Bernadotte

Oh really? Â I think you'll find that Pete asked about Ariel Sharon having direct part in the operation, not massacre. Â Please read it again: And according to a document from the office of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, cited in the report of the Kahan Commission: How much more directly can a Minister of Defense be part of an operation?

You do realise that making is not the same as supplying, don't you? Â

If that's true AND Israel is a democracy then every resident of those territories should have the right to vote in Israeli elections. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't even allow Palestinian residents of fully-annexed East Jerusalem to vote in its elections. So go ahead and pretend Israel has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories, but then please stop pretending Israel is a democracy. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

From an Israeli site about Prime Minister Olmert's opinions of the war: And now some of the comments that followed the article:

Not bad considering it used to be 4/5.

It's a part of Israel used for storing Arabs.

Haven't the US and Israel done enough already to raise the popularity of Muslim extremists across the region? Â

Who says so? Cluster bombs are not illegal, however their use on civilan areas is illegal. Â And, dropping warning leaflets ahead of time does not change that. What the hell did he think would happen?! I agree. Â Knowing Israel, we all should have anticipated that the kidnapping of those 2 soldiers would have led to the deaths of 1100 Lebanese civilians (1/3 below age 10) and destruction costing $3.5 billions (maybe $10 billion if we count the oil spill). What could be more obvious?

Some stats: Number of people who are native or secondary speakers of a given language: Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion) English (480 million) Spanish (320 million) Russian (285 million) French (265 million) Hindi/Urdu (250 million) Arabic (221 million) Number of countries where language has full legal/official status: English (115) French (35) Arabic (24) Spanish (20) Russian (16) German (9) Mandarin (5)

Yes I agree that, just because it may have been his intention, doesn't make it clever or morally justifiable. Â However, not blaming failed border control solely on ignorance tends to underscore the project's inherent moral repugnance.

Oh really? Â How do you figure? Even if their population actually continued to drop by 0.37% per year for the next 100 years they would still have over 100 million people... Not exactly extinct. Â Or were you thinking about 1000 years when you said soon? What do you suggest? Â How should we save the world from these representatives of... um... the world?

I hope it's ok to respond here instead of in the >>>Iraq Thread<<<. Â The first administrator of Iraq's British sector, Jeremy Greenstock, described the Americans' lack of desire to cover the borders as his greatest source of frustration. Â He felt they had the means and manpower to do so but deliberately ignored the need. Â I believe this was all a part of the US project to turn Iraq into Al Qaida flypaper. You see, the US realised that they could not hunt down Al Qaida with their conventional forces, so they had to provoke Al Qaida into coming to them - but not on US soil. Â After all, according to President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address: The porous Iraqi border was not an oversight. Â It was by design.

You used that section to defend your opinion. Your opinion is very similar to the article section with a little modification. Therefore, you freaking defended the article. It's not the same thing. Â The article says that Zionists had some means of assisting the Allied war effort. Suggesting that Zionists helping the German side instead of the Allied side could have changed the outcome of the war is not a defense of the article's original premise. Â It is merely accepting it until someone successfully casts doubt on it or offers a more reasonable premise. Zionists are nationalists and Bolshevists are not nationalists. Both groups have different goals. Therefore, how could Zionists influence the Bolshevists? Unless you think Jews have hive minds or something. See reply to Xawery.

I assume the influence was largely attributed to what has been called Jewish Bolshevism. Let's not exaggerate the influence of the Jewry on the Revolution, shall we? No, and let's not leave out Billybob's question that I was attempting to answer, either. Â He asked about Zionists being idealogically at odds with Bolsheviks. Â There's no need to exaggerate the influence of Jewry on the Revolution at all in response to Billybob as long as one at least accepts that the outgoing Tsarist regime was far more anti-Semitic than the incoming Bolsheviks. Rest assured, I saw that part of the article and chose not to quote it exactly because of the implicit suggestion of hive mentality. Â In any case, I shouldn't have been so lazy and instead posted a proper reference to the Second Aliya, which in my opinion offers a better insight into why Bolshevism and Zionism were not necessarily at odds:

Look again! Â I was defending my opinion, not the article. It tells you that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of an article that has been edited 268 times during the past 5 years unless someone gives me a reason to doubt. Â Have you provided any such reason? Â No? Â Then please stop wasting my time! So what? Â Call a cop!! Which section? Â Btw, work on the Declaration began well before Nov 1917. Â Neither of your sources specifies a date when Weizmann provided his Acetone technique. I didn't say all. Â Please don't put words in my mouth. I assume the influence was largely attributed to what has been called Jewish Bolshevism. Oh really? Â How do you figure? You are not admitting that the promises were made to the Arabs. Huh? Â My post was about Jack Straw referring to Israelis at a time when they didn't exist yet. Â What does this have to do with Arabs or Palestinians, who both existed back then?

No kidding. Â Try offering Encyclopedia Britannica as a serious research reference and see how much longer it takes them to stop laughing. Â It doesn't necessarily mean these sources are inaccurate. Please don't forget, this is an online discussion and not a grad school research project.

Yeah, nice one.

I looked through the massive edits carried out by someone named EiZei ( ) on the Qassam Rockets page, but could not find any use of "islamofascist" or other similar neologism. What are you referring to?

1. Â I've never cited any source of information as "Gospel" and in this case I've even prefaced my references with "Apparently" and "According to" - hardly a Gospel recital. Â 2. Â Perhaps you are colour blind because each of the article's words appearing in light blue (using my browser) is where another Wikipedia page has been linked, which offer plenty of additional source references, both internal and external. 3. Â Post your own sources if you disagree with any of the article's points. Â But, that might actually be useful. 4. Â In fact, why not post a source for suggesting that Wikipedia lacks accuracy or do you expect us to take your opinion about Wikipedia as Gospel. Â Sorry, TrevorofCrete's opinion does not count as a reliable external source. Â lol Oh really? Â How do you figure? Â So what, whether they did or didn't? Â At least Palestinians existed in 1917. Â Israelis did not. Please forgive me for adhering to the actual text of the Declaration instead of accepting your interpretation as Gospel. Â Besides, not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists. No, he is not being articulate. Â Besides, what is politically incorrect about the terms "Arabs" or "Jews" or "Zionists" even?

Is this just some Billybob spam or do you really expect me repeat what I've already posted? Â Â And he didn't use the word Arabs, instead of Palestinians, too! Making a fuss that Mr. Straw didn't use Arabs (Palestinians) and Jews (Israelis).... LOL Â Obviously you have just as much trouble with using the term "Zionist" as he does. Â

not really true What's not really true? I've only suggested that munitions, supply routes and financial resources were significant factors for each side in the conflict. Â And that the Balfour Declaration assisted the Allies with these needs while, in part, hindering the Central Powers. Could you be more specific about those 1917 breakthroughs and how an Allied victory became a certainty as a result of them, regardless of the situation with munitions, supply routes and financial resources? I'm referring to how the situation would have evolved in 1917. Â The actual impact of America landing 10,000 troops per day from summer 1918 is irrelevant to the circumstances of 1917 when Balfour was negotiated. Â The fact remains that US forces were not there in 1917. Btw, the dates are interesting. Â The Arab revolt against the Ottomans in exchange for British promises of independence began in June 1916 and resulted in the Allied capture of Jerusalem in Dec 1917. Â However, just a few weeks earlier in Nov 1917, the British also promised to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine. How convenient!! Â LOL Â He can't even bring himself to use the term "Zionists." Â He refers to them as Israelis, even though Israel would not be around for another 30 years.

How so? From the Balfour Declaration article in Wikipedia: 1. Â The War was deadlocked in summer 1917 and the USA was still a year away from sending forces. 2. Â Germany had plenty of Acetone with which to make Cordite explosive for munitions. Â Britain did not and only got their Acetone supply guaranteed when Weizmann exchanged his new synthesis technique for the Balfour Declaration. 3. Â It would have helped to mobilise the financial resources of the world's Jewish community on behalf of the Central Powers instead of the Allies. 4. Â It would have further secured Germany's eastern front and trade links through Russia given the Zionists' influence with the Bolsheviks. I'm not saying that these issues would have been enough to tip the scales against the Allies, but I do believe that the possibility of a German victory would have been significantly enhanced. And btw, a German victory would not necessarily have culminated with Britain's surrender, but perhaps only a ceasefire leaving the continent under Central Power control.

Well, if Germany had convinced the Ottomans to give Palestine to the Zionists then it's not all that certain that they would have lost WWI. Â In that case, there would not have been a Holocaust and Israel would have been born immediately as the more secular multi-ethnic state that Herzl had originally envisioned. Furthermore, an intact Ottoman Empire would have retained control over the entire oil-rich Middle East (minus Palestine).

We may never know how close it came to that. Â Apparently, when the British released the Balfour Declaration of 1917 offering support for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, Germany had also been desperately trying to win the favour of the world's Jewish community.

I guess you never heard that the "Hannibal Command" was stopped: My point is this: Â The IDF can bomb anyone it believes is a terrorist even if there are innocent people nearby, as long as the people are Arabs (or UN peacekeepers).