The number of Jews in the world will fall by 33% by 2050

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
There's a difference between restricting who people are allowed to marry and saying that people should restrict who they marry - I think Siro is clearly arguing for the former and not the latter.

Still quite repulsive.

In the US, I think the only groups who say that Whites shouldn´t marry Blacks or Jews are the Aryan Nations and the National Alliance.

Congratulation to your choice of ideological partners!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Creating a race of pure germans doesn't hurt anyone.

Yes, it does. To make it work, you would have to at least deport everybody else, and hurt those resisting deportation.

And while Israel still has no problems with a Palestinian state...

Someone should tell that to Sharon.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Still quite repulsive.

In the US, I think the only groups who say that Whites shouldn´t marry Blacks or Jews are the Aryan Nations and the National Alliance.

Congratulation to your choice of ideological partners!

I think there are millions of Christians, both in America and around the world, who will only marry a Christian spouse. There are also millions of people who want their children to marry people from the same area, just to keep their traditions going. I don't think there's anything repulsive about it.

[Goingonit]

Sharon only has problems with a Palestinian state if it includes Israel.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
I think there are millions of Christians, both in America and around the world, who will only marry a Christian spouse.

While there is some sense in your argument, it is still not quite the same. Christians that feel strongly about their religion try to convert everybody; they would try to convert their spouse first, then marry her/him. I think that the choosing of a partner, not a possible conversion, was what Siro was talking about.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Sharon only has problems with a Palestinian state if it includes Israel.

His definition of 'Israel' includes all territories where a Palestinian state would be viable.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


His definition of 'Israel' includes all territories where a Palestinian state would be viable.

Arafat's definition of a viable Palestine includes all areas where Israel is.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


While there is some sense in your argument, it is still not quite the same. Christians that feel strongly about their religion try to convert everybody; they would try to convert their spouse first, then marry her/him. I think that the choosing of a partner, not a possible conversion, was what Siro was talking about.

So because Jews don't want to hawk their views to others, they're racist? Do you have Jehovah's Witness missionaries in Austria?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
So because Jews don't want to hawk their views to others, they're racist? Do you have Jehovah's Witness missionaries in Austria?

There is a racist streak in Siro´s/your arguments. And, yes, we have the Witnesses here; and I don´t complain: No one needs to listen to them, if he doesn´t want to.

At least they value others highly enough that they think them worth saving. There are ideologies that are a lot worse.

[Goingonit]

AFAIK, the Jewish religious philosophy is against conversion as the religious views of others, in relation to Judaism, don't matter. The Messia is supposed to come when all Israel heeds God. It's not that the rest of the world is not worth saving, they just don't need saving because there's nothing to save them from.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't know where to begin with your argument.
Why don't you agree to give the Arabs half of your land then, to divide the land among you?

I agree to do that.
And so does the Israeli govt. and 95% of Israelis.

The discussion is over technicalities.

And what happens now, is that Arafat is trying to increase terror, to influence Israel's possitions over these technicalities.

And I think it's right that we do not appease terror.

We do?
We do no such thing.
We admit people who have the skills required to obtain jobs so they don't go on welfare and drain tax money.
That's ENTIRELY different from refusing people to become citizens based on which cult they belong to.

And how the people who have less skills are "less worthy" or "less human" than those who do have them?

We don't pay attention to skills.

Rather we give the opportunity to those of jewish heritage, or those who decided to seriously participate in it (convertees) to fit in as they wish.

Read what I responded to, and apply what's known as "comprehension", then figure it out.

We still talked about different things.

Why should I argue with someone brainwashed?
There's no way in hell you'll admit otherwise in the argument.

?
I'm bringing support for my claims and I constantly rethink my position according to new info.

If your assumption you won't convince me is the one leading you not to support your claims, then why bring them up in the first place?

So why are you fighting over the Gaza Strip?

We're not.
That's the root of your misunderstanding.
We're not fighting over it.
We fully intend to give it away to palestinian self rule.

However we object to their use of terror against Israelis. And as long as they employ such tactics, they will live under our security control.

You could claim that we should remove the army and watch terror die out. Then tell me, why hasn't it died out during 8 years of negociations?

The only time it did die out - relatively - was in 1997-1999. That's when Arafat was threatened by Israel to crack down on terror.

And then, in the first month of the intifada he released all those jailed from their prisons.

And now he claims he isn't responsible since he can't re-arrest them??

You're condeming them for fighting for land which you claim is yours but isn't really yours in the first place.

That land was mostly just as ours as it was theirs.

I stand by my assertion that most arabs immigrated into palestine in the same time as the jews did.

You can keep justifying it, but I think it's bull****.

Instead, try reading about it more.

Jews are completely welcome in America, Canada, anywhere in the commonwealth, and basically anywhere in the world.

But still will never be as protected as they are in thier own state.

Palestinians are welcome in America, Canda, Commonwealth, France, 30 Arab and Muslim countries too.

Why did you need to go make your own country based upon religious values?

It's based upon values of jewish heritage.
Religion is a major part of it.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Welcome in the club!

Everybody who criticises either the US or Zionism or, God forbid, both, is compared to Haider these days.

This is too much of a compliment for Haider!

The guy is quite a jerk, really.

I again ask you to re-read why I compared him to haider.

It was because he expressed happiness in reaction to hearing there would be less jews in the world.

How would you judge his words?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Still quite repulsive.

In the US, I think the only groups who say that Whites shouldn´t marry Blacks or Jews are the Aryan Nations and the National Alliance.

Congratulation to your choice of ideological partners!

Again you're skewing what we say.

You're arguing against other ideas, which I do not support.

No one here says jews shouldn't marry non-jews.

What I do say, is that there shouldn't be a problem with jews who by their own choise only want to marry jews.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Yes, it does. To make it work, you would have to at least deport everybody else, and hurt those resisting deportation.

But if you re-read my post you'd see that I did not mean that part.

What you're describing is making a single-race country by means of force.

What I'm talking about is only making a closed community of people who only choose to mate with each other. And this is an idea which I see no wrong with.

Someone should tell that to Sharon.

Again, you're projecting your own populistic biases on reality.

In reality Sharon has said numerously that there will be and should be a palestinian state.

He was one of the first, who suggested, in 1974 to talk peace to the PLO in exchange for a state and a conflict end.

But I bet that doesn't fit your description of him?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
There is a racist streak in Siro´s/your arguments.

If instead of jumping from my ideas, to populistic concepts, you'd read my ideas thoroughly, you'd see that is wrong.

My idea is to allow people who want to seclude themselves from the rest to do so, assuming they don't harm others.

I see absolutely no wrong in private clubs, countries or what ever.

However, the making of such a private group should in no way be violent of forceful.

And indeed, Israel's creation didn't intend to be such, but since Israel was declared war upon, practically before it was born, it had to defend itself, and violence arose.

Let me make a more simple example:

Let's assume a bunch of witnesses ask the UN for a country.
They get one in a relatively empty area of N. america, since that's where most of them sit, and they promise to treat non witnesses as equal citizens.

The next day, catholics in the areas sorrounding the designated state, violently attack the future nation of the witnesses.

Who is the agressor?