Iran has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

Originally posted by Knights
So now many of these 'crack' and 'elite' Iranians are leaving the country to push the offensive onto the Americans, who is going to attack invading forces in Iran with said crack squads leaving?

iran has millions of guerillas in its country known as ?basji? < wrong spelling becuase i cant remeber how its spelled.

iran actually combined with its offical forces,revolutionary guard and basji and other gureillas has enough personal to wage 2 wars a professional defensive war in its own country and an offesive guerilla war in another country. they also have alot of fire power.

Originally posted by Knights

britian looked upon it favorably, yet they offered kenya first. im still waiting for why they didnt take kenya?

Please provde a link to back up your claims.

also they started immigrating there. so i guess if alot of americans migrated to canada then canada will eventually be turned into american land by this logic. just because enough people move there does not mean that now it should be their land.

So by right then the Native Americans/Austrailians should be able to have their land back? Because at the end of the day you are all still British? Of course not.

but anyway, why did they not take kenya? they wanted a jewish state, why didnt they take that? because they lived in israel 2000 years ago? because they have enough people in israel to call it theirs? i dont get it, why didnt they take kenya if they wanted there own state?

You get offered land in your ancestors country and your own holy place, linking it to religion, and you turn it down for.. Kenya?! Right i'm sure many would do the same! The land was there and up for grabs.. many Arabs moved to the area to recieve medical care and live close because the Jews improved the area and settled.. what because the land was now improved people want it back?? Well I say the Indians should claim their land by right back, it's a simililar situation.

I told you to back up your claims.. You can't have read my last post to you?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
thanks knights for proving you dont read my posts, if you did you would see i had already provided proof that britian offered the jewish people eastern kenya first, and they declined it because they wanted israel.

also when it comes to war, yes then you take what you please, just be aware that your at war. you dont take their land then complain that they are attacking you. thats stupidity. youve claimed war on them by taking their land, regardless of what you want to call it thats what you did. in doing so you started a war. im tired of people complaining about terrorist and all, when we started this war by making sure the jewish people got israel. go back and read the article i posted. maybe you will read it this time and see the US backed them all the way to make sure they got israel. we started a war yet now we are angry that they fight back.

whether you want to start a war is completely up to you, just as long as you acknowledge you did start a war. you dont start a war, take the land, then complain when they fight back at you.

and you didnt read MY last post, or any one before that either apparently.

Im curently reading the link and i apologise for any misunderstanding.
I still do not understand your viewpoint entirely, so you are saying that war justifys terrorism?
So you would back the native Americans at terrorising present America?

And, Israel wasn't invaded as such. The land was more of a spoil of war.. Much of which wasn't even populated. Why should the people choose Kenya?


[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]

not quite, what im saying is how can any of us be surprised or be angry that their are terrorists and soldiers fighting this war, when we caused it.

for instance, lets say people A is the jewish people. country/people B is the current palestinians. country C is some country that caused a war.
Now, say people A get scattered because country C started a war. Now people/country B live there. This is their homes now, they have settled here. SO now years and years later people A start migrating back. OK, not too much a problem there.
But then people A want their own country. they are offered a country somewhere not near country/people B. They refuse it. They want country B to become Country A. so then eventually they say "we are giving people A country B, its now Country A. any people B that want to become citizens of Country A can."
well people B arent happy about this at all, and once they get moved from their homes, they get real angry. They want their country back. So they start fighting. Country A gets all angry and says they are wrong to be fighting.

now people B, to me has every reason to fight. Country A started a war by invasion. Country A should expect this. Thats what i have a problem with. They started a war then say the people are wrong for fighting back. By all means its a war, and we are choosing to fight against "terrorists"
we support an invasion, so yes i believe those "terrorists" are justified to attack.

why should they choose kenya? because they demanded that the jewish people have their own state and that was the land offered to them. now why did they deny that offer is my question?

Although religion shouldn't hold claim for land please read the following itneresting article:

Muslim Professor: Koran agrees that Holy Land is Jewish

June 6, 2004
Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, is the latest Muslim expert to say that the Koran - the holiest Muslim work - is actually Zionist.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMagazine.com (June 3, 2004), Mohammed quoted the Koran (5:20-21) as saying: "Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

Mohammed emphasized that the above phrase, "God has written for you," is very significant: "In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term 'written,' there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness, and immutability...So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has 'written' Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?" He also quoted two of Islam's most famous exegetes - Ibn Kathir and Muhammad al-Shawkani - as supporting this explanation.

I do not intend this argument to hold any power as religion is different from a physical entity.. but stil shows that even the Koran holds information dictating who the land belongs to.

We're allowed to have them because we made them first ,and finders keepers.

Plus, we're not a government run by religious extremists.

oh....wait....nevermind....

here let me better explain it like this.

say russia took half the US. they said we could have russian citizenship. now we can either take it or leave. so idk about you but i would refuse because im not going to become a russian and live under their rules.
so we migrate to the other half of the US, only to have them turn us away, whether it be for reasons that they can support that many people or whatever.
now we are stuck between two countries. SO we get tired and decide we want our land back. We are justified to take our land back, and they should expect that. they invaded it so they shouldnt be surprised if we start to fight back for our land. thats what the palestinian people are doing. their home land was invaded by jewish people and declared a jewish state. SO they decided to fight back, and if we were in that position we would do the same.

Israel: Jewish Holyland/ barely inhabited/ anscestors homeland
Kenya: Well.. i'm not sure what valuable insights Kenya offered to these religious people.

I know what I would choose.. how about you?

doesnt matter what religion says. my religion could say my land belongs to the muslim people. its still my home and i still wont let them have it, regardless of what any religion says. my religion may say this land was muslims, but its my home now and i wouldnt give that up.

yes but israel wasnt even initially an option, the US helped force their way into that decision. that why we are the enemy just as much as the jewish state israel is. if we got invaded, and the only reason we couldnt beat them out was because some other country helped them, i think we would hate both countries equally.

Right well let's go further back in history.
Jewish people have lived in the area for around 3000 years. They weren't allowed a state earlier on because the Romans took it off them but they were allowed to remain. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks then took the land around 700 years ago and ruled until after WW1, when Britain invaded the area. I say invaded the area but that was NOT true. Before the attack Britain sent recon bi planes over the area.. the Turks saw this and left. Not ONE shot was fired!

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

So.. the Jews still have a right to terrorise Italy because of Roman invasions?? Oh wait.. Should they attack Turkey?! The fact of the matter is no one was driven out of their homes. Your 'example' of Russia invading America is completely unjust.

Originally posted by Knights
Although religion shouldn't hold claim for land please read the following itneresting article:

Muslim Professor: Koran agrees that Holy Land is Jewish

June 6, 2004
Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, is the latest Muslim expert to say that the Koran - the holiest Muslim work - is actually Zionist.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMagazine.com (June 3, 2004), Mohammed quoted the Koran (5:20-21) as saying: "Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

Mohammed emphasized that the above phrase, "God has written for you," is very significant: "In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term 'written,' there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness, and immutability...So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has 'written' Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?" He also quoted two of Islam's most famous exegetes - Ibn Kathir and Muhammad al-Shawkani - as supporting this explanation.

I do not intend this argument to hold any power as religion is different from a physical entity.. but stil shows that even the Koran holds information dictating who the land belongs to.

I DID actually state that religion shouldn't lay claim to any land. But did inidcate it was an interesting story how the Koran even states Jews lay claim to the area.

doesnt matter how many people were there, just because less people were there doesnt make it right. doesnt mean that since there wasnt that many people that these people should let their land be taken.
it doesnt matter how many people were living there, its still an invasion.

the jewish people got their land taken, they should have fought back like the palestinians are now(not necessarily suicide bombings but fight as in take back their land) they didnt and that was their choice.
it was their choice not to fight just as it was the palestinians choice to start fighting when they were removed from their homes.

why shouldnt they have taken kenya?

further more the ONLY reason the jewish people got israel was because the US made sure of it. The jewish people didnt fight when they were originally displaced because they would have probably lost, and that was their choice. now they are backed by the most powerful nation on the planet and they start taking back what they lost. well unlike the jewish people, the palestinians did fight back, even though they were fighting an almost definate losing battle.

in the end the jewish people said fine and let their homeland be taken, so why do they deserve it? the palestinians are fighting, so they show that they arent going to give it up like the jewish people did. thats the difference. the jewish people would have been justified back when they were displaced, but they didnt fight. now its too late, they dont deserve the land anymore because it simply isnt theirs anymore. they let that happen.

dont give me the jewish people had no choice, they would have lost. Because the palestinians are doing it right now against israel and the possibily most powerful nation on the planet. they had a choice to make, and they chose to leave their land rather then fight, regardless of the odds they faced.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
why shouldnt they have taken kenya?

For the same reason that the Madagascar Plan was not opted for?
For the same reason that the Arafat turned down a proposed Palestinian statehood?

But the issue is irrelevant to this topic, for this topic deals with Iran has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]

why shouldnt they have taken kenya?

Hmm..

doesnt matter how many people were there, just because less people were there doesnt make it right. doesnt mean that since there wasnt that many people that these people should let their land be taken.
it doesnt matter how many people were living there, its still an invasion.

Yup.. kinda contradicts to me!

These Jews have absolutely no ties with Kenya. Israel is the Jewish holyland.. like I have said.. given the choice you would move to your holyland. That it their personal choice offered to them on a plate.
They have links to the land of Israel.

the jewish people got their land taken, they should have fought back like the palestinians are now(not necessarily suicide bombings but fight as in take back their land) they didnt and that was their choice.

So it is right to bully people around then yes?? In a way the Isrealis are sticking up for themselves now. They have re-taken THEIR land.

As for Palestinians?? Like I stated before the land had no claim to it.. Not one person ran it. No one was physically forced out of their homes as noone was living their and there wasn't an invasion.. no force was used they were just returning to THEIR home land.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]

ok and you think israels being doesnt have anything to do with the topic? it the only reason they can justify having them.

irans whole issue deals with israel. and israels history has everything to do with why iran has problems. other then israel and america, it has nothing.

Even more simple.. You (Jews) have a mobile phone.. Someone comes along (Romans and Turks) and beats you up and takes it.. A friend (Britain) finds it and gives you it back..

Oh wait...

is it your now? Or is it theirs (Romans and Turks)? I mean you didn't hit them or forcefully take it back so by right it's theirs? Or if a new person recieves the phone and doesn't use it and you take it back use it and upgrade it.. does that give the the newcomer (whom you did not abuse or mug) or even the bullys the right to your phone??


[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]