DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
no but have seen several speaches of him, but i saw her the first time.
and DC was actually involved in starting wars, not sure about the girl in the video.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
David Horrowitz encounters genocidal Muslim student.
- Thread starter Virus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david horowitz
no but have seen several speaches of him, but i saw her the first time.
and DC was actually involved in starting wars, not sure about the girl in the video.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
DC, what, exactly, is your point here?
I'm asking because I find it very unsettling and disturbing about someone openly defending people who fire rockets into civilian neighbourhoods, and uses as an excuse that, "oh, 70 years ago Country X did something bad to Country Y".
I support Palestinian rights, too, but I also respect Israel's point of view, and I sure as heck don't think I have to support terrorist organizations in order to dream of peace in the Middle East.
I'm asking because I find it very unsettling and disturbing about someone openly defending people who fire rockets into civilian neighbourhoods, and uses as an excuse that, "oh, 70 years ago Country X did something bad to Country Y".
I support Palestinian rights, too, but I also respect Israel's point of view, and I sure as heck don't think I have to support terrorist organizations in order to dream of peace in the Middle East.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
well sorry, it strikes me as so totaly wrong i would have asked her again with a shocked face, just to make it clear that she really supports a new holocaust attempt.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
hey others defend not only rockets on civilians, others defend nukes on civilians, that seems to be ok.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Fine, then I defend the Hiroshima bomb because Red China killed 70 million people
.
Last edited:
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
Fine, then I defend the Hiroshima bomb because Red China killed 70 million people
so you support terrorism, good to know.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
how would an iraki suicide bomb end the palestinina - israeli conflict?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
it is claimed that her teacher claims that she is indeed epacfull. that led me to the thought that she might actually have missunderstand the question.
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,994
well, maybe because they are COMPLETELY different contexts.
First off, Hamas is an antisemitic organisation who are dedicated to the destruction of ALL Jews, and not just the State of Israel (they even promogulate the protocols in their charter for cryin out loud).
Secondly, the USA and Japan were in a total war. Japan's people were fanatics who worshipped the emperor and the government under the militarist ideology of Bushido. This fanaticism showed in the refusal to surrender at Okinawa and other places where instead, they fought to the death. Indeed, Japan was preparing for an invasion and had marshalled every man woman and child to fight to the knife. The Americans knew that any attempt to invade would be like putting their hands in a metal cutter, so they had to think of something. A viable postwar Japan would still be needed in order to ensure South East Asia recovered, so the firebombing campaigns were ruled out (they werent very effective anyway). Another option was a massive blockade that ensured nothing out and nothing in. But this would have starved millions in conditions worse than Stalin's Ukraine and would only be enacted by complete monsters.
As well as that, the USA could not risk a revanchist Japan in the vein of Nazi Germany, so there was to be unconditional Surrender only. In fact, it was a stated war aim throughout world war 2. Nothing else would do, especially since Japan was the aggressor in the first place. The USA would decide to use the new atomic bombs recently developed in the Almagordo test facility in an attempt to force a surrender before the planned invasion of japan (which involved more nuclear bombs) in September 1945. After the first nuke, Japan didnt surrender, so the Americans sent off another bomb to Nagasaki (the name of the original target escapes me), the military decided to try a coup after the Emperor decided to surrender unconditionally.
What DC and other revisionists forget is that Hiroshima/Nagaski and the current Jihadist threat are completely different contexts and so they cannot be compared.
First off, Hamas is an antisemitic organisation who are dedicated to the destruction of ALL Jews, and not just the State of Israel (they even promogulate the protocols in their charter for cryin out loud).
Secondly, the USA and Japan were in a total war. Japan's people were fanatics who worshipped the emperor and the government under the militarist ideology of Bushido. This fanaticism showed in the refusal to surrender at Okinawa and other places where instead, they fought to the death. Indeed, Japan was preparing for an invasion and had marshalled every man woman and child to fight to the knife. The Americans knew that any attempt to invade would be like putting their hands in a metal cutter, so they had to think of something. A viable postwar Japan would still be needed in order to ensure South East Asia recovered, so the firebombing campaigns were ruled out (they werent very effective anyway). Another option was a massive blockade that ensured nothing out and nothing in. But this would have starved millions in conditions worse than Stalin's Ukraine and would only be enacted by complete monsters.
As well as that, the USA could not risk a revanchist Japan in the vein of Nazi Germany, so there was to be unconditional Surrender only. In fact, it was a stated war aim throughout world war 2. Nothing else would do, especially since Japan was the aggressor in the first place. The USA would decide to use the new atomic bombs recently developed in the Almagordo test facility in an attempt to force a surrender before the planned invasion of japan (which involved more nuclear bombs) in September 1945. After the first nuke, Japan didnt surrender, so the Americans sent off another bomb to Nagasaki (the name of the original target escapes me), the military decided to try a coup after the Emperor decided to surrender unconditionally.
What DC and other revisionists forget is that Hiroshima/Nagaski and the current Jihadist threat are completely different contexts and so they cannot be compared.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
Israel is assasinating the guy they voted for, thats far more effective.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Sorry, I have to go by what he woman herself said, not by whatever excuses others make for her. She's an adult, she can clarify herself if she feels she was misconstrued.
Reminds me of the kid caught red-handed, on video, doing a horrific violent crime and his mother saying "my little baby could never do that".
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
i am. but you dont get the point in your "us vs them" thinking sheme.