Honest question for JTF supporters and leadership

[dejavu]

Dejavu, I'm no fan of AIPAC.  But I think the Saudis are much worse.  So I don't understand the focus on Israel or AIPAC when Saudi Arabia is using their oil as sort of Damocles sword against the West. 

And one more thing.  I don't think any decent person would accept money from a neo-nazi organization.  Politicians HAVE returned money in the past.  Actually, Hillary Clinton at one point returned a donation from a famous but shady character, whose name I don't remember right now. 

Does it matter where the money comes from as long as you are getting the money.  He has repeatedly stated that he does not support prostitution or white supremicy but isnt the outcome whats important.  Also i agree that the Saudis are worse just its going to take alot more to get rid of them seeing as this country runs on oil.

[Lisa]

Yes it does matter where the money comes from.  If he was truly against white supremacists, he would have returned that check from Don Black.  It's not enough to say he's against white supremacists.  Talk is cheap.  Actions are what count.  By accepting the money, he is showing that he's fine with the Stormfronters. 

So let me ask you Dejavu, what happens if Ron Paul becomes President.  Being that he accepted Neo Nazi money, you'll have all the white nationalists reminding him of their support and how Don Black generously contributed to his campaign.  They will hold his feet to the fire, and threaten to stop funding his re-election campaign if he doesn't make life miserable for the Jews, or do whatever else they want. 

Money like that comes with strings attached to it.  And nothing is free. 

[mord]

So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil?  Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country?  Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup?  And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities? 

Sorry i did not respond faster but it does take some time to read, think and type a thoughtful response.  I plus i had to answer a phone call from my parents...  But back on topic.  I believe that the Saudis have far too much influence in the US government as well however they are more economic influence seeing as they control the blood of the country.  On the other hand the organizations such as AIPAC have are much easier targets seeing as they are not as well hidden into our culture.  Getting rid of the influence of AIPAC is fairly easy you just don't allow them any more but on the other hand getting rid of the influence of the Saudis is much more difficult as they are our primary provider of a resource.  Now i am a firm believer of getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries and we should move towards energy independence through opening up our Oil reserves and also making a strong push towards energy efficiency, alternative fuels and nuclear power (we gotta cut back on coal as well).  This will restore the power of the US government to the people of the US rather than the sheikh's and AIPAC style lobbyist. 

As far as Paul being antisemitic i disagree because he is not against the Jewish people he is against the power that the groups such as AIPAC hold in our country over our legislatures who are supposed to be our representatives who are not for sale to the highest bidder.  I have a huge problem with the actions of the Saudis as well its just that they are much harder to fix as they take a complete change in the actions of our country.  Also with that in mind i don't see a problem with the prince guy owning fox news and citigroup because in all honesty anyone who doesn't take what they see on television with a grain of salt deserves to be taken...  Everyone has their special interests however those special interests should never affect the policies of the country.

Well then i think you should read about the the Saudi lobby a top down lobbying group there are over 22 moslem countries former state Dept Embassy workers get millions a year from them saudis the oil companies also work on behalf of the moslems.Paul also compared Israel to hezzballah which is'nt the lebanesse army but a militia .Ron Paul is a little scumbag You do realize it's not aipac that has the Influence it's C-Pac Christian zionists also aipac and c-pac are perfectlly legal like you say they are in the open while the moslem pacs work in the shadows

[dhimmi_pride]

Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

[Dr. Dan]

So let's start with one of your good points.  Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise?  And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.

Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it?  Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world.  Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.

However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.

Thank you i have been doing my best to keep this argument as civil as possible seeing as we have differing views but i disagree that Paul hates Israel.  I don't think that he hates it i believe that he is indifferent to it because in the larger scheme of the world whether Israel falls or triumphs does not matter to the US and therefore the US should not get involved.  The problem is that you are looking at this in black or white.  You are either with us or against us.  IMO this is a fallacy seeing as you can be for something without getting involved.  If you saw someone carjacking someone with a gun are you going to go over there are risk getting shot to try and help them.  I wouldn't.  Does that mean that i am on the carjackers side.  No that means that since i am not involved it is not worth the risk to address the situation.  We still want Israel to succeed but its not worth American lives to do so.

Anyways .. seeing as i am a college student it is a Saturday night and i am going to go out with my friends, but i will come on later and check this so please keep the conversation going.

It's a little early for a Saturday night to be going out...the night begins at 11PM!

Nevertheless, I have to disagree and sort of agree on your point about the carjacker.

I believe that if I were to see, let's say, a mugging taking place and I might be close enough to help the victim, you better believe that although dangerous, I will give it my all especially if that person might end up getting killed rather than watch him get killed.  I mean, did you hear about that Bangladashi guy in the NY subway helping the person getting beaten up?

My big motto is this:  We have to fight evil...we need to make evil the victim rather than the righteous. We need to be zealouts for righteous causes and against the evil causes that we find with the Al Sharptons, Muslims, and athieists who get offended by Christmas trees and the word "Gd".

Let me tell you something. Not caring about Israel is evil.  Thinking that without her existance will not make a difference in this world is equally as bad as atheism and communism and liberalism and nazism and facism.  The proper thing is to fight for what is truly holy. To fight for Gd's grace.  To fight for what is right in this world... I'm sorry to say, but it is a black and white issue.

[Dr. Dan]

Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism.  Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly.  Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.

So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams?  You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors. 

If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?

Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?

I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?

Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story.  Its non-interventionism.  If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work.  If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them.  Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.

Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans,  and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.

The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..

Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..

That's not terrorism, that is sanity.

Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

Deja vu, dont' be so sure this time. Look at what happened to the WTC 1993 and 2001!  We now call Islam the religion of peace... We live in more evil times than we did in 1940 something.

[Lisa]

Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

Dejavu, the proper function of our government is to prevent an attack on our country where 100,000, or any number of our people get killed.  But it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 100,000 of your fellow Americans just so that the rest of the world would support and like us.  Frankly, the lives of my fellow Americans are infinitely more valuable to me than than the opinions of the rest of the world.  And I don't care about the opinions of the European welfare states that served up their Jews on a silver platter to the Nazis.  Nor do I care for the Middle Eastern rogue regimes, or the other Third World countries. 

[cjd]

Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.

[dejavu]

Ok as promised I will attempt to answer all of the questions hence the monster quote post.

Yes it does matter where the money comes from.  If he was truly against white supremacists, he would have returned that check from Don Black.  It's not enough to say he's against white supremacists.  Talk is cheap.  Actions are what count.  By accepting the money, he is showing that he's fine with the Stormfronters. 

So let me ask you Dejavu, what happens if Ron Paul becomes President.  Being that he accepted Neo Nazi money, you'll have all the white nationalists reminding him of their support and how Don Black generously contributed to his campaign.  They will hold his feet to the fire, and threaten to stop funding his re-election campaign if he doesn't make life miserable for the Jews, or do whatever else they want. 

Money like that comes with strings attached to it.  And nothing is free. 

Ron Paul though has repeatedly voted on behalf of the constitution despite what he may or may not believe.  Also if you pull up a congressional fact sheet you will also see that Paul has never accepted money for a lobbyist.  Now this point I realize you are going to argue with me on however I don’t believe that this money is being given with strings.  They are donating to Ron Paul’s campaign because if he were elected there would be a smaller US government with some major changes as to what the government was in control of.  The white supremacists are correct to support Paul, why do you ask?  Because with the current trends in the administration of the United States we are quickly loosing the rights that we were granted by the bill of rights in the constitution.  We have already lost habeas corpus and people are aggressively going after the rights to bear arms in fact you could argue that there are currently laws on the books that violate 8 of the 10 bills of rights.  The next step in this progression towards control is to take away things that we consider to be real American values like free speech and freedom of religion.

Although I do not agree with white supremacists in any way I do support their right to state their views as long as they do it in a peaceful manner much the same as you have the right to practice the religion of your choice.  The problem is that we are going in the direction of censorship and the supremacist groups are seeing that and therefore supporting the candidate who is advocating freedom from government.

Also you hit upon an extremely good point… talk is cheap and actions are what count.  Look at his voting record.

So Dejavu, do you care to read my response above, and tell me why you think it's acceptable for Saudi Arabia to have America's balls in a vice, due to their vast amounts of oil?  Why is it acceptable for them to bribe all the American ambassadors to that country?  Why is it ok for that prince Awaleed bin Talal to buy up shares of Fox News and Citigroup?  And why is ok for this same prince to pour vast amounts of money into the Middle East studies departments of our major universities? 

Sorry i did not respond faster but it does take some time to read, think and type a thoughtful response.  I plus i had to answer a phone call from my parents...  But back on topic.  I believe that the Saudis have far too much influence in the US government as well however they are more economic influence seeing as they control the blood of the country.  On the other hand the organizations such as AIPAC have are much easier targets seeing as they are not as well hidden into our culture.  Getting rid of the influence of AIPAC is fairly easy you just don't allow them any more but on the other hand getting rid of the influence of the Saudis is much more difficult as they are our primary provider of a resource.  Now i am a firm believer of getting out from under the thumb of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries and we should move towards energy independence through opening up our Oil reserves and also making a strong push towards energy efficiency, alternative fuels and nuclear power (we gotta cut back on coal as well).  This will restore the power of the US government to the people of the US rather than the sheikh's and AIPAC style lobbyist. 

As far as Paul being antisemitic i disagree because he is not against the Jewish people he is against the power that the groups such as AIPAC hold in our country over our legislatures who are supposed to be our representatives who are not for sale to the highest bidder.  I have a huge problem with the actions of the Saudis as well its just that they are much harder to fix as they take a complete change in the actions of our country.  Also with that in mind i don't see a problem with the prince guy owning fox news and citigroup because in all honesty anyone who doesn't take what they see on television with a grain of salt deserves to be taken...  Everyone has their special interests however those special interests should never affect the policies of the country.

Well then i think you should read about the the Saudi lobby a top down lobbying group there are over 22 moslem countries former state Dept Embassy workers get millions a year from them saudis the oil companies also work on behalf of the moslems.Paul also compared Israel to hezzballah which is'nt the lebanesse army but a militia .Ron Paul is a little scumbag You do realize it's not aipac that has the Influence it's C-Pac Christian zionists also aipac and c-pac are perfectlly legal like you say they are in the open while the moslem pacs work in the shadows

But you still fail to acknowledge that he consistently states that he is against all lobbyists in any form from any country even domestic.  He is not sitting there saying we need to ignore the Israeli’s so that our nice oil buddies can walk all over them.  He is saying that no country should influence our policies especially the ones in the shadows.  In fact he got a lot of negative press in the you tube debate when he was asked a question about the the SPP and the Nafta Superhighway.  Because of this question a lot of people wrote him off as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut.  However he flat out stated that groups like the trilateral commission and the SPP should not have control.  This is the same reason that he is against the Federal Reserve.

Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

I’m not stating that it could not be done.  What I am saying is that it would be immensely stupid for them to do so because they would be unleashing a greater force than they could imagine.  Also Ron Paul is hardly a piece and love hippy type.  His policy is for a strong national defense.  What this means is that we use the resources that we are currently spreading all over the world in Germany, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, our 17 new bases in Iraq, and all of the other ones that are less known and putting our troops where they matter, protecting our borders, in the ports and on the fences, north and south.  Our border is a joke I live in a border state and I have literally seen the Mexicans crossing our border in packs of 100.  I call the cops and what do they say… I’m sorry but there is nothing that we can do call the border patrol.  However the border patrol never comes because most of them are currently on active duty in Iraq.  Even if we catch them and deport them what do they do… come back the next day.

I disagree that they want to be made martyrs of because the point of a martyr is to give the rest of the people something to rally behind.  If you are literally committing suicide for your entire country by having a state sponsored sneak attack against the United States what is the point of becoming a martyr.  There won’t be anyone left.

The question really becomes what do you believe is more important sending 50,000 troops over there to cripple their country and most likely lose have of them in the process and at the same time lose have of the soldiers we send.  Or is it better to wait for them to attack.  If they attack we lose a small percentage of our population and in turn make their country into a sheet of glass.

Which is worse the guaranteed loss of several hundred thousand people by going into a preemptive war (which only leads to more hatred towards the US) or the possibility of their being another 9-11 type event?  I’m not saying that 9-11 wasn’t a terrible event but how does the fear of a country that was not even involved in the event justify a full scale invasion.  In my opinion the war in Iraq is nothing but an invasion of a nation that was somewhat anti-American for the sake of possibly preventing war at the guaranteed loss of lives.

So let's start with one of your good points.  Isn't not giving aid to Israel, a reality a blessing in disguise?  And Paul wants to withdraw that aid from Israel and everywhere else.

Well, yes, this is a good thing for Israel, but what's Paul's reasoning behind it?  Is it because he loves Israel or is it because he hates Israel? I think Paul hates Israel...so what he wants to do in this aspect might be a blessing in disguise for us..however he wants to do it as a curse on to Israel since we know he blames America for the crazy way Muslims act, when we know that it's Islam which wants to forcefully spread its religion throughout the world.  Paul is not a righteous person and, if anything, is the least righteous of all the candidates with his obvious intentions.

However, it would be interesting to see what happens if Paul miraculously won the elections and what would become of Israel without US aid and if she ends up changing for the better and fighting her enemies rather than commit suicide them.

Thank you i have been doing my best to keep this argument as civil as possible seeing as we have differing views but i disagree that Paul hates Israel.  I don't think that he hates it i believe that he is indifferent to it because in the larger scheme of the world whether Israel falls or triumphs does not matter to the US and therefore the US should not get involved.  The problem is that you are looking at this in black or white.  You are either with us or against us.  IMO this is a fallacy seeing as you can be for something without getting involved.  If you saw someone carjacking someone with a gun are you going to go over there are risk getting shot to try and help them.  I wouldn't.  Does that mean that i am on the carjackers side.  No that means that since i am not involved it is not worth the risk to address the situation.  We still want Israel to succeed but its not worth American lives to do so.

Anyways .. seeing as i am a college student it is a Saturday night and i am going to go out with my friends, but i will come on later and check this so please keep the conversation going.

It's a little early for a Saturday night to be going out...the night begins at 11PM!

Nevertheless, I have to disagree and sort of agree on your point about the carjacker.

I believe that if I were to see, let's say, a mugging taking place and I might be close enough to help the victim, you better believe that although dangerous, I will give it my all especially if that person might end up getting killed rather than watch him get killed.  I mean, did you hear about that Bangladashi guy in the NY subway helping the person getting beaten up?

My big motto is this:  We have to fight evil...we need to make evil the victim rather than the righteous. We need to be zealouts for righteous causes and against the evil causes that we find with the Al Sharptons, Muslims, and athieists who get offended by Christmas trees and the word "Gd".

Let me tell you something. Not caring about Israel is evil.  Thinking that without her existance will not make a difference in this world is equally as bad as atheism and communism and liberalism and nazism and facism.  The proper thing is to fight for what is truly holy. To fight for Gd's grace.  To fight for what is right in this world... I'm sorry to say, but it is a black and white issue.

In all honesty then by your definition I am evil.  I do not believe in god and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American.  Does that mean I want it to happen?  No of course not.  It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect.  By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake. 

Then why in Chaim's videos does he state that he would like for America to get out of the way so that Israel can take care of itself through Kahanist style terrorism to fight terrorism.  Maybe I misunderstood his message then but he seemed to me to state that America is already a lot of the problem because they do not allow for the Israeli's to handle the problem correctly.  Also how would it lead to Nuclear war unless you guys are the ones that unleash the nukes... As far as i know you and Pakistan are the only countries in that general area that have been confirmed as having them.

So my basic question then is are you trying to play both teams?  You want the US to allow you to do what you think is necessary but you also want the US to back you up in all of your endevors. 

If this is true how did the US gain this position as the police man and what does that make Israel if they were the ones that controlled the police?

Who is this you you are referring to? I'm neither Israeli or Jewish. And what do you mean by Kahanist style terrorism?

I don't want the US to prevent Israel from protecting itself through pressuring them and forcing them into suicidal "peace talks" with an enemy that wishes to destroy them. But I also don't want the US to remain neutral to Islamic terrorism. A nuclear war would be initiated by Iran who are building nuclear weapons and have vowed to use them against Israel. And Ron Paul openly says he does not care if Iran gets nukes!
A nuclear Iran is a threat to both Israel and the United States. The regime in Iran has made it clear that it also wishes to destroy America and the West. As they say "first comes saturday then comes sunday." What part about "death to America" don't you understand?

Honestly if there was a fear that Iran would turn those nukes against the US then it would be a different story.  Its non-interventionism.  If there is an eminent threat then war would be justified but a half assed war like the one that we are fighting now does not work.  If there is an eminent threat we go in there and blow the excrement out of them.  Them getting nukes is not an eminent threat for the US however i am not going to disagree that it may be for Israel but that is an issue for Israel to address not the US.

Why on earth do you believe that Iran would not use them against the United States? This is a messianic regime that has vowed for decades to destroy the United States, it is official Iranian government policy! I'll ask again what part of "Death to America" don't you understand??? This is the Iranian government slogan that has been chanted at mosques in Iran for DECADES under the orders of the mullahs who control the country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well on the record as saying that he believes that the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi is imminent which according to their theology would mean Armageddon...and they are building nuclear weapons. And this is of no concern to you or your candidate Ron Paul whom would trade with Iran, a country that has murdered thousands of Americans,  and strengthen their economy which would aid their nuclear program. To believe a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the United States is just completely insane.
I don't want another Iraq war, that has been a distaster. I want an air war that would destroy their entire nuclear program, thats it, I don't believe in the idiotic notion that we can create a democracy in a muslim nation.

The Kahanist style terrorism is refering to some comments that i have seen on a few of Chaim's videos where he states that if Israel gets bombed then they should bomb their enemys even worse so that the event would not repeat itself..

Once again maybe i misunderstood what he was going for..

That's not terrorism, that is sanity.

Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

Deja vu, dont' be so sure this time. Look at what happened to the WTC 1993 and 2001!  We now call Islam the religion of peace... We live in more evil times than we did in 1940 something.

The events in NY in 1993 and 2001 although sad were not in any ways state sponsored attacks.  They were completed by a small faction of extremists and I 100% support going after the people that were responsible.  Did we do this?  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  Most of the hijackers were Saudi yet we did not step foot into their territory to catch the people responsible.  Why is this?  Oil simple enough.  Once again the influence that they have even though they should not through our dependence on their resource.  Instead we used Afghanistan and the persuit of Osama Bin Laden as a scapegoat for the American public.  Then beyond that we turned it into a war on terror to justify an unprovoked invasion on Iraq because they had WMDs.  How does the government cover up its general incompetence as far as information gathering approaching 9-11 is concerned… by diverting our attention to the war.

Then i am insane because I do not beleive that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

Dejavu, the proper function of our government is to prevent an attack on our country where 100,000, or any number of our people get killed.  But it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 100,000 of your fellow Americans just so that the rest of the world would support and like us.  Frankly, the lives of my fellow Americans are infinitely more valuable to me than than the opinions of the rest of the world.  And I don't care about the opinions of the European welfare states that served up their Jews on a silver platter to the Nazis.  Nor do I care for the Middle Eastern rogue regimes, or the other Third World countries. 

I agree 100% and the best way that we can protect our citizens is to watch ourselves and not to provoke them.  I’m not willing to sacrifice 100,000 people but pulling out of the foreign countries around the world hardly means sacrificing our citizens, but at the same time sending in troops guarantees American casualties. 

Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.

And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions. 

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.

When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US?  And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?   

[Muck DeFuslims]

I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.

Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:

"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."



This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !!  Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !!  Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.

So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.

Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.

Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.

Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.

[Dr. Dan]

I don't think you are evil in not caring about Israel.  You are simply misguided with religion and Gd because of your upbringing. I'm not implying you need to be Jewish to understand religion. I'm implying that because of your upbringing you don't really believe in Gd and think this perfect world came to be randomly.

The perfection of our world and universe and the human species and other species and perfection of melodies and harmonies in music..and the perfection of words in poetry and essays..and beauty for the simpleness of beauty..and the feeling of happiness with sadness...I mean, you tell me there is no Gd?  Even though emotion is an animal or human trait due to evolution, it's still perfect! If this whole world and all these beautiful things were created randomly, all it proves to me is that Gd exists because random chaos doesn't create such beauty!

[Dr. Dan]

you wrote: "In all honesty then by your definition I am evil.  I do not believe in G-d and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American.  Does that mean I want it to happen?  No of course not.  It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect.  By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake. "


I'm curious.  If you don't believe in Gd, then why did you write Gd as "G-d", like every believer in Gd does?

[Dr. Dan]

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.


And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions. 

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.


When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US?  And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?   








Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!

Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world?  A power vaccum of influence.

To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.

[Dr. Dan]

I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.

Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:

"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."



This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !!  Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !!  Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.

So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.

Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.

Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.

Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.

Thanks, Muck...

[cjd]

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.

And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.

If America had entered the war when Churchill first expressed concern over Hitlers actions the world would have been spared much  grief and 6 million Jews may not have lost their lives. In the days before 1941 Hitler's Germany could have been put down quite quickly since he had not taken over all of Europe. Roosevelt saw what was happening but could not get congress to approve any build up or take more than a very limited stand on the situation. If Hitler would  have been ignored by the USA and had been allowed to take over all of Europe including England in the end the Americans would have been facing him on their own. Iran doesn't have to sneak anything in to America  they will buy the ability to launch a bomb into Israel or some other country that would start WW3. The only saving grace in the time before WW2 was the fact that our enemies did not have the abilities to reach us here in America with any weapons  that would cause a major loss of life. Things are different today and quite a bit more deadly. This is why America needs to remove the ability for radical countries to take the first shot. I really don't see the need for any country that is not an aggressor to have to sustain a first blow to give the world a reason to do what most reasonable countries see as being the correct thing. 

[ItalianZionist]

Dejavu,
   Can you give me one instance where Ron Paul said that he wants to bring the 911 murderers (alqueda)to justice? He says they are mad that we have bases there. But that doesn't mean those people in the WTC deserved the gruesome death that they got. I've never heard him say that he wants make Bin Laden and his gang of murderers to justice.

[ItalianZionist]

did you answer above?

[Johnson Brown]

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.


And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions. 

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.


When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US?  And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?   








Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!

Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world?  A power vaccum of influence.

To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.

Should we wait for Israel and some of our other true allies to get totally destroyed by Iran before we do something?  Iran is going to have the capability very soon (within the next 10 years) to launch, not carry a bomb into the U.S. and Israel so stop this fantasy.

[Johnson Brown]

The U.S. doesn't give financial aid to most countries, it's blackmail money that they give, they just recently gave into North Korea.

[New Yorker]

Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.

A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.

[Ambiorix]

Mr. Dejavu,

1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ? 
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...

2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?

[The Shadow]

To Dejavu:  I think many of our JTF members are onto you.  Believe me, the Jews and Gentiles that are members here, aren't dumb.

When you refer to Kahanism as terrorism, we are quite aware where you stand.  You're  just another typical antisemite. (And i could care less if you happen to be Jewish or have a Jewish father)  Believe me, your post won't change anything for Ron Paul.  You won't convince anyone here to vote for him.  99 percent of JTf members will agree with what I've just written in the above paragraph.

[dejavu]

I have to tell this forum, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RATIONAL PERSON CAN STAND FROM THESE RON PAUL MORONS.

Here's a direct quote from a RON PAUL MORON in this thread:

"Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him."



This RON PAUL MORON doesn't think that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the USA ! And why wouldn't a nuclear Iran be a threat ? Because we'd ONLY lose 100,000 dead !!  Hey, that's not a threat, nothing to worry about at all !!  Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.

So the RON PAUL MORON doesn't consider 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS a threat. Not to mention the fact that the USA's and the world economy would be absolutely devastated. The RON PAUL MORON fails to understand that if NYC was nuked his life as an American would be irrevocably changed for the worse.

Yeah, 100,000 dead and the end of life as you know it is not a threat and nothing to be concerned about.

Another reason not to worry is that the Iranian people might not support the actions of their government. Well, that's a big freaking consolation and I'm sure that'll be a prime consideration AFTER the nuke goes off.

Seriously folks, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH A RIGHT THINKING PERSON CAN TAKE FROM THESE BLATHERING IDIOTS.

Ah I’m being called a moron now… I have been perfectly civil as far as I can tell to this point and until now I have received the same.  The problem is that you seem to think that if we are not there the probability that they would attack the United States is 100%.  I strongly disagree with this for several reasons the first of which if we are the aggressors then we justify their cause and also in order to stop this possibility of attack we will lose lives in the process.  Also even with an interventionist policy we are hardly safer.  We are sending our soldiers overseas and away from the borders where they can do the most good protecting us and the border.

I don't think you are evil in not caring about Israel.  You are simply misguided with religion and Gd because of your upbringing. I'm not implying you need to be Jewish to understand religion. I'm implying that because of your upbringing you don't really believe in Gd and think this perfect world came to be randomly.

The perfection of our world and universe and the human species and other species and perfection of melodies and harmonies in music..and the perfection of words in poetry and essays..and beauty for the simpleness of beauty..and the feeling of happiness with sadness...I mean, you tell me there is no Gd?  Even though emotion is an animal or human trait due to evolution, it's still perfect! If this whole world and all these beautiful things were created randomly, all it proves to me is that Gd exists because random chaos doesn't create such beauty!

Once again I don’t want this to turn into an argument of religion but why is it that random cannot be beautiful.  Also the world is hardly perfect, if it were perfect why would there be war at all.

you wrote: "In all honesty then by your definition I am evil.  I do not believe in G-d and I don’t believe that Israel being wiped off the map would have any negative effect on me as an American.  Does that mean I want it to happen?  No of course not.  It only means that I don’t believe that Israel is worth any American lives to protect.  By all means Israel should protect themselves by whatever means are necessary because it is Israel’s sovereignty and lives that are at stake. "


I'm curious.  If you don't believe in Gd, then why did you write Gd as "G-d", like every believer in Gd does?

I am not doing this your forum automatically filters and changes God to add the dash.

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.


And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions. 

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.


When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US?  And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?   








Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!

Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world?  A power vaccum of influence.

To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.

You hit on another reason that I am strongly against intervention in that we cannot afford it.  What happened when we left the soviets alone… they collapsed because they were under a leadership style which was flawed in nature.  I believe that many of these countries will burn themselves out if we leave them alone and let them die to civil wars.  If we leave them alone the oppressed within their countries will rise up and create a government on their own and they will most likely recreate it in the strategy that seems most successful.  Currently this is the democratic strategy.  However if we attack them we give them a cause to galvanize behind to spread their influence.  In all honesty by attacking them we create the power vacuum which will lead to these extremist groups gaining control. 

Its not an idea that was only presented by Ron Paul it is a view that many of the RP supporters held before the campaign even began.  They are not the ones making martyrs, we are the ones attacking their homes and letting them all get personally involved behind a cause.

The feeling that I am getting on this forum is that there seems to almost take an intolerant view that they are in some way in human due to their religious views.  How is this any different than the way that the Nazis scapegoated the Jews in WW2 to justify their cause.

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.
What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.
The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.

And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions.

If America had entered the war when Churchill first expressed concern over Hitlers actions the world would have been spared much  grief and 6 million Jews may not have lost their lives. In the days before 1941 Hitler's Germany could have been put down quite quickly since he had not taken over all of Europe. Roosevelt saw what was happening but could not get congress to approve any build up or take more than a very limited stand on the situation. If Hitler would  have been ignored by the USA and had been allowed to take over all of Europe including England in the end the Americans would have been facing him on their own. Iran doesn't have to sneak anything in to America  they will buy the ability to launch a bomb into Israel or some other country that would start WW3. The only saving grace in the time before WW2 was the fact that our enemies did not have the abilities to reach us here in America with any weapons  that would cause a major loss of life. Things are different today and quite a bit more deadly. This is why America needs to remove the ability for radical countries to take the first shot. I really don't see the need for any country that is not an aggressor to have to sustain a first blow to give the world a reason to do what most reasonable countries see as being the correct thing. 

I agree that 6M Jews may not have lost their life but how many more Americans would have if we would have entered the war several years earlier.  With this reasoning we need to go into North Korea right away because in all honesty they already have Nuclear weapons and Kim Jong Il is certifiably insane.  Why don’t we go in there?  Because we are letting them crumble economically. 

On your final line.  What makes the country that is in power the morally correct one?  If we did what the largest group in the world thought was correct then we would never have democracy to begin with.  I disagree that things are different just I think that the scope is larger.  It used to be that you were only able to attack your neighbors but now the whole world is on the same block.  Also where does it stop to stop a first blow.  Do we need to live in a 1984 like society where we have curfews and spying on citizens to quell any disturbance even domestic? 

Dejavu,
   Can you give me one instance where Ron Paul said that he wants to bring the 911 murderers (alqueda)to justice? He says they are mad that we have bases there. But that doesn't mean those people in the WTC deserved the gruesome death that they got. I've never heard him say that he wants make Bin Laden and his gang of murderers to justice.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w68E5GjKHXs

I think he makes it pretty clear as to what is justified in this video.

Quote from: cjd on December 15, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
Quote from: dhimmi_pride on December 15, 2007, 08:03:00 PM
Quote from: dejavu on December 15, 2007, 07:48:30 PM
Then i am insane because I do not believe that a Nuclear Iran poses a threat to the US for the fact that it would be extremely difficult for them to get a bomb into the US.  Now if they did get a bomb into the US we would loose what.. 100,000 people and then we would have the full support of the Entire US to wipe Iran off the map.  This would be a completely justified cause.  Look at japan in WW2 what did they say after they bombed pearl harbor.  "I fear that i have have just awaken a sleeping giant."  It would be suicide for them to attack the US and i think that they have the forethought to realize that despite what the retards at the helm (Amedenijad).

Just because they have a moron at the helm much like we do with Bush does not mean that a reasonable amount of their population agree with him.

What reason do you have to think that they could not sneak a bomb into the United States? Even your candidate Ron Paul has talked about our broken borders. If tens of millions from Mexico and tons and tons of drugs can be snuck in each year then why couldn't a dedicated military regime be capable of sneeking a bomb into the United States. Our borders and shores are wide open, it would be very easy for them. And the result would be millions killed, not thousands. They don't care if the United States retaliates against them, they are not rational like the Soviets were, they don't care if they are killed. To their Islamic theology martyrdom is the greatest thing they can do in life, retaliation against them is an incentive for them to act not a deterrent.
I think the only moral thing to do is to destroy their nuclear capabilities now rather than gamble hoping that for some reason they would not use them. I live in Manhattan and would likely be killed along with my family if you and Ron Paul are wrong. Sorry but I really do not care to be your guinea pig to find out whether Iranian nukes are a threat to the United States or not.

The days of fortress America have been over since the start of WW2. Anyone that believes that isolationist policies are going to help our situation here in America had better wake up. The only thing that will prevent a tragedy from happening here is to take out the threat at the point of origination. Ron Paul lives in a dream world. Thank  G-d his chances for even being in the running are almost zero.


And what was our foreign policy before WW2 when you appear to be supporting the situation in the United States… Ding… non-interventionist.  We stayed out of World War 2 as long as we did because it was not our fight much as the war in the middle east should not be our fight.  We entered into WW2 because we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.  If we were not attacked by the Japanese then the US would have most likely never entered into WW2, with this in mind if there was a state sponsored attack against the US then Paul as well as most of the country would fully support military actions. 

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.


When did we take up this ideal of forcing people to like us rather than living with the people around us in peace until they are aggressive towards the US?  And why are we supporting this ideal when it is bankrupting our country and guaranteeing the loss of American life?   








Dejavu, this is all pussee mentality...If we act like a bunch of pussees, believe me, our enemies and these muslims will come after us with all they got!

Now if it is a strategy to not intervene in the whole world so that all of our resources can be used for ourselves, then I understand why that strategy...but guess what happens in this time of the world?  A power vaccum of influence.

To retreat like that is a bad move in today's world and a very bad idea by Ron Paul.

Should we wait for Israel and some of our other true allies to get totally destroyed by Iran before we do something?  Iran is going to have the capability very soon (within the next 10 years) to launch, not carry a bomb into the U.S. and Israel so stop this fantasy.

You’re asking for it both ways again… you want the US to allow Israel to defend itself but at the same time you want the US to be your allies.  A war is seemingly justifiable for the Israelis to undertake but I disagree that the US should be allies with Israel.  Others have repeatedly said that Israel can take care of itself but when given the chance to allow this to happen you ask for the US to back you up.  As I have said before I am all for Israel protecting itself through any means that they think seem fit but the US should have no part in its decision and should provide no support.

If Israel decides to start the war and bomb the hell out of Iran… that is their decision… go for it.  At the same time don’t expect to be bailed out.

The U.S. doesn't give financial aid to most countries, it's blackmail money that they give, they just recently gave into North Korea.

What a joke this was… we reward those who we fear for a promise of protection. 

We bomb their bridges then we send them money to rebuild their roads while our infrastructure is suffering at home.  We burn their fields then we drop them food when we have to borrow money from a communist country to pay our bills. 

By continuing the foreign policy that we currently have we are crawling into bed with the people that we should probably be most fearful of.

Also look at the list of countries that the US does give aid to.  We give more aid to our enemies than we do to our allies.  We should let our enemies crush themselves under the pressure of a war that they would not be able to sustain financially.  Wars don’t end because someone wins and the other side gives up.  Wars end because one side can no longer afford to fight.  Be it human or monetary resources.

[dejavu]

Besides, after NYC was nuked the entire USA would be united to destroy Iran.

A nuke going off in NYC wouldn't be 100,000 dead, it'd be more like 5-9 million dead.

NYC was an example that someone else mentioned when they stated that they lived in Manhattan and despite the amount of people that would be dead my point still stands.  Why guarantee the loss of life for the possibility of preventing the loss of life.

Mr. Dejavu,

1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ? 
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...

2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?

1.
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration – Immigration is a serious issue that definitely needs to be addressed if we want to continue to be a sovereign nation.  We need foreign workers but we need legal ones.  Should president address it (yes)

the decline of the Church – not an issue that the government should deal with.  There is a separation of church and state for a reason Should president address it (no)

multi-culturalism – this is a good thing,  diversity leads to innovation, group think leads to bad decisions.  Look at the Islamic groups they seem to have the largest problem with group think of anyone. Should president address it (no)

affirmative action – like communism good in theory, failure in practice.  Should president address it (no)

anti-white racism – this is an issue that local authorities should govern, if on an international level it is not our business.  (no)

neo-nazism – same answer as above

anti-semitism – same answer

negative white birth-rate – this is a good thing all races should have a negative birth rate we have far to many people in the world.  Do I think that this is an issue that a president should address.  (no) what happens between the sheets is the business of the people doing it.

booming muslim birth-rate – this is a bad thing but its not our place to govern it. (no)

development of nuclear weapons by muslims – this is an issue that should be watched but we should not be intervening

oil-addiction – most definitely.  This is something that the next president must address we need to move off of oil and coal for our environment and our future.  Also we need to move towards energy independence so that we can get the best price possible on the oil that we do get through competition.  (yes)

Jihad – should be watched but not acted upon until an imminent threat is upon us.  (yes)

Abortions – I am not against abortion however I do believe that rowe v wade should be overturned because it is unconstitutional.  The right to an abortion should be left up to the state governments so for this reason yes the next president should address it.

Soviet-style government – I feel like a broken record but same as Jihad

Globalization – this is a good thing.  Peace through economic dependence.  We don’t go to war with China because we both realize that we would cripple our own economy if we did so.  This is something that a president should strive for  (yes)

MTV-gangster rap – we should not try to impose our morals on others.  If its for everyone… we are adults and we can take care of ourselves and if its for the kids then the parents need to do their job.  (no)

delocalisation of employment to turd world – I think you are referring to outsourcing in this one and I believe that we should outsource some jobs however we need to have real free trade where the market decides the outcomes rather than the protectionism granted under Nafta and Cafta and the UN.

2.
I do not support Israels doing so however at the same time I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to get our support.  If that’s what Israel think needs to be done then by all means they should go for it

To Dejavu:  I think many of our JTF members are onto you.  Believe me, the Jews and Gentiles that are members here, aren't dumb.

When you refer to Kahanism as terrorism, we are quite aware where you stand.  You're  just another typical antisemite. (And i could care less if you happen to be Jewish or have a Jewish father)  Believe me, your post won't change anything for Ron Paul.  You won't convince anyone here to vote for him.  99 percent of JTf members will agree with what I've just written in the above paragraph.

I refer to current US foreign policy as terrorism.  In my opinion any preemptive attack constitutes terrorism.  I still however don’t understand how I am an anti-Semite seeing as I believe that Israel should do whatever it is necessary to protect themselves and that America should not be involved.




Also Good afternoon everyone

[Ambiorix]

Quote from: Ambiorix on Today at 12:08:22 PM

Mr. Dejavu,

1 do you agree the next President of the USA should address the following problems ? 
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration, the decline of the Church , multi-culturalism, affirmative action, anti-white racism, neo-nazism, anti-semitism, negative white birth-rate, booming muslim birth-rate, development of nuclear weapons by muslims, oil-addiction, Jihad, abortions, Soviet-style government, globalisation, MTV-gangster rap, delocalisation of employment to turd world...... ...

2 Do you agree Jews have the right to have a country that is zero% muslim inhabited?
-> do you support the expulsion of all "P-alestians" out of Israel?

1.
muslim/mexican/turd world-immigration – Immigration is a serious issue that definitely needs to be addressed if we want to continue to be a sovereign nation.  We need foreign workers but we need legal ones.  Should president address it (yes)


Prove me you need foreign workers.
A higher birth-rate could have prevented this problem.
It will lead to the turd-worldisation of the USA

the decline of the Church – not an issue that the government should deal with.  There is a separation of church and state for a reason Should president address it (no)



multi-culturalism – this is a good thing,  diversity leads to innovation, group think leads to bad decisions.  Look at the Islamic groups they seem to have the largest problem with group think of anyone. Should president address it (no)

I think this is a naive view yo have, multi-culturalism & political corectness are marxist inventions. Study this things, you seem to be unaware of the problems. Diversity leads to honour killings, clitoris-chopping, millions of tax-payer's money to make a police-state, in order to control the hordes of jihadis.


affirmative action – like communism good in theory, failure in practice.  Should president address it (no)
You are a traitor to your people. Your president should address these problems ASAP , are USA will become a turd world country.

anti-white racism – this is an issue that local authorities should govern, if on an international level it is not our business.  (no)
you can put your head in the sand , for all anti-white racism that is happening in the world, and deny any problem, until suddenly the mob comes to chop your head off.
neo-nazism – same answer as above

anti-semitism – same answer

negative white birth-rate – this is a good thing all races should have a negative birth rate we have far to many people in the world.  Do I think that this is an issue that a president should address.  (no) what happens between the sheets is the business of the people doing it.
Crap. If people like you have to defend America, it will be an all black continent by 2023.
booming muslim birth-rate – this is a bad thing but its not our place to govern it. (no)
I mean : you're facing extinction, and your enemy reproduction rate is booming, and you think you can stay out of this?? Are you insane?

development of nuclear weapons by muslims – this is an issue that should be watched but we should not be intervening
crazy, you bomb all the facilities at once, otherwise in 2030 ALL nations have atomic weapons.

oil-addiction – most definitely.  This is something that the next president must address we need to move off of oil and coal for our environment and our future.  Also we need to move towards energy independence so that we can get the best price possible on the oil that we do get through competition.  (yes)
at least some sanity
Jihad – should be watched but not acted upon until an imminent threat is upon us.  (yes)
IT IS A IMMEDIATE TREATH TO YOU AND ME !!!
Abortions – I am not against abortion however I do believe that rowe v wade should be overturned because it is unconstitutional.  The right to an abortion should be left up to the state governments so for this reason yes the next president should address it.
Abortion is killing the next generation. It is one of the factors that is leading to the extinction of White people. As well as Israeli.... Wake Up!!
Soviet-style government – I feel like a broken record but same as Jihad
Not understood. Better fight Big government in the USA.

Globalization – this is a good thing.  Peace through economic dependence.  We don’t go to war with China because we both realize that we would cripple our own economy if we did so.  This is something that a president should strive for  (yes)
Of course NOT.
The relation with China is disastrous for America!!

MTV-gangster rap – we should not try to impose our morals on others.  If its for everyone… we are adults and we can take care of ourselves and if its for the kids then the parents need to do their job.  (no)
No. We should strive for a abolishment of these type of media. THose gansters are sickening the youth. Is creating violence all over the place. Lock these crappers up in guantanamo bay.

delocalisation of employment to turd world – I think you are referring to outsourcing in this one and I believe that we should outsource some jobs however we need to have real free trade where the market decides the outcomes rather than the protectionism granted under Nafta and Cafta and the UN.
Protectionism is a good thing. USA should use it more.

2.
I do not support Israels doing so however at the same time I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to get our support.  If that’s what Israel think needs to be done then by all means they should go for it.
You'd better agree with the fact that Israel in the long run cannot survive if the Arabs inside their borders. Same counts for USA/EU/Russia. Assimilating millions of Arabs is almost impossible.