Looks like thing are getting ugly again between N. and S. Korea. Well, I mean, things have always been a bit ugly since 1953, but N. Korea is boiling these days.

Smells like war to me...

@ Candlemass:
you should read the quotes from the 'after WWII' section not the boring ones first... they never said that the holocaust was a punishment from god, they actually said something about Hitler wanting to deport jews out of germany but zionists didn't allow them and send them back to germany for their death, something like that... (which was interesting, coz i've always wanted to know why would nazis hate jews in the first place, why jews? (and gypsies, mmm.. and blacks?) please read the latter quotes. zionism was attacked by the most well-reputed rabbis before it was attacked by others. so, it's not 'misinformation' or 'emotional right brain lobe' speaking here, i'm telling u history, take it or leave it.

i'll quote something here to stimulate u to read the others;

"the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back."

and more:

"President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews."

On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables."

It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions)"

(source: The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976 - Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann)

This is all jewish writings, not anti-semite or arab or nazi writing ... so, to quote your words "Orthodox Jews did call it blasphemy, who later took it back", apparently they didnt.

oh, and this is good too;

I'm underwhelmed by this.

Previous post:
Your Previous post:

Written by Zombie on 27.11.2010 at 22:29

...while zionism in its core is the 'extremist version' of judaism.
you should check these quotes out, those rabbis think that zionism is linked (and possibly) the cause of the holocaust, and i doubt that they were pro-nazi.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm

Your current post:

Written by Zombie on 28.11.2010 at 21:08

... they never said that the holocaust was a punishment from god, they actually said something about Hitler wanting to deport jews out of germany but zionists didn't allow them [...]
zionism was attacked by the most well-reputed rabbis before it was attacked by others [...]
"with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race"' [...]
"Orthodox Jews did call it blasphemy, who later took it back", apparently they didnt.

Written by Zombie on 28.11.2010 at 21:08
"This is all jewish writings, not anti-semite"

While the same site you take on authority sites other Jews as anti-Semitic?

You are inconsistent & self contradicting on a few levels.
Do you think that those are the reasons Germans hated Jews? That the holocaust or antisemitism was caused by Zionism? (was Zionism before Antisemitism?)
This is not only sickening as blaming a rape victim? You truly live in a (cultural) mythical narrative and suffer from the excitement if wishful thinking inosculated with poor dehumanizing anecdotal evidence.

Are you cherry picking from the website of the , assuming their reasons were not religious and connect to the wrath of god?
As you suggested, Rabbis after WWII; Chaim Oizer Grodzinski, Chaim Elazar Shapiro, Yissachar Dov Belze Rabbe, Rabbi Shaul Brach, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Sholem Dov Ber Schneersohn, Chofetz Chaim, Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk...
All site religious reasons, connotations & motifs for opposing modern Zionism.
Holocaust as a punishment for breaking the Oath.
The awesome punishment for transgressing these oaths was written by our Sages in the end of the tractate Kesubos.
Until we are freed from our exile, we shall never own Israel but must patiently wait for our Messiah to come to us.

All of them Ultra-Orthdox ("extremist Judaism"), which you knew very little of their beliefs, creeds or culture
and lightly so represent there opinions?
This seems beyond mistakes or laziness, it is disgraceful and deceitful. Don't you agree?
Would you like to drop the nasty prejudice and converge on a fruitful discussion?

For starters you got it wrong (or maybe i wasn't clear enough) when i said 'extremist Judaism', i think u understood it as 'ultra orthodox' .. which isnt' the case; extremist judaism ≠ ultra orthodox.
extremist judaism is the term i meant is equivalent to extremist islamism (ie jihad and al-qaeda) ... so when i say zionism is extremist judaism its is saying that zionsism is using religion as reference for violence. i surely did not say that ultra-orthodox jews are against zionism, and in the next paragraph i'd say that zionism is an ultra orthodox thing.

and, about the ultra-orthodox thinking that the holocaust is punishment of god, well yeah, some rabbis that u mentioned did say that, again i shouldn't have said 'they never said', i mis-used that expression, and what i meant was that "yeah they said that, but its not just that, some actually think zionists caused this" .. so, inconsistency cleared out now -hopefully-

now, rather than debating if you got me wrong or if i sucked at explaining, that isn't the point, its clear now what i meant, so we can skip the personal attack on me and focus on the article that i quoted, which you completely ignored.

and, i dont think i need to repeat that this is not about me, so please spare me the personality analysis and the cultural judgment, i think i just quoted something .. if u have a problem, resurrect that rabbi who wrote that and have that debate with him, not me, these are his writings, not mine.

and one last thing, i dont go cherry-picking quotes that serve my case, the quotes i used are examples are from rabbis, and from the freakin central rabbinical congress of the US and Canada. if that's not a reliable source or a valid point of argument then i dont know what is !


PS: i dont agree with ALL what those rabbis said, even though you'd think i'd like'em. reason for this, i don't agree with their 'Israel is heresy and should not exist' statement.

"i dont go cherry-picking quotes that serve my case, the quotes i used are examples are from rabbis", citing the trivial does not change what it means. It is like trying to dismiss an argument by saying "it's your opinion".
Taking examples from rabbis representing them as representative to all Judaism, while ignoring the one's that contradict your position - is cherry-picking.

You still don't get it? Modern Zionism does not refer to religion as a source as justification, and was overwhelmingly is a secular movement.
Your opinions of inconsistent and you fail to convince (or it seems even want to) the notion of what is Judaism or Zionism (ie.e socialist Zionism, religious Zionism. religious anti-Zionism etc). Cultural and historical context is essential to understand certain beliefs and positions.
Do you think Israel, Judaism or Zionism is an fixed ideology 'entity'? or With some set nature?
Instead of honest research, you look for grand-narratives which stigmatize & crystallize all the nuances and demands of reality, as Eric Hoffer comments: "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil."
Do you think an ultra-orthodox "central rabbinical congress of the US and Canada",
except it being a bombastic name is impressive to anyone? Maye as "the party of god" does in Lebanon?
On the contrary, it's pathetic. It would be like quoting a fringe of fundamentalists fueled on ideology "as an argument".
You quote, what could be called a religious cult, people who openly support child abusers because heretics (secular Jews, "Zionists") are after the 'holy ones' and site them as objective or reliable?
Without understanding the meaning of the sects in Judaism or the term 'rabbis'? You fail to understand the meaning of the term "secular Jew" or "Zionism" in there context, you attempt to take it out of context for the juicy rhetoric.
This attitude is of "quoting from the Lion's Mouth" as a "proof" is as old as throwing dead-cattle over the walls.

Rabbis as an authority on history? "a take it or leave it" historical "facts"? I never knew you converted and adhere to rabbis as messengers of god. Mazal Tov!
To our best luck, people did take time to reflect on "if that's not a reliable source or a valid point of argument then i dont know what is !" appealing to authority[/url, and what are the conditions for it to be actually valid.


Zionism isn't one 'goosh' or 'monolith' of something, as people who try to make it look too good or too bad want us to believe.
The same misconception comes about "science". Which some people think it a "something" or a coherent "thing out-there". Istead of what these simply are, human activities and all the badge that comes with it.

A rabbi is a reliable source of historical facts adhering to an offshoot movement of Judaism, just as sheiks telling the hadith are the reliable sources for facts regarding Islam, and so as the 12 apostles of Christ are the source of facts about Christianity.

and weather zionism is secular or religious, it still offsprings from the jewish tradition, and it spoke on behalf of world jewry for decades, and Israel itself is not a secular country, true is has citizens of all religions, yet it remains a jewish state.

so, 'secular zionism' is as empty of an expression as saying 'abstinent sexual intercourse' or a 'vegetarian T-bone steak'.

To one who set his heart to his "first opinion" (as Maimonides put it), conversation for now is futile for he bonded by him-self, in a tie only one's self can unbound.

It seems that I will be resurrecting this dead thread...

My opinion with nuclear weapons is that if one state has them, then all states have the 'right' to them.

I believe the best thing to do would be to stop producing them, and destroying those that do exist. Then, it would be 'fair' for other states to say that another country is prohibited from producing nuclear weapons.

Pretty simplistic, I know.

Nuclear weapons - Big No No
Nuclear power - Big thumb up

Written by Glaucus on 26.08.2011 at 17:58

It seems that I will be resurrecting this dead thread...

My opinion with nuclear weapons is that if one state has them, then all states have the 'right' to them.

I believe the best thing to do would be to stop producing them, and destroying those that do exist. Then, it would be 'fair' for other states to say that another country is prohibited from producing nuclear weapons.

Pretty simplistic, I know.

Not realy simple at all. It all goes back to the "well if we ban guns then nobody will get shot" theory. No, only outlaws will have them. If it becomes prohibited to produce nuclear weapons. Those that follow such a law will have none and those that don't will have nukes and be in the position of power. Hypothetically, if the USA had no nukes and North Korea did ... would the U.S. being marching on their door saying to disarm? I don't know. I'm afraid that nukes are here as long as we are and there really isn't much that can be done about it.

The U.S. is better today about the number of nukes owned. At the country's arsenal peak, the United States had 32,225 warheads. Now, the U.S. only has 5113.

In theory, yeah it would be great if nobody produced nukes and all countries were rid of them, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

Written by [user id=20536] on 13.09.2011 at 05:47

The U.S. is better today about the number of nukes owned. At the country's arsenal peak, the United States had 32,225 warheads. Now, the U.S. only has 5113.

Yeah, the SMART programs and other agreements (that escape my mind) have definitely helped alleviate the 'weight' of our arsenal, which is pretty rad. Aside from that, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

I think there is 1 way only .. all nuclear countries have to destroy it, so no one will have ! otherwise countries like Iran and N. Korea will try to have also.

Nukes are nowhere near as powerful as everyone thinks. Just a way for countries to be like school kids: "I have a knife and brass knuckles, don't mess with me, bitch. But even if you do, we won't be dropping nukes, we'll just invade you the old-fashioned way and torture your people because fuck yeah, US army."

^exactly. Nuclear warheads are defensive weapon.

Countries won't be stupid enough to use one against someone that has one too (or an allie), coz the relation cost/gain will always be negative for both countries. It's the principal of "balance of terror", so I don't see any problem with it. I almost see it as a positive thing to dissuade conflits.

Imo the whole principle regarding nuclear weapons is now just like guns in the USA.

The only reason you actually need guns to protect yourself, is because the bad guys have easy access to guns too. And if you start banning guns in the USA, then the only people who would still own guns would be the people who don't abide by the law (the bad guys).

If you swap "you" with "countries" and "guns" with "nuclear weapons", you get the same thing. It's a retarded and totally fucked up situation, but it's reality. The best thing would be if all the nuclear countries would just abort and destroy their own nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, when this list of countries includes Iran, North Korea, China, India and Pakistan, it's not that easy.

Interesting read from 6 pages. Things haven't changed much. Nuclear warheads have now stuffed with more nukes - NK, Russia, US, Iran, Turkey etc especially knowing the tumoutlous wars waging on the land of Middle East and Europe.

So, I'm resurrecting this thread asking you all, what do you think of the current situation where our world have nearly missed to step up on WW3 mines too many times?!

Work would be better place if only Nato, Israel and EU counties had nukes.