"Brittish" Death Squads to Infiltrate Israel

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Sikander
The existence of the Jewish state armed with nuclear weapons reduces the chances that Arab states will attempt to carry out a popular genocide with state level resources.

Amen! Force is the only thing fanatical Muslims can understand.

Enough said:

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sandman
You seem to be saying that the Palestinians inherited their anti-semitism from the Nazis via their leaders. I'd say there's a bit more to it than that.

Yes, there is more to it than that.

Prior to the rise of the 3rd Reich, anti-semitism in the middle east was based on the Islamic concept of 'dhimmitude' - where 'people of the book' (Jews and Christians) were spared the more usual "convert or die" options that muslims offered to the infidel.

These so-called 'protected' peoples were allowed to retain their religion, but had a status of second class citizenship in society, with no legal protection or rights.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
(from http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/)

However, since WW2, the anti-Jewish sentiment in the middle east has changed character, since the European brand of anti-semitism (Global Jewish Conspiracy) has taken root. This is what the Nazis subscribed to but is the complete opposite of the lowly concept of Dhimmitude. This is where the Mufti comes in. His links with the Nazis was the conduit for the 'Big Jew' hatred to replace the old 'Little Jew' contempt.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/rubrik.php?rubrikID=14 (German source, so you might not be able to spit 'Zionist' at this one).


As for your other point, the age old internet-troll-flamer technique of smearing an article's media source rather than engaging the arguments involved, while boasting how you refuse to read it, I won't take the bait.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander
I can't believe that Aggy et al are so blind to the religious hatred of most Arabs and many Muslims generally for all Jews wherever they live.

I can't believe that Sikander et al. have fallen for this interpretation of the facts. Most muslims didn't have a particular religious hatred of Jews until the founding of Israel.

As usual, the press wants to deflect attention from their completely reasonable dislike of an invader, by confusing it with the weird attitudes of a minority. The same happens when people confuse the beliefs of every American with the right wing whackjob ideals of the far right of the Republican Party.

If anyone is , the Israelis are the Nazis of the Middle East. But the truth is that they are closer to South Africa under apartheid (a regime that Israel supported fully, BTW).

[Edan]

It will certainly bring peace to the region since Israel is the chief cause of unrest and resentment in the Middle East, or do you wish to deny that obvious fact?

Yemen, Iraq's invaion of Kuwait/Gulf War, Iraq-Iran war, etc.

Or did Israel cause those wars?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Yes, there is more to it than that.

We've been through this before.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137070

As my 'age-old tactics' of not analysing pages and pages of arguments from biased sites which advertise cures for homosexuality, I'm sorry. I've been caught out by this sort of thing before, not again. Would you spend time refuting arguments from white supremist or Islamic terrorist sites?

Perhaps you could set a good example by deconstructing and analysing all of Agathon and GePap's posts in this thread (the combined word count is probably similar to one of Gil-White's articles).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Son of David



I'm just curious when I ask you this question (and I notice that you're a fellow Nietzschean!)

How do you propose to ensure 'human and civil rights' without a strong concept of nation?

So if we abolish the primacy of nation, how do we maintain armies, bureaucracies etc so essential to preventing certain kinds of peoples being invaded by other peoples, or maintain law and order in general?

Nietzsche was against nationalism but he was also, and much more so, against anarchism. Seems to me that the modern anti-state zeitgeist is the tendency to bite the hand that feeds ....

He wasn;t against Anarchy, unless by anarchy you mean a slide towards nihilism. H would certainly have been against the modern state, which seeks to normalize and , form a purely Nietzschean perspective seeks to make everyone follow the slave morality.

So no, Nietzsche was not in support of the nation, nor even THE STATE, because he sees the state as the slaves keeping every down to their level. The man trying to become the overman does not "follow the law". He makes new laws, he creates, he blazes a new trail. Modern strong states are founded to keep the status quo.