Several dead, many wounded in bus attack in Israel

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,992
14,186
113
Low Earth Orbit
I hate Jews? That's ****ing pathetic Colpy. Abso****inglutely pathetic.

Ever heard me call for the slaughter of another human being and cheer like a ****ing moron when people are slaughtered?

You've been cheering on alQaeda for 4 ****ing months like a ****ing junkie chimp hoping for a blood fix.

Examine yourself before you go off spouting bull**** in favour or against the death of another human being.

Your stupidity just ****ed over a million women who are going to have to live under Sharia law and you even ****ing paid out of pocket to do it.

Why did you do it? Because you like a Nazi are a hate filled moron.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
In the past month alone, Israeli lawmakers have introduced a series of bills that aim to marginalize Arabs.
Rabbis in a northern town have urged followers not to rent homes to Arabs. Extremist Jews marched through this town and set off a violent riot.


Jewish-Arab relations in Israel hit boiling point

No oppression though, right Colpy? :lol:

On occasion, you get something right.

This is outrageous....I have said before that I do not like Netanyahu, and I think Lieberman is nuts.

Spying for Hezbollah is also nuts, and deserves execution.....but not in Israel.

And you will find the Israeli Supreme Court will come to the defense of Arab citizens.........

But the mistreatment of Israeli Arabs is simply wrong, and beyond that, just sooooo stupid.

Now, compare that to the treatment of Jews in Arab countries....oh RIGHT....there are none left. I forgot.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83


(lol petros)
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
lol

I say we go back to death counts. Pick your historical context and go from there.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,992
14,186
113
Low Earth Orbit
As long as I don't have to listen to a bunch of backwater, podunk, born yesterday al Qaeda supporting stumps.

How ****ing stupid can people be?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
IF we were surrounding Japan with a massive military build up and threatening them as the Arab nations were threatening Israel I'd say that a first attack by Japan would have been justified.

Alas we were in no position to threaten Japan and the Japanese had to sail a long way to attack the fleet as it sat completely at rest.



A blockade is certainly an act of war. And yes, a first strike is an act of war and Israel chose not to wait and give up the initiative. Afterall, this was going to be a war that would decide their annihilation.



We're sore losers? I think we won that war. Do you disagree?

I was referring to the Battle of Pearl Harbor, which the Americans lost, not the entire war.

Before Japan attack the US in 1941, the US and most of the west had imposed a series of economic embargoes which severely limited Japan's access to oil, steel, and many other raw materials required to maintain their economy. Also in July 1941, the US froze/seized all Japanese assets. Then the US moved their Pacific fleet from San Diego to Hawaii, which is much closer to Japan. Sounds provocative to me.

I suggest you learn more about your country's history:
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War

Are these actions acts of war or not? Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to what is and isn't an act of war.

IMO, provocative economic and military acts like the US did against Japan and the Arab states against Israel aren't acts of war, but they can be justifications for war. BTW, my beef here isn't with Japan or Israel attacking without warning. IMO, both the Americans (in 1941) and the Arabs (in 1967) made serious tactical errors which the Japanese (1941) and the Israelis (1967) exploited. All's fair in love and war.... My beef is how Colpy describes the 1967 war as being started by the Arabs, when in fact the war started when Israelis bombed Arab airfields and their armies crossed into Arab territory. If the war started when Arab leaders started making belligerent statements about Israel or when they imposed their blockade, then it would be the 1966 war or the 1965 war and it would not be described as the 1967 war or the 6 day war.

That is BS, Earth as One, and you know it.

The Arab nations began a program of persecution of Jews......seized property, banned emigration, Oh just

WHY DO I BOTHER???

Put it this way, in pretending the Arab pogrom against its Jewish populations DID NOT happen, you let the mask slip, and reveal the real Jew-hater inside.

Do some research, you are making a damn fool of yourself.

Sorry Colpy, but I'm having trouble following your logic. Please explain how forcing people to leave (ethnic cleansing) is the same as forcing people to stay (banning emigration). According to my logic they are contradictory.

I could have sworn I just wrote a post recently describing how and why Arab Jews were discriminated against:
...Unfortunately these innocent Arab Jews became the target of irrational fear and hate. (Not so different than the way many Westerners including Canadians irrationally hate and fear innocent Muslims today) Unlike Canada, some of these countries passed discriminatory laws against Jews during the late 1940's and early 50's similar to the discriminatory laws Israel has today against non-Jews. Similar to the way Israel treats their Arab citizens, many Arab countries also treated their Jewish citizens as second class citizens, stole Jewish property and even practiced forced assimilation like Canada did to children of First Nation peoples. I would agree that these Jews are ethnic cleansing victims and deserve compensation...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...ral-dead-many-wounded-bus-24.html#post1467301

I'm not sure I would describe every case of Jewish discrimination in an Arab country as a "pogrom", but yes I agree that some incidents could be described as pogroms. You are aware that life for a Jew in an Arab country became a lot more difficult after Zionist Jews started their ethnic cleansing war, after many Zionist Arab Jews provided material support for their country's enemies and after some Arab Jews fought with Zionists against their own country. Arab irrational fear and hate against Jews became a lot more common after Zionists started their ethnic cleansing war, not before. One series of events happened first (Zionist ethnic cleansing) and the other series of events (irrational fear and hate towards Jews) were a consequence of the previous series of event. You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse or beside the horse, when clearly the horse should be in front of the cart....

I think you are also guilty of applying double standards just like ES. But I'll give you a chance to explain yourself. According to my thinking, if a Canadian Muslim gave money to the Taliban, to help them to buy arms to kill Canadian soldiers, they are guilty of providing material support to the enemy. Locking them up would be justice, not discrimination. If a Canadian Muslim went to Afghanistan and took up arms against Canadian soldiers, they are guilty of treason. Locking them up would be justice, not discrimination. If you agree with me that these are examples of material support for the enemy and treason, then why don't you apply the same standard to Arab Jews who gave money to Zionists or Arab Jews who fought with the Zionists against their own country? Please explain the difference.

Also, I noticed you irrationally fear and hate innocent law abiding Canadian Muslims. You support restricting their religious/cultural freedoms include controlling what they can wear and where they can worship... in violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You view Muslims as a threat to Canada. So why is it that you disagree with Arabs who irrationally feared and hated Jews? While many Arab Jews remained law abiding citizens, some Arab Jews expressed support for their country's enemy during a time of war. (legal in Canada, but illegal in many countries). Many Arab Jews gave material support to the their country's enemy during a time of war. (illegal in Canada and most countries) A few Arab Jews even committed acts of treason by fighting along their country's enemy and killing their country's soldiers. (Is that legal anywhere?) Was Arab fear and hate of Jews rational or irrational? (FYI: I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm going with irrational. I'd only lock up people convicted of crimes and I would not unduly restrict personal freedoms including cultural/religious freedom)
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I was referring to the Battle of Pearl Harbor, which the Americans lost, not the entire war.

Saying we were sore losers was simply immature then?

Before Japan attack the US in 1941, the US and most of the west had imposed a series of economic embargoes which severely limited Japan's access to oil, steel, and many other raw materials required to maintain their economy.

Maintain their economy? They were slaughtering the Chinese by the hundreds of thousands and they needed steel, oil, and raw materials to continue. We chose not to trade and sell to the Japanese while this was going on. Still not an act of war. Assets were seized when Japan, not content with the invasion of China, invaded Indo-China.

Also in July 1941, the US froze/seized all Japanese assets. Then the US moved their Pacific fleet from San Diego to Hawaii, which is much closer to Japan. Sounds provocative to me.

The distance from Pearl Harbor to Japan was 4,060 MILES of ocean! Are you daft?

I suggest you learn more about your country's history:
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War

I've forgotten more about US and World History than you'll ever know and I didn't get it off some idiotic webpage.

Are these actions acts of war or not? Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to what is and isn't an act of war.

Do you not know the difference between a blockade and an embargo? Do you not see the difference between nations putting armies right at the border of a nation saying they are going to attack to a nation moving a fleet to a base that is still 4,060 miles away?


I think you are also guilty of applying double standards just like ES.

I'm not applying a double standard. The two situations are completely different. The US wasn't readying to attack Japan. We did not even have the capability to attack Japan in December 1941.

Egypt and Syria were clearly readying to attack Israel. They even said they were going to do it! Did you not read those quotes? Do you deny them being said?
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I'm not saying the US's actions weren't justified. I am well aware of Japanese war crimes and the suffering of their victims. So don't change the subject or attribute to me things I never said.

I'm saying US economic and military actions against Japan before the Battle of Pearl Harbor were provocative. How long would it take the US to go to war if another country blocked US access to just oil?... never mind steel and rubber... Also, freezing/seizing a country's assets is about as provocative as you can get. The US did these things in July 1941. Pearl Harbor was 5 months later. Do you believe the US would do nothing in response to another country seizing US assets and blocking their access to oil?

All Egypt did was deny Israel access to the Suez Canal. The economic impact on Israel which has navigable ports on both sides of the canal would be minimal, far less then restricting Japan's access to oil, steel and rubber.

Sure moving the US fleet HQ from San Diego to Hawaii wouldn't be as provocative as moving it to Tokyo Bay, but that's unlikely. Another way to look at this redeployment was that it was 2000 miles closer to Tokyo. That's just the US base of operations, not the actual location of US warships, many of which were constantly trying to shadow Japanese war ships. The length of time it would take for US warships shadowing Japanese warships to attack would be a few minutes after getting the orders.

Regarding the US readiness for war in 1941, the US had more carriers and battleships in the Pacific than Japan did. If Japan was capable of attacking the US, then the US was certainly capable of attacking Japan.

You are definitely applying double standards. What does and doesn't justify war is a judgement call. The Japanese, not me judged the US actions as provocative enough to justify war. The Israelis considered the Arab country's actions provocative enough to justify war. You don't feel that Japan had a case for war and the Israelis did. Good for you. All I was saying is that provocations that justify war, aren't acts of war. Acts of war would involve an attack of some kind and the fact is, Israel attacked their Arab neighbors first and not the other way around, no matter how much Colpy and you try to make it sound like they did.
 
Last edited:

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
All Egypt did was deny Israel access to the Suez Canal. The economic impact on Israel which has navigable ports on both sides of the canal would be minimal, far less then restricting Japan's access to oil, steel and rubber.

Man, you could use an education, but I honestly think it would be wasted on you. You have a mind like a steel trap - snapped shut, and unable to be opened.

Enjoy your apologist life, you seem to be doing well. Are you paid to promote your distorted view? Sure hope it pays enough to compensate for having to act like a complete and utter moron.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Man, you could use an education, but I honestly think it would be wasted on you. You have a mind like a steel trap - snapped shut, and unable to be opened.

Enjoy your apologist life, you seem to be doing well. Are you paid to promote your distorted view? Sure hope it pays enough to compensate for having to act like a complete and utter moron.

Discussing with EAO is like like talking to a wall - He is one Dumb Bunny. Hope his kids are smarter.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Man, you could use an education, but I honestly think it would be wasted on you. You have a mind like a steel trap - snapped shut, and unable to be opened.

Enjoy your apologist life, you seem to be doing well. Are you paid to promote your distorted view? Sure hope it pays enough to compensate for having to act like a complete and utter moron.
How would Egypt blocking Israel's access to the Sinai canal affect Israel's economy more than the US and other western nations cutting Japan's access off to oil?

Or was your point just a lame attempt insult and demean others like Goober?

Let me remind you this is a forum for debate, not insults...

If you think I've apologized for something, then please challenge me on. Who and what do I apologize for???
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I'm not saying the US's actions weren't justified. I am well aware of Japanese war crimes and the suffering of their victims. So don't change the subject or attribute to me things I never said.

How am I changing the subject and what am I attributing to you saying that you didn't?

I'm saying US economic and military actions against Japan before the Battle of Pearl Harbor were provocative.

Not trading or selling raw materials needed to make war that we disagreed with was not the US trying to provoke an attack.

How long would it take the US to go to war if another country blocked US access to just oil?

We were not blocking access to anything. We were not in a position to block Japan. Japan wanted to take by force these materials and realized the only country that could possibly stand in their way of their designs was the US.

There was no blockade.

... never mind steel and rubber... Also, freezing/seizing a country's assets is about as provocative as you can get. The US did these things in July 1941. Pearl Harbor was 5 months later. Do you believe the US would do nothing in response to another country seizing US assets

Again, the freezing of assets was protesting the Japanese aggression and invasion of Indo-China.


and blocking their access to oil?

How did we block access to oil? It was OUR oil that we refused to sell to the Japanese because we wanted the Japanese to stop the slaughter and rape of the Far East.

All Egypt did was deny Israel access to the Suez Canal.

THAT is a BLOCKADE!

We were in NO POSITION to blockade Japan!

The economic impact on Israel which has navigable ports on both sides of the canal would be minimal, far less then restricting Japan's access to oil, steel and rubber.

Both sides of the canal? EAO... you need to look at a map dude.

And again... we did not blockade Japan. Their Navy in 1941 was more powerful than ours.

Sure moving the US fleet HQ from San Diego to Hawaii wouldn't be as provocative as moving it to Tokyo Bay, but that's unlikely.

It was impossible. But if we had moved the US Fleet to Tokyo Bay they would have had every right to bomb it... just like the Arab Armies movement to the Israeli borders.

Another way to look at this redeployment was that it was 2000 miles closer to Tokyo.

Oh please. Now you are trying to defend an indefensible position. Pearl Harbor was 4,060 Miles away. End of story.

That's just the US base of operations, not the actual location of US warships, many of which were constantly shadowing Japanese war ships. The length of time it would take for US warships to attack the Japanese would have been a few minutes after getting the orders and far less time than it would have taken the Egyptian army to form up in the Sinai for an attack against Israel.


Now you are simply being dumb. You really are. Many US Warships constantly shadowing the Japanese. Give me a break.

We were in no position to attack the Japanese Fleet. For the first six months of the war the Japanese did whatever they wished and they thumped us everywhere, on sea, air, and land.

Please... just stop making garbage up. That's all I ask... just stop with the creative history of many US ships were shadowing the Japanese ships and could have attacked within minutes. It wasn't the Cold War.

You are definitely applying double standards.

As pointed out... two separate events and reasons all together. There is one similarity... the US and the Arabs were surprised. That is all.

What does and doesn't justify war is a judgement call. The Japanese, not me judged the US actions as provocative enough to justify war. The Israelis considered the Arab country's actions provocative enough to justify war. You don't feel that Japan had a case for war and the Israelis did. Good for you. All I was saying is that provocations that justify war, aren't acts of war. Acts of war would involve an attack of some kind and the fact is, Israel attacked their Arab neighbors first and not the other way around, no matter how much Colpy and you try to make it sound like they did.

Of course the Japanese decided to attack first. They wanted Empire and the US was the only country that could stop them. They wanted to take the oil and raw materials by force.

The Israelis wanted to exist. I never said that the Arabs struck first in the Six Day War. But they sure were going to. DO you deny it?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Pearl Harbour was only meant to cripple the United States for the time it should have taken for Japan to take all she wanted. Instead they woke a giant from slumber.
Sure that's one way to look at it. Another way would be that Japan lacked the resources to sustain its war machine as a direct consequence of the US and Western nations cutting off Japan's access to middle east and far east oil and rubber. They could compensate for steel because they controlled iron ore mines in northern China. But oil and rubber were strategic.

The US put them in a situation where they basically had two choices:

Either they had to:
1) give the US a good smack down and hope the US would focus inward as a result
2) pull out of every country they invaded, give up their imperial ambitions and be content kowtowing to a dominant US.

Not surprisingly imperial Japan who had never in its entire history lost a war, chose the smack down option. I'm surprised the US was surprised by Pearl Harbor. What were the Americans thinking? They should have anticipated Japan's attack in response to the West's blockade.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
So don't change the subject or attribute to me things I never said.
Why not? You do it all the time.

Let me remind you this is a forum for debate...
You aren't here for debate. If you were here for debate, you would concede when proven wrong. Instead you change the subject and attribute things to people, they have never said,

If you think I've apologized for something, then please challenge me on. Who and what do I apologize for???
Asked and answered.

Several times now.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Not surprisingly imperial Japan who had never in its entire history lost a war, chose the smack down option. I'm surprised the US was surprised by Pearl Harbor. What were the Americans thinking? They should have anticipated Japan's attack in response to the West's blockade.

Way to go........Now Pearl Harbour is the Americans' fault:lol: