionism control the world" levels of "anti-zionism", the person is almost invariably simply a "Jews control the world" antisemite.

William Rea

28th January 2007, 05:53 AM

However, there are very few, if any, holocaust deniers who are not anti-semites.

I don't disagree with you, but how many anti-Zionists are holocaust deniers?

I reject your argument about the daily use of the term anti-Zionist on the grounds that even if I called myself anti-Isreal then I would be labelled anti-Semite.

I reserve my right to be critical of the partition of the Palestinian Territories by my country in 1948 and to criticise the actions of the Zionists and subsequent Israeli political actions since.

Put quite simply, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel because it is easier to throw the label about rather than address the issues.

I reject your accusation of sophistry outright.

William Rea

28th January 2007, 05:55 AM

Actually, not "Jewish" at all. Semites. And Semites != Jews. There are plenty of Jews who are not Semites, and Semites who are not Jews.

That's why "Jewish" is in inverted commas.

maccy

28th January 2007, 06:01 AM

And your evidence for the connection between CT's and anti-Semitism is?

Here are a few examples:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/columnist.asp?ID=6
http://www.iamthewitness.com/
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/holdat.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/9-11-thread-297290.html
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/pullit.html
http://www.wingtv.net/commonsense/christkillers.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3087
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1694
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3097

It's hard to say what the extent of antisemitism in the truth movement is, but it's definitely there and seems to me to be tolerated.

William Rea

28th January 2007, 06:12 AM

Here are a few examples:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/columnist.asp?ID=6
http://www.iamthewitness.com/
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/holdat.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/9-11-thread-297290.html
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/pullit.html
http://www.wingtv.net/commonsense/christkillers.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3087
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1694
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3097

It's hard to say what the extent of antisemitism in the truth movement is, but it's definitely there and seems to me to be tolerated.

I typed "911" into Google and got 104,000,000 hits. So what?

Address the issues.

Foolmewunz

28th January 2007, 06:44 AM

I don't disagree with you, but how many anti-Zionists are holocaust deniers?

I reject your argument about the daily use of the term anti-Zionist on the grounds that even if I called myself anti-Isreal then I would be labelled anti-Semite.

I reserve my right to be critical of the partition of the Palestinian Territories by my country in 1948 and to criticise the actions of the Zionists and subsequent Israeli political actions since.

Put quite simply, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel because it is easier to throw the label about rather than address the issues.

I reject your accusation of sophistry outright.

Bolding Mine. In reverse order of the bolded items.....

Sophistry because you did not investigate the claims being made, nor the person being accused. You got out the soap box and recited.
Do you recall the thread? Had you actually scanned the posts of the people making the comments or the person being commented on? I think not. I thinkyou saw someone using one of your "keywords", and you weighed in with a standard reaction, an argument for the crowd (maybe a small crowd, but a crowd-pleaser nonetheless), which is what Sophistry is all about.

Not arguing the Issue?
If I have reasonably good evidence that I'm arguing with a racist and call him a racist, then get cited for "playing the race card", then it's sophistry. You were calling down someone for referring to a Mr. Killtown (IIRC) an anti-semite, and accusing CT sites of harboring many of the same. This, as we've done a lot of digging, IS FACT. And, if you think you can have a discussion with Killtown on any subject, go right ahead - we tried.

If you refer to yourself as anti-Israeli, I concur that you'd likely be accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-semitic, if you will. I don't agree with the accusation, and that's what I'm asking again to consider... that we might actually understand the difference between the two approaches.

In the terms and framework of the two threads in question, the only problem I have with you taking your stance on Israel and the Palestine question is that they don't belong in the threads in question, and that you assumed incorrectly that the people you were addressing hadn't done their homework or had no knowledge of the topic you were addressing. I asked that you give us the consideration that we might also understand these issues and know the difference between being against the policies of a country and not hating the people, necessarily.

Please note the thread in which you're posting. The topic posted (and several people have asked to get back on topic and avoid getting into yet another Palestrael/Israelestine* flame war) is on the validity or disproof of the common accusation that Zionism is a movement dedicated to world domination. Also, IIRC, the topic in the thread where you posted your "last refuge" statement was the link between 9/11 CT and Anti-Zionism. Neither is a discussion of Israel's right to exist, the Balfour Declaration, or the partition of Palestine and founding of Israel.

*There's a political forum where you will find lots of new friends if you want to drag this one out again. Just open a thread called, "My gov't shouldn't have given Palestine to the Israelis"......

I typed "911" into Google and got 104,000,000 hits. So what?

Address the issues.

No, William, you address the issues. You're after a political discussion, and we're discussing delusional conspiracists. I'm truly sorry if you've been accused of being a conspiracist, as from what I've seen you don't seem to be, but the discussions in this particular sub-forum are on debunking various conspiracies, whether Elders of the Protocols.... Anti-Mason.... JFK.... Sinking of the Maine... etc.....

ETA: bold/underlined above.... Ooops! My Bad! Just saw some of Wm's other posts... So... a CTer after all. Ah, well... one does try to give one the benefit of the doubt.

parky76

28th January 2007, 09:53 AM

i agree that it is totally hypothetically possible to bear no ill will against judaism, jews, etc...and yet be against the formation of a jewish state in palestine. but at the same time, it is rare (though not impossible) to find an anti-zionist that does not hold some sort of traditional anti-semitic beliefs.

the naturei karta are now held out as the example of non anti-semitic anti-zionists, but there numbers are tiny and are as much as example of jews as snake handlers are an example of christians.

i think deep down, we all generally know where the line between legitimate critisism of israel and anti-semitism has been crossed.

ktesibios

28th January 2007, 10:12 AM

Just to clear up the issue of just what "antisemitism" means-

The word was coined in the 19th century to refer specifically to prejudice against Jews:

The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races."...

German political agitator Wilhelm Marr coined the related German word Antisemitismus in his book "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" in 1879. Marr used the phrase to mean hatred of Jews or Judenhass, and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

and the term has retained that meaning in common usage ever since- which trumps all the hairsplitting etymological arguments. One might just as profitably discuss whether USAians can legitimately use "hamburger" to refer to a patty of ground dead cow when the word has a perfectly respectable meaning in its original language.

As a practical matter, the "Semites != Jews" claim about the word "antisemitism" seems usually to be invoked as a smokescreen to distract attention from manifestations of antisemitism- in the common usage sense of the word.

Whether it be LGFers ranting about "Islamofascists" and "ragheads" or Stormfront types frothing about "kikes" and "Khazars" or Indymediots screaming "zionazi" doesn't make much difference- a hatefreak is a hatefreak is a hatefreak.

William Rea

19th February 2007, 01:50 PM

Bolding Mine. In reverse order of the bolded items.....

Sophistry because you did not investigate the claims being made, nor the person being accused. You got out the soap box and recited.
Do you recall the thread? Had you actually scanned the posts of the people making the comments or the person being commented on? I think not. I thinkyou saw someone using one of your "keywords", and you weighed in with a standard reaction, an argument for the crowd (maybe a small crowd, but a crowd-pleaser nonetheless), which is what Sophistry is all about.

Not arguing the Issue?
If I have reasonably good evidence that I'm arguing with a racist and call him a racist, then get cited for "playing the race card", then it's sophistry. You were calling down someone for referring to a Mr. Killtown (IIRC) an anti-semite, and accusing CT sites of harboring many of the same. This, as we've done a lot of digging, IS FACT. And, if you think you can have a discussion with Killtown on any subject, go right ahead - we tried.

If you refer to yourself as anti-Israeli, I concur that you'd likely be accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-semitic, if you will. I don't agree with the accusation, and that's what I'm asking again to consider... that we might actually understand the difference between the two approaches.

In the terms and framework of the two threads in question, the only problem I have with you taking your stance on Israel and the Palestine question is that they don't belong in the threads in question, and that you assumed incorrectly that the people you were addressing hadn't done their homework or had no knowledge of the topic you were addressing. I asked that you give us the consideration that we might also understand these issues and know the difference between being against the policies of a country and not hating the people, necessarily.

Please note the thread in which you're posting. The topic posted (and several people have asked to get back on topic and avoid getting into yet another Palestrael/Israelestine* flame war) is on the validity or disproof of the common accusation that Zionism is a movement dedicated to world domination. Also, IIRC, the topic in the thread where you posted your "last refuge" statement was the link between 9/11 CT and Anti-Zionism. Neither is a discussion of Israel's right to exist, the Balfour Declaration, or the partition of Palestine and founding of Israel.

*There's a political forum where you will find lots of new friends if you want to drag this one out again. Just open a thread called, "My gov't shouldn't have given Palestine to the Israelis"......

No, William, you address the issues. You're after a political discussion, and we're discussing delusional conspiracists. I'm truly sorry if you've been accused of being a conspiracist, as from what I've seen you don't seem to be, but the discussions in this particular sub-forum are on debunking various conspiracies, whether Elders of the Protocols.... Anti-Mason.... JFK.... Sinking of the Maine... etc.....

ETA: bold/underlined above.... Ooops! My Bad! Just saw some of Wm's other posts... So... a CTer after all. Ah, well... one does try to give one the benefit of the doubt.

You assume an awful lot without knowing a thing about me and also completely misrepresent me. You are beneath contempt in my view and no better than the Nazi thugs you claim to find abhorrent.

David Wong

19th February 2007, 02:56 PM

On a tangent, imagine if enough people there renounced their incompatible imaginary friends and chose to live in peace... now *there's* an unlikely scenario. The world needs some atheist missionaries.

Hey, that's right. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin... all atheists, and all created perfectly nonviolent, peaceful regimes. Did even a single man die under their leadership? Surely not.

Come on. I'm not trying to derail the thread, but that statement of Sleepy's was just as ignorant as anything from the most hard-core Bible-thumping Baptist.

Men form factions because it's human nature to define themselves by what they oppose. And they'll pick any reason: skin color, geographic location, type of government, heritage, religion, whatever.

You've seen it; the only time a nation is truly united is when it's fighting a popular war against a loathesome enemy. We seek out those enemies, we secretly celebrate when we find them. Our entire entertainment culture is based around the good guys defeating the bad guys. There was no peaceful treaty at the end of Star Wars, it ended when the bad guys exploded. And we cheered. And we did it because it's in our nature, regardless of religious belief.

Sorry. Back to your regular thread.

MaGZ

19th February 2007, 04:39 PM

If you are prepared to cut the world domination stuff, and that Israel is behind 9-11, I am happy to engage in a debate with you on the Palestinian Israel issue.
Yes, I am 911 truther, but few of us believes Israel is behind it.

My opinion is that the Jews have no rights whatsoever to Palestine. It belongs to the Palestinians. So it is stolen land.
Time for me to hit the bed, continue later.:)

I agree, stolen land, Jews have no right to it. Most Jews can not even claim to have any ancestral heritage to people who once lived there. And Parky don’t make any Biblical case in your argument–not on this forum.

MaGZ

19th February 2007, 04:46 PM

19th February 2007, 04:50 PM

While I agree that Palestine isn't technically Israeli-heritage-land - though, surely, some place exists that is where the Hebrew nation was born - I also agree with the point made that, if we're going to eject the Jews from Palestine, we should also be ejecting the Europeans et. al. from North America. A lot of racist bigots forget that this land belonged to the Native American LONG before it belonged to any white European invader trash.

Go back where you came from! America for Native Americans!!

MaGZ

19th February 2007, 05:03 PM

parky76

19th February 2007, 05:25 PM

MagZ- I bet you think there were no gas chambers...right? Only 200,000 Jews died in the Holocaust...right?

firecoins

19th February 2007, 05:35 PM

1. Zionism is about controlling Israel not the world.

2. The US, Canada, Mexico, the Carribean islands, South America, Australia and New Zealand are all on "stolen" land. Even the English are living on stolen land.

3. Israel's military is not the most powerful one in the Middle East. The US military is which sort of controls Iraq and Afghanistan is.

4. Israel has developed effective military tactics and technology that has been exported to the US, Europe and China.