Thread: Muslim Religious Leaders Condemn Holocaust Deniers

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Fluke

What was the act of aggression by Israel that caused the war?

.

The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields after a period of high tension that included an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank

Yawn

But that was after Egypt had amassed 100 000 troops on Israels borders , the only reason why Egypt would do that was if they wwre going to attack Israel.
Israels bombing raids against Egypt were pre preemptive strikes against an enemy who were about to launch an invasion .
Egypt amassing troops on Israels borders was the act of aggression which caused Israel to react

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You're never outnumbered when you have a couple of nukes up your sleeve and are batshit crazy enough to use them/

Israel hasnt used them though and Israel has pledged not to be the first Country to use them , meaning that if no one else uses Nukes, Israel wont either .

Originally Posted by Fluke

Israel hasnt used them though and Israel has pledged not to be the first Country to use them , meaning that if no one else uses Nukes, Israel wont either .

Source please

^^ Since they don't officially acknowledge the existence of their own nuclear weapons, that seems a bit unlikely.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/...ttle/14-01.htm

4th paragraph, underlined.

Without acknowledging that they have them, they nevertheless promise never to be the first to introduce them in the ME and never to use American tech to deliver them.

Without acknowledging that they have them, they nevertheless promise never to be the first to introduce them in the ME and never to use American tech to deliver them.

What does 'introduce' mean in that context? "not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons" doesn't really sound like an unequivocal declaration not to engage in a first strike. And does Israel continue to consider itself bound by one sentence in a 45-year old secret document? I don't think for a second that the Israelis are about to launch a nuclear attack on downtown Tehran but I'm not quite so sure that there aren't circumstances where the Israeli state wouldn't consider their use.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Fluke

Israel hasnt used them though and Israel has pledged not to be the first Country to use them , meaning that if no one else uses Nukes, Israel wont either .

Source please

It has been repeating numerous time by various different people dating back to 1965 along the lines of Israel would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region.
Vague and ambiguous, but thats understandable considering the situation

Vague and ambiguous, but thats understandable considering the situation

Yes, one possible situation being that the then Israeli government wanted to avoid making a binding declaration against first use - it's hardly the first time that governments have used this kind of double-speak to say one thing and to mean another.

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

I don't dispute the fact that lots of Jews were killed during the second world war. Lots of other ethnic minorities suffered even more. I just dispute the numbers and the official story of how they died.
When you can be arrested and imprisoned for even doubting or questioning the official line that tells me they have something big to hide otherwise why jail people to keep them quiet ?
They have used the official line to get their own country and used what happened to them as some excuse for their own genocide of the Palestinian people.

Preety much agree with what you say. It's all blow out of proportion and the truth is slowly but surely comeing out.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Vague and ambiguous, but thats understandable considering the situation

Yes, one possible situation being that the then Israeli government wanted to avoid making a binding declaration against first use - it's hardly the first time that governments have used this kind of double-speak to say one thing and to mean another.

No, Israel wanted to declare that they wouldnt be the first to use Nuclear weapons whilst at the same time not actually admitting to having them .
But the declaration is quite clear that they wouldnt be the first , the only question is whether they wouldnt be the first to use them or the first to acquire them .
If Israel said that they wouldnt be the first ones to use them , that would amount to admitting that they have them .
If Israel said that they wouldnt be the first to acquire them, that would be admitting that they havent go them .
So the official line is that they will not be the first ones to introduce them , which is neither admitting they have them or admitting that they dont have them

No, Israel wanted to declare that they wouldnt be the first to use Nuclear weapons whilst at the same time not actually admitting to having them...If Israel said that they wouldnt be the first ones to use them , that would amount to admitting that they have them .

In 1968, they probably didn't have a nuclear weapon. But what's your basis for saying this? Is there some set of facts which you can point to support what you say? If there is, I'd be interested to know what those facts are. If there isn't, your explanation seems more than a little contrived. And it's hardly 'an official line'. So far, the evidence is a single secret document which is now comfortably middle aged - that's not usually what people mean when they talk about 'the official line'.

Originally Posted by Fluke

Israel would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region.

Well yes, they introduced them informally. That remains the case- israel has never been a signatory to the IAEA.

It is believed that they did in fact have them in or around 1968, and may have had them a few years earlier.

It may not be a very "official"-sounding line, but it is the "line", and thereon hang a few vague principles, like socks on a cloudy day, not quite dry enough.

And, let's face it, there isn't a piece of paper with signatures on it anywhere in the arena of international relations that isn't just about to become meaningless given the right circumstances.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

introduce

the fact that they have 100-200 in the middle east, is that not "introducing" them to the region? If they meant "Use" why not use "use"? No, they said Introduce, which means fuck all.

Besides, who in the world would ever believe a word from the Israelis. "we have no nukes! Don't look under there though." lol

Originally Posted by Fluke

would the West bank Jewish settlers then become Palestinian, or would they keep their Israeli identity?

My view is that those in 'recognised' settlements (by Israel) should be offered the choice- Israeli or Palestinian citizenship, up to you. The violent scumbags in the wildcat settlements should be kicked out though, and i doubt they would have it any other way anyway. Israel has a minority of Palestinian citizens, and I personally don''t see a problem with Palestine accepting some Jewish citizens- but I doubt there will be many takers, Israel has an EU standard of living, Palestine is pretty impoverished in comparison.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

No, Israel wanted to declare that they wouldnt be the first to use Nuclear weapons whilst at the same time not actually admitting to having them...If Israel said that they wouldnt be the first ones to use them , that would amount to admitting that they have them .

In 1968, they probably didn't have a nuclear weapon. But what's your basis for saying this? Is there some set of facts which you can point to support what you say? If there is, I'd be interested to know what those facts are. If there isn't, your explanation seems more than a little contrived. And it's hardly 'an official line'. So far, the evidence is a single secret document which is now comfortably middle aged - that's not usually what people mean when they talk about 'the official line'.

From Israels Prime minister

"Israel has said many times - and I also said this to German television in an interview - that we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East," Mr Olmert insisted. He added: "That was our position, that is our position - nothing has changed."

Originally Posted by Mozzbie47

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

I don't dispute the fact that lots of Jews were killed during the second world war. Lots of other ethnic minorities suffered even more. I just dispute the numbers and the official story of how they died.
When you can be arrested and imprisoned for even doubting or questioning the official line that tells me they have something big to hide otherwise why jail people to keep them quiet ?
They have used the official line to get their own country and used what happened to them as some excuse for their own genocide of the Palestinian people.

Preety much agree with what you say. It's all blow out of proportion and the truth is slowly but surely comeing out.

IYO, what is the truth ?

Originally Posted by Fluke

Still waiting.

no, no link, seeing that Muslims were recognizing the Jews holocaust is not something you read about every day so seeing that Rifkin was to lead an investigation into radical or extremist Muslim behavior , i thought i'd slip it in.
the thread unusual anyhow when it comes to these two hateful people at each others throats for more than half a century plus.
and isn't going to end any time soon.

Originally Posted by Mao Say Dung

And, let's face it, there isn't a piece of paper with signatures on it anywhere in the arena of international relations that isn't just about to become meaningless given the right circumstances.

Very true. It's not something to get unduly obsessed over.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

no, no link,

A link will be hard to find since what he's charged with investigating is the role played by MI5 in the murder and whether it might reasonably have been expected to do something to avoid it.

Not Muslim behavior.

but he is investigating behavior in mosques, schools, colleges, universities, people who travel to the east to be brain-washed on terror etc. getting to the root of extremist behavior.
finding a way to eradicate Islamism.
maybe they could also look at financial terrorism by the Jew boy culture.

Got a link for that?

no, no link