|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To come to Israel you have to be a Jew.... |
Actually Israel has welcomed immigrants of many different ethnicities.
Israeli Vietnamese boat people
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/VietBoatPeople.html
| Leon wrote: |
| maybe Israelis hate diversity of all sorts |
Actually it is the muslims who hate diversity. Kill kill kill all infidels is what happens in their countries.
| Leon wrote: |
| they are nothing like the KKK |
| Quote: |
In a letter posted on its Web site the head of the white supremacist group Aryan Nations offers his thanks to radical Islamic terrorists and extends the group's hand of friendship.
Aryan Nations National Director August Kreis writes (www.aryan-nations.org), "We as an organization will also endeavor to aid all those who subvert, disrupt and are (sic) malignant in nature to our enemies. Therefore I offer my most sincere best-wishes to those who wage holy Jihad against the infrastructure of the decadent, weak and Judaic-influenced societal infrastructure of the West. I send a message of thanks and well-wishes to the methods and works of groups on the Islamic front against the jew such as Al-Qaeda and Sheik Usama Bin Ladin, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and to all Jihadis worldwide who fight for the glory of the Khilafah and the downfall of the anti-life and anti-freedom System prevalent on this earth today.
Kreis continues by saying (sic), " I ask our Islamic fellow fighters against jewry to remember the co-operation between Mufti Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini and Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler during the last century and to remember that all that is of the past it is our duty to surpass!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1362190/postshttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A,_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg |
Yep Hamas has nothing to do with the Klan. They are poles apart
Saddam hussein/ Ghaddafi/ Nasser: Arab supremacists
Hesbollah: Shia supremacists
Al quaeda/ Hamas Sunni Supremacists
Klu Kulx Klan White supremacists
| Quote: |
| that doesn't mean that I support them |
C'mon its obvious who you support. You think Hamas and islamic terror groups are justified in killing women and children. |
Don't confuse my position with yours. Why can't you understand that someone can find fault with Israel and Hamas? Hamas shouldn't kill innocents, Israel shouldn't kill innocents, no one should kill innocents, especially not woman and children. Blockades kill innocents, attacking civilian centers kill innocents, destroying infrastructure helps kill innocents, the IDF has killed many woman and children, just as rockets have killed woman and children. All are bad, which I can say with out difficulty, but you can't.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think the programming that they do with the young in Gaza is a travesty that will make reconciliation harder, but until the Jews in Israel take some responsibility and elect better leaders that will be impossible. |
Security is a prime concern for Israel, they elect leaders who will be able to defend them. In case you hadn't noticed, jews have been brutalised, persecuted and killed for the past few millenia based on their race. i don't think you're going to have much luck trying to convince them that anti-semitism is just a temporary phase that will pass if they just give a few more concessions. |
What about all those jews living in western countries, they seem to be doing a lot better security wise than Israel, in fact I bet most of them are pretty convinced of their safety. Zionism failed in its number one goal, the Jews living outside of Israel are safer than those inside.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Nope because Gaza is a ghetto for Arabs, so that is why there are no Jews |
Gaza used to be a thriving Jewish community. In Napoleans time there were actually no Arabs there. But it is just another area they were forced to cede to arabs. Because when Arabs gain control of an area they force all the jews to leave.
You claim that the jews forced the arabs off their land. So then why are there over 1 million arabs living happily within Israel? So happy in fact that surveys show they would not wish to live in any arab countries. |
Because as I've said before, Israel is doing well domestically. To live in Israel is pretty good, just like to be white in South Africa was pretty good. Israel has a crisis of conscience, either give up the occupied territories and be a true democracy, or be a modern apartheid state were equality isn't given based on where you live and what race you are.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Hamas is still mostly a political party doing normal political things. Most of their budget is for running Gaza, not killing Jews |
You might have said the same about the nazis. Their budget as for running public transport and other services. |
The nazi's and the KKK, now you're just throwing out whatever bad group you can think of. I could compare Israel to the nazi's with their desire to create an ethnic father land, their rounding up of people, the ghetto's etc. etc., but that be pretty distasteful.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So then a country like Israel, which espouse violence, loses moral high ground? Israel is one of the most aggresive countries in regards to attacks |
Israel does not espouse violence, neither is it aggresive. Its military operations are entirely defensive. there is a difference.
If Israel was aggressive, then it would have easily colonised and controlled half the middle east already. |
Not really, they don't have the manpower to colonize that much territory, plus the U.S. wouldn't allow it, what with the valuable resources that might get destroyed. Israel has a history pre-emptive attacks and aggression, regardless it is understandable, but they certainly do espouse violence.
| Leon wrote: |
It would not have been possible with out Sharones
There is no proof that Sharon ordered , or encouraged that masscare. If you have some proof put it up.
The Lebanese miiitas went in to the camps during a civil war right after the Christian president of Lebanon was assassinated.
So what you are saying Leon is that Hamas has right to target Jews in Israel and Hizzbollah has a right to go after them overseas.
Where exactly ought jews live Leon? |
Not really, I was using your type of logic. If those Jews supported Israel, then they are legitimate targets for those who are at war with Israel. I don't believe this, at all. But according to you if someone supports Hamas, or even lives in Gaza then they are legitimate targets, even if they live in a sovereign state like Lebanon. Did you miss my last post where I put the proof up, the Kahan report, by the Israeli government, which is what I based my condemnation of Sharon on? Either the Israeli government is right, and by extension me, or your right and the Israeli government isn't as trustworthy as you previously said. [/quote]
| Junior wrote: |
So in other words they ought not live in Israel and they ought not live overseas either.
| Quote: |
| Israel is different in that many of the people who return were not descendants of the land, or were from such a long time ago as to be irrelevant. The true descendants of the land, including those who had property on the land before they left in recent history are not allowed to return |
You seem to be unaware of the facts once again. Yes, Arabs will tell you that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority until 1967 when the Jews conquered it.
What they don't mention is that Arab majority was only for 19 years. Jews had the majority for 250 years prior to that.
hamas has said that a Palestinian state must be Jew-free. This is why jews had to leave gaza and why Jews have been run out of all the arab countries.
So tell me this is fair. If all jews must get out of arab lands, must all arabs get out of Israel? |
No, of course not. Would any Jews really want to live in Gaza, though? I suspect that having a sovereign nation would make Hamas more moderate, and suspect that over time they will become even more moderate, similar to what happened with the PLO. I could be completely wrong, but in a sense it's based on politics. The tougher Israel acts, the tougher Hamas will act, and the same applies the other way around. They have to prove themselves to be tough on Israel to gain legitimacy before they can negotiate. I hope that's what happens, I doubt that it will happen under Likud, but I might be wrong. As history marches on I think that relations between the two will begin to normalize, similar to what happened with Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. I hope that Netanyahu's successor works harder and more sincerely for peace. Honestly I'm more concerned with Israel in relation to Iran and the possibility of a strike if Israel feels Iran is close to nuclear weapons than the Palestinian issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| [So then a country like Israel, which espouse violence, loses moral high ground? Israel is one of the most aggresive countries in regards to attacks, and in regards to having every member be required to join the army. The founding of Israel was based upon the idea that if you mess with Israel then the response would be so violent and ruthless that you wouldn't want to do it again. That was one of Ben Gurion's founding precepts for Israel. . |
Reacting in self-defense is QUITE different from espousing violence. In terms of aggressive attacks the Arab countries surrounding it were responsible for most of those. As for the "response would be so violent and ruthless that you wouldn't want to do it again." I yet have to see such one response. There have been several wars, invasions and small-scale battles...doesn't look like any response from Israel has been so violent and ruthless that they aren't willing to start it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All are bad, which I can say with out difficulty, but you can't. |
Of course violence is bad.
But it is necessary to defend your citizens from attack. Israel does all it possibly can to minimize civilian casualties in the process.
Hamas does the opposite, it positively tries to kill women and children. Yet for some reason the weight of your condemnation always seems to fall heavier on Israel.
Why is that?
I mean why is it that you ignore appalling human rights abuses, hate speech and actions from Arabs yet go into hyperventilation everytime an Israeli passes wind.
What would an arab have to do to earn your disapproval exactly? Eat his own grandmother? Strap a bomb to his infant child? or is everything they do automatically excused in your eyes.
Arabs have an area 500 times the size of Israel to live in. Soon they will probably have most of western europe as well. Can't they just be happy and get on with life? Live and let live for pitys sakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| All are bad, which I can say with out difficulty, but you can't. |
Of course violence is bad.
But it is necessary to defend your citizens from attack. Israel does all it possibly can to minimize civilian casualties in the process.
Hamas does the opposite, it positively tries to kill women and children. Yet for some reason the weight of your condemnation always seems to fall heavier on Israel.
Why is that?
I mean why is it that you ignore appalling human rights abuses, hate speech and actions from Arabs yet go into hyperventilation everytime an Israeli passes wind.
What would an arab have to do to earn your disapproval exactly? Eat his own grandmother? Strap a bomb to his infant child? or is everything they do automatically excused in your eyes.
Arabs have an area 500 times the size of Israel to live in. Soon they will probably have most of western europe as well. Can't they just be happy and get on with life? Live and let live for pitys sakes. |
Kind of boring to talk about how bad Hamas is isn't it? I mean I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of suicide bomb attacks. For that matter, can't imagine anyone arguing against Assad and what he does. Most of western Europe, don't believe the hype. Live and let live would be a lot easier for everyone once the West Bank and Gaza are no longer in Israel, and they could succeed or fail on their own. Israel would come into it's own as a modern democratic nation and maybe even serve as a positive example in the region. Terrorists would have less incentive to attack it, etc. Israel has to get around to that whole live and let live bit you mentioned first, as does Hamas, but remember who is occupying who. Israel has the upper hand, it has more power to move forward in the peace process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Kind of boring to talk about how bad Hamas is isn't it? I mean I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of suicide bomb attacks. For that matter, can't imagine anyone arguing against Assad and what he does. |
So you're admitting that arabs escape censure because everyone expects them to behave like animals anyway?
Whereas israel is constantly judged for every move it makes because it is held to a higher standard. I see.
| Quote: |
| Terrorists would have less incentive to attack it, etc. |
Muslims were attacking Jews long before Israel built houses on the west bank. The problem does not lie with settlements or supposed "injustices". It is an age old blood feud that has been ongoing for millenia. Halting construction ain't going to make everything all OK.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand much about that, you view things entirely through your limited prism of western political correctness. Arabs probably laugh at your perspective. You are crediting a stone-age culture with 21st century sensitivities. They're relying on your continued naivety.
| Quote: |
| Israel has to get around to that whole live and let live bit you mentioned first |
Israel is a country of cultural diversity. Muslim holy sites are fully protected in israel, and anyone can visit them. Arabs live freely in Israel.
In gaza all Jewish and christian holy sites have been desecrated and smashed to pieces. No Jews are allowed to live in gaza.
Who should live and let live exactly?
| Quote: |
| remember who is occupying who. Israel has the upper hand, it has more power to move forward in the peace process. |
thankfully arabs do not have the upper hand-they would completely crush and annihilate the Jews.
There have been numerous peace incentives from Israel. They have already given away a lot of land won in battle, in exchange for peace.
Did the US give back California to mexico yet?
They offered to give away 97% of the west bank. I think they've done more than enough.
Most israelis are happy with the idea of a two-state solution: they want peace.
Most arabs are not, however. They will settle for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.
So its obvious who is blocking the peace process from moving forward: its the palestinians themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Kind of boring to talk about how bad Hamas is isn't it? I mean I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of suicide bomb attacks. For that matter, can't imagine anyone arguing against Assad and what he does. |
So you're admitting that arabs escape censure because everyone expects them to behave like animals anyway?
Whereas israel is constantly judged for every move it makes because it is held to a higher standard. I see. |
No, not at all what I'm saying. I know that is what you expect, but I don't think in terms of race. I'm hopeful that the recent Arab spring will turn out well. If anything people should talk more about that, it's pretty interesting, hopeful stuff. Also, remember that the reason for Assad's horrors is that people are finally standing up to him. I think a lot of their problems are due to Western interference, and the resource curse of oil, with the west propping up certain dictators in exchange for stable energy. I don't think it's all the wests fault by any means. What I was saying was that a conversation about suicide bombs or Assad, or whatever is worthless because there is nothing to disagree about. Israel receives a lot of aid, and is a democracy, so yeah I do hold it to higher standards than dictators and occupied people.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Terrorists would have less incentive to attack it, etc. |
Muslims were attacking Jews long before Israel built houses on the west bank. The problem does not lie with settlements or supposed "injustices". It is an age old blood feud that has been ongoing for millenia. Halting construction ain't going to make everything all OK. |
Jews have always lived in the middle east. Many were doing pretty well until Israel came about. In Islam they are considered to be a people of the book, which meant, at least traditionally they were to be protected. I know that under the ottomans there were provisions to protect Jews and Christians. That's like saying that protestants and catholics will never get along.
| Junior wrote: |
But I wouldn't expect you to understand much about that, you view things entirely through your limited prism of western political correctness. Arabs probably laugh at your perspective. You are crediting a stone-age culture with 21st century sensitivities. They're relying on your continued naivety.
| Quote: |
| Israel has to get around to that whole live and let live bit you mentioned first |
Israel is a country of cultural diversity. Muslim holy sites are fully protected in israel, and anyone can visit them. Arabs live freely in Israel.
In gaza all Jewish and christian holy sites have been desecrated and smashed to pieces. No Jews are allowed to live in gaza.
Who should live and let live exactly?
| Quote: |
| remember who is occupying who. Israel has the upper hand, it has more power to move forward in the peace process. |
thankfully arabs do not have the upper hand-they would completely crush and annihilate the Jews.
There have been numerous peace incentives from Israel. They have already given away a lot of land won in battle, in exchange for peace.
Did the US give back California to mexico yet?
They offered to give away 97% of the west bank. I think they've done more than enough.
Most israelis are happy with the idea of a two-state solution: they want peace.
Most arabs are not, however. They will settle for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.
So its obvious who is blocking the peace process from moving forward: its the palestinians themselves. |
Not really, the PLO did a lot in regards to the peace process. More and more Arab states have come to normalize relations with Israel. Hamas is composed of factions, some more moderate than others. Both sides are blocking it, every new settlement drives a wedge with the PLO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Israel receives a lot of aid, and is a democracy, so yeah I do hold it to higher standards than dictators and occupied people. |
Instead of expending massive amounts of energy trying to make a 99% OK country 100%OK, why don't you focus your attention on trying to make the 30% OK countries better?
It doesn't make sense. You spend all your time criticising minor, basically irrelevant stuff about Israel yet ignore "hanging kids from cranes six at a time" in other countries.
If you had humanitarian concerns (rather than merely racial bias), then surely you would be trying to heal the most serious wounds first? Next door in Syria the govt has just massacred 1500 civilians and besieged a town. Yet to you thats "boring" and you'd rather slam Israel again.
I don't understand it. I don't get it. this obsession you guys have with a tiny faraway country. Is Israel the centre of the universe?
| Quote: |
| No, of course not. Would any Jews really want to live in Gaza, though? |
Not under hamas, obviously 
But if their security could be garuanteed, then absolutely. many of them were heartbroken to leave gaza.
| Quote: |
| I suspect that having a sovereign nation would make Hamas more moderate |
The idea that Jews would be safe under hamas, hesbollah or any of the other islamists is looney. For the birds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Israel receives a lot of aid, and is a democracy, so yeah I do hold it to higher standards than dictators and occupied people. |
Instead of expending massive amounts of energy trying to make a 99% OK country 100%OK, why don't you focus your attention on trying to make the 30% OK countries better?
It doesn't make sense. You spend all your time criticising minor, basically irrelevant stuff about Israel yet ignore "hanging kids from cranes six at a time" in other countries. |
Do you really believe Israel to be 99% ok? Isreal itself doesn't even think it's 99% ok. This is just an internet forum, we aren't making any country better. I have a job with lots of down time, plus its been raining recently so I haven't been able to get out. Talking about Israel is more interesting because what's there to say about Syria. I say it's a tragedy, you agree, then we both nod our heads.
| Junior wrote: |
If you had humanitarian concerns (rather than merely racial bias), then surely you would be trying to heal the most serious wounds first? Next door in Syria the govt has just massacred 1500 civilians and besieged a town. Yet to you thats "boring" and you'd rather slam Israel again.
I don't understand it. I don't get it. this obsession you guys have with a tiny faraway country. Is Israel the centre of the universe?
| Quote: |
| No, of course not. Would any Jews really want to live in Gaza, though? |
Not under hamas, obviously
But if their security could be garuanteed, then absolutely. many of them were heartbroken to leave gaza.
| Quote: |
| I suspect that having a sovereign nation would make Hamas more moderate |
The idea that Jews would be safe under hamas, hesbollah or any of the other islamists is looney. For the birds. |
That tiny far away country gets massive amounts of aid dollars, and gets to do what it wants with my country acting as its patron. That tiny country, should it choose to pre-emptively strike a country like Iran could have major global consquences. It's kind of a big deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Do you really believe Israel to be 99% ok? |
It is compared to its neighbours in the arab world. Unless you think that hanging kids from cranes six-at-a-time is OK.
| Quote: |
| Talking about Israel is more interesting because what's there to say about Syria. I say it's a tragedy, you agree, then we both nod our heads. |
What is so interesting about israel?
There is nothing of interest going on there.
There is no violence, no scandal. No nothing.
Unless you count parents taking their kids to school and people opening their shops as interesting?
So you admit that your obsession with the pinprick state of israel is not based upon humanitarian concerns, but more of a gossip thing? Like a sewing circle?
| Quote: |
| That tiny far away country gets massive amounts of aid dollars |
So do numerous countries around the world.
| Quote: |
| and gets to do what it wants with my country acting as its patron. |
You gave millions to Turkey, who is busy opressing Kurds. Why don't we see never-ending threads about poor kurdish people on here?
Or do you admit that you're just biased against Jews.
| Quote: |
| That tiny country, should it choose to pre-emptively strike a country like Iran could have major global consquences. |
Such as preventing a nuclear war? what a pity.
| Quote: |
| It's kind of a big deal. |
 not really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| So you admit that your obsession with the pinprick state of israel is not based upon humanitarian concerns, but more of a gossip thing? |
I totally take your side in this debate, Junior, but this is a significant problem in the pro-Israel assembly of opinion that needs to be addressed, or otherwise have their credibility rightfully called into question: the obsession with Israel is due, at least in part (and not insignificantly) to our obsession with the Holocaust. "Why the engrossment with Israel, when there are far worse countries?" is a perfectly good question. But so too "Why the engrossment with the Holocaust, when there have clearly been worse crimes against humanity?". It is all but compulsory to study the Holocaust in schools. One cannot be in favor of this and complain that Israel is the subject of an unjustified engrossment - this is inconsistent and, perhaps, sheer hypocrisy. My position is that both the Holocaust and the State of Israel are the subjects of unjustified attention. We should, instead, direct our attention to 20th century government mass murder in general. Inasmuch as I believe in compulsory humanities subjects at all, I think this would be a great candidate.
As such, I don't think it is particularly contemptible for the everyday person to have this preoccupation with the Arab-Israeli Conflict; he does so, at least in part, due to his schooling and his culture, which, with little justification, gives the Holocaust a privileged status. What is utterly beneath contempt, however, is jumping up and down at the transgressions of Israel, yet at the same time having the following kind of view of a man whose policies killed upwards of 40 million:
Enormous achievements - yes, he really did say it.
Meanwhile, 'Mao's Great Famine', by Dutch historian Frank Dikotter, has just received the �20,000 BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Do you really believe Israel to be 99% ok? |
It is compared to its neighbours in the arab world. Unless you think that hanging kids from cranes six-at-a-time is OK.
| Quote: |
| Talking about Israel is more interesting because what's there to say about Syria. I say it's a tragedy, you agree, then we both nod our heads. |
What is so interesting about israel?
There is nothing of interest going on there.
There is no violence, no scandal. No nothing.
Unless you count parents taking their kids to school and people opening their shops as interesting?
So you admit that your obsession with the pinprick state of israel is not based upon humanitarian concerns, but more of a gossip thing? Like a sewing circle?
| Quote: |
| That tiny far away country gets massive amounts of aid dollars |
So do numerous countries around the world.
| Quote: |
| and gets to do what it wants with my country acting as its patron. |
You gave millions to Turkey, who is busy opressing Kurds. Why don't we see never-ending threads about poor kurdish people on here?
Or do you admit that you're just biased against Jews.
| Quote: |
| That tiny country, should it choose to pre-emptively strike a country like Iran could have major global consquences. |
Such as preventing a nuclear war? what a pity.
| Quote: |
| It's kind of a big deal. |
not really. |
A lot of people disagree.
http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/israel-iran/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/
Luckily that particular danger has passed for the moment, but this sort of thing is the reason why Israel is a big deal. It is a major player in one of the most voliatile regions in the world. If it attacked a country like Iran it would have major consquences for the entire region. Given how many wars Israel has been involved in, it is not some insignificant pinprick of a nation. Also considering the nuclear option that Israel has, and given the fact that if Israel felt threatened enough it would use that option, it is an important country. I'm more intereseted in the foreign policy aspect of Israel, but think that Palestinain issues are important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| As such, I don't think it is particularly contemptible for the everyday person to have this preoccupation with the Arab-Israeli Conflict; he does so, at least in part, due to his schooling and his culture, which, with little justification, gives the Holocaust a privileged status. . |
I see what you're saying. We are educated into a focus on Israel. That is certainly true to a degree.
I'll leave it to the following article to argue for the holocaust's special status in the history of human brutality. Interesting read.
However, anti-semitism itself is surely a unique phenomena. With no other tribe of people do we find such a sustained and historic, millenia-old persecution. How does one account for such a thing?
THE UNIQUENESS OF THE HOLOCAUST
by Alex Grobman, Ph.D.,
President of the Brenn Institute
In ever larger numbers, states throughout the country are mandating that the history of the Holocaust be taught in public schools. At the same time, an increasing number of parochial and private schools are also teaching the subject. An important reason for this emphasis in the schools, in addition to the enormity of the event itself, is the historical uniqueness of the Holocaust.A key objective of this essay is to overcome a tendency to equate the Holocaust with other modern tragedies. This is not to disparage the horror and tragedy or the scope of other nightmarish events-some persisting today because of the failure to learn from the lessons of the Holocaust but to clarify distinctions. By equating the destruction of the Jews of Europe with other events such as the bombing of Hiroshima, the treatment of Native Americans by the United States government, the institution of slavery in America, the deportation and incarceration of Japanese Americans in American concentration camps during the Second World War, the Armenian tragedy of 1915-1917, and the mass murders in Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere we view everything on the same level as the Holocaust. However, to do so is historically misleading, for it distorts the historical reality of both the Shoah (Hebrew term for Holocaust) and these other crimes, and in the end, trivializes the importance of this unprecedented and unparalleled event in modern history, and minimizes the experiences of all those who suffered.
In August 1945, when the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, 130,000 people were either killed, injured, or could not be found. About 75,000 suffered the same fate when the Americans dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. But the United States never intended to destroy the Japanese people. They wanted to demonstrate America's superior military strength which they hoped would persuade the Japanese to surrender so the killing would end. (1) As soon as the Japanese surrendered, the Americans ceased their attack. With the Nazis, the mass destruction began after the victims had surrendered. (2)
From the eighteenth to the twentieth century, the United States pursued an exploitative, self-serving, and heartless policy toward the American Indians. These policies wreaked havoc with their traditional way of life. Nevertheless, the American government never expressed, advocated, or initiated any official decree to destroy all the Indians. The Indian population declined significantly between 1781 and 1900, but these deaths resulted primarily from pandemic disease first brought to the New World by the Europeans and carried westward by waves of migration and by missionaries. Though this decline was undoubtedly assisted by organized and spontaneous acts of aggression, the American government never adopted a policy of genocide. Indeed, the official government policy -- the removal of the Indian population and later placing of them on reservations -- was intended to maintain the Indian peoples from extinction, no matter how wretched and brutal the conditions under which they were then forced to live. (3)
White Americans imported African slaves to the United States so they would have cheap labor with which to exploit the vast natural resources of America and to farm sugar, cotton, and other cash crops. The slaves were not treated humanely, but their owners had a vested economic and utilitarian interest in keeping them alive to work and procreate. Killing them would have defeated the very purpose for which they were brought to the United States. That the American government acquiesced in the exploitation of human beings in this manner is a blight on the nation, but the government did fight a war against its own citizens to free them. (4)
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No.9066 on February 19, 1942, he set in motion a process resulting in the deportation and incarceration of almost 120,000 persons of Japanese descent, two thirds of whom were American citizens. Included were men, women, and children who were sent to concentration camps and U.S. Justice Department Internment Camps located in California, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Arkansas. Some were imprisoned for up to three and a half years. They sustained enormous financial losses, from which few ever recovered. The psychological trauma will remain with them for the rest of their lives and probably will be felt for generations to come by Americans of Japanese descent. The insidious and unprecedented use of race, of collective guilt, by the United States government against its own citizens should serve as a warning. Nevertheless, though it incarcerated the Japanese on the grounds of national security, the American government never officially planned to murder these people individually or as a group nor to use them for slave labor, for medical experiments, or even as scapegoats for the ills of society at home. (5)
On August 22, 1939, several days before Hitler launched his attack on Poland, he implored his military leaders to show no mercy toward those who stood in his way. I have placed my deathhead formations in readiness. .. with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [Lebensraum] that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" (6)
Between 1915 and 1917, the Turkish government conducted a brutal campaign to deport Armenians from Turkey, which resulted in the slaughter of from 550,000 to 800,000 out of a population of 1.5 to 1.7 million. This translates into a loss of from 32 to 53.2 percent. (7) However, although Hitler took comfort from the failure of the West to remember the massacre of the Armenians, this does not mean that the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy are similar historical events. The Turks were driven by "extreme nationalism and religious fanaticism." They wanted to establish a new order" in Turkey, and the Armenian population was in the way. This was a situation of competing nationalisms -- a collision between Armenians and Turks, between Christians and Muslims. To achieve this new national order, the Turks had to remove the Armenians and did great violence to the Armenian people in the process.
But the Turks did not view the Armenians as a satanic or biological threat to themselves or the world. Although they referred to Armenians as a race, the Turks accepted those who converted to Islam and did not harm them. Moreover, Armenians were not killed everywhere, particularly not in the Turkish capitol of Istanbul, where thousands sought refuge and survived the war. Once the Armenian nationalist threat had been thwarted, the Turks no longer felt a need to kill them. (VIII)
During the Marxist regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Kampuchea, 2.5 million people out of about 7.3 million were forced to resettle under the most brutal conditions. Singled out for special treatment were the military and the cultural, religious, and intellectual elites of the country. However, none of these groups were marked out for complete annihilation. Other examples of large scale migrations and the destruction of culture include the tribal conflict that led to the persecution and removal of the Asian community in Uganda by Idi Amin, the attack against the intellectuals and Buddhist monks in Tibet by the Chinese; and the oppression and exile of the Chinese minorities to different areas of Asia. In all these Asian cases mentioned, there had been an attempt to create a pure communist state; and in all these instances the governments in power allowed for conversion to the new reigning ideology. No groups were marked for complete destruction. (9)
All historical events are not of the same magnitude. But this is not a contest to see which group suffered the most or sustained the greatest numerical losses. Distinguishing between different historical events does not, and should not, lessen or demean the suffering of others. Out of the 15-17 million Jews alive in the world in 1939, six million or about 40 percent, were annihilated. Counting only the Jews of Europe, the percentage is about 65 percent. In Lithuania, Poland, and Holland the percentages were 95-96, 92, and 80 respectively. When we contrast this with other tragedies such as the estimated 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 who died in Stalinist Russia, and the 34 to 62 million killed during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s when Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Tse-tung fought for control of China, we see that the rate of death surpasses the Holocaust by a factor of at least 3. But these people died under far different circumstances which are not comparable to those of the Holocaust. (10)
When Joseph Stalin killed millions of his fellow citizens, he did not murder all of the individuals of any one group. Among his many targets were individual academics, aristocrats, party and military officials, peasants, Ukrainians, and Jews who resisted his efforts to modernize and revolutionize the Soviet Union. His assault on the kulaks was intended primarily to force them onto collective farms as part of the collectivization of agriculture rather than to kill them. Stalin wanted to industrialize the country in the shortest period of time and to force collectivization upon the peasants. If this meant that millions of people would die in the process, that was the price the nation had to pay. In the Chinese civil war, the numbers include military and civilian casualties, but there was no genocidal intent. (11)
If we are to learn from history, we must be concerned about objective truth, with transmitting what actually transpired and not allowing those with their own particular agenda to obscure our understanding of what occurred. Every atrocity, every injustice in contemporary society does not have to be a Holocaust for it to be worthy of our deep concern and response.
The Holocaust has become the event by which we measure all other atrocities. Why? Because for the first time in history we have an entire group - the Jews - where every man, woman, and child was intentionally singled out by a state for total destruction. This has never happened before either to Jews or to any other group. Previously, Jews could convert to Christianity, flee for their lives, or remain in their cities and towns, hoping to prevail by using survival techniques that had sustained them throughout much of Jewish history. (12) Once the Nazi regime decided to annihilate the Jewish people, these were no longer alternatives.
When we refer to the Holocaust, we mean the systematic bureaucratically administered destruction by the Nazis and their collaborators of six million Jews during the Second World War people found "guilty" only because they were viewed inaccurately as a race. The Nazi state orchestrated the attempted mass murder of every person with at least three Jewish grandparents. (13)
Every primary social, religious, and political institution in Germany was involved in the process of destruction. This included the bureaucrats who were all too often more concerned with their own careers than with the plight of those they were sending off to be killed. Others involved in this system were the lawyers who enacted legislation depriving German Jews of their civil and property rights; the judges who ensured that these laws were binding, the military and the police who enforced these and other regulations and orders against the Jews, the railroad workers who transported the Jews to their death, the intellectuals, teachers, and scientists who gave legitimacy to the pseudoscientific theories serving as the foundation of Nazi ideology and practice, the students who rarely challenged their teachers and professors, the architects and engineers who designed and built the extermination camps, the physicians who were involved in the euthanasia program and later conducted medical experiments on human beings, the physicians who failed to speak out against these inhuman practices; the business community which supported Hitler once they recognized the huge profits that Jewish slave labor could provide, and the churches that were generally passive, or, if they protested, did so on behalf of Jews who had converted to Christianity - but rarely protested on behalf of the Jews in general-and did not see their speaking out as a moral imperative regardless of what the consequences might be.
The Nazis also annihilated a minimum of 300,000 Gypsies and many thousands of others: the physically and mentally disabled, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, communists, trade unionists, and political and religious dissidents.
None of these groups, however, were the primary target of the Nazis-not the mentally disabled, who were killed in the euthanasia centers in Germany (here it is to be noted that the Nazis did not export this program to the civilian populations outside the Reich); not the homosexuals, who were regarded as social deviants but for whom the Nazis did not have a consistent policy (homosexuals were persecuted only in the Reich and in areas annexed to it but not in countries the Germans occupied); not the Gypsies, who were partly seen as "asocial" aliens and Aryans within society and therefore did not have to be annihilated completely; and not the Jehovah's Witnesses, who had refused to swear allegiance to Hitler and who declined to serve in the German army, but who were not marked for extinction; in fact, only a small number were incarcerated in the camps, and most of them were German nationals. The Nazis also did not single out every socialist, communist, trade unionist, or dissident-just those they perceived as a threat to the Reich. The Jews alone were the primary target of the Nazis. (14)
Why the Jews? To the Nazis, they were a satanic force that supposedly ruled the world through their control of Wall Street and the communist regime in the Soviet Union. A sophisticated individual would probably have recognized the inconsistency of this logic as well as the false assertion that Jews are a separate race. Yet, however simplistic, for the common German, and later for the rest of Europe, this absurd claim served as a useful rationalization. Sadly, there are people throughout the world who still subscribe to this and like myths.
Believing in all sorts of pseudoscientific and racial nonsense, the Nazis saw the Jews as a cancer, a dangerous virus, a bacillus that, if left unchecked, would allow the Jews to dominate the world completely. (15) In 1942, Hitler told Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, that 'The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world, the battle in which we are engaged today is one of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by [Louis] Pasteur and [Robert] Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jews. We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew. Everything has a cause, nothing comes by chance." (16)
Hitler believed that the Jews, through miscegenation, were race polluters whose aim was to obliterate the white race: "With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers of others, even on a large scale. It was and it is the Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily insulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master." (17)
Failure to confront the Jew would spell disaster for the human race, Hitler thought, as the following excerpt from Mein Kampf shows: If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.... by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting the work of the Lord." (XVIII) In other words, as Steven Katz has noted, the "Holocaust was intended as, and received its enormous power from, the fact that it aimed at restructuring the cosmos anew -- now without 'the Jews.' (19) Those who understood national socialism as "nothing more than a political movement," Hitler rightly observed, 'know scarcely anything of it. It is more than a religion: it is the will to create mankind anew." (20)
This abiding obsession with destroying the Jewish people can also be seen in Hitler's Political Testament. In his last communication with the German people, written on April 29, 1945, at 4 a.m. just before he and his mistress Eva Braun committed suicide, Hitler declared that "Above all I charge the leadership of the nation and their followers with the strict observance of the racial laws and with merciless resistance against the universal poisoners of all peoples, international Jewry." (21)
"It is," as Katz has argued, "this unconstrained, ideologically driven imperative that every Jew be murdered that distinguishes" [the Holocaust] "from prior and to date subsequent, however inhumane, acts of collective violence, ethnocide, and mass murder." (22) No longer did the Jews have the option to convert to Christianity and escape being killed. As long as the Nazis viewed them a separate race, the Jews were destined for extinction. Nothing the Jews could do would change that.
When the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, they did so not only for political and strategic reasons but also for the eradication of their mortal enemy-the Jews. (23) They pursued this ideological war even when it meant diverting resources from their troops at the front. When the need for trains to transport soldiers and supplies conflicted with the requirement to transport Jews to the extermination camps, both received equal consideration. In June 1942, the Germans were preparing a new summer offensive in southern Russia, to which they were committing all of their 266 reserve divisions on the Eastern front. In preparation for the attack, a two-week ban on civilian traffic had been declared. After Wilhelm Kruger, Himmler's top agent in Poland, objected to the head of the railroad authority about this arrangement, they reached an agreement whereby some civilian transports would be permitted during this period. Himmler felt this was inadequate, so he intervened, leaving no doubt that regardless of the military needs the "Jewish problem" was still of the highest priority. As a result, from July 22 a train containing 5,000 Jews left Warsaw for Treblinka each day. In addition, twice a week a train containing 5,000 Jews from Przemysl left for Belzec. (24)
During the following winter, the position of the German military began to deteriorate. The German troops who were besieging Stalingrad had been surrounded by the Red Army. To break through the Russian lines, the Germans sent in a fresh Panzer division in mid-December. At the same time, the Germans imposed a one-month ban on civilian railroad transport beginning on December 15, 1942. Even after the ban ended, the disaster at Stalingrad required extensive rail transport. But Himmler again intervened, this time on January 20, 1943, to ensure that trains were available for moving Jews to the extermination camps.
From February 1943, trains were used to deport Jews from Berlin to Auschwitz and from the Bialystock ghetto to Treblinka. By March, Jews from all over Europe were being transported to their death. In July 1944, when the Germans were evacuating Greece and needed all available rail transport, the deportation of the Jews remained on schedule. (25)
What the Nazis had planned for the other nations that came under their control is not clear, in part because the Nazi leadership held differing attitudes towards them. What we do know is that the Jews alone were marked for total annihilation. Those Gypsies who were considered racially pure -- that is, Aryans were for the most part spared in Germany even if they were "asocials"; those who were viewed as racially impure criminals were not. Gypsies were condemned to a "selective mass murder on a vast scale. (26)
The Slavic peoples were viewed as subhumans but were still regarded on a higher level than the Jews. Members of the Polish intelligentsia and the Polish Catholic priests in western Poland were selected for eradication because, as leaders, they posed a potential threat to German political domination. The rest of the Slavic community was to be subjugated and kept as a permanent underclass as slaves. Their cultural, religious, and educational institutions were to be destroyed; even so, they would be kept alive to help build the new Reich. Since the western nations were viewed as Aryans, only those of mixed blood were considered for extermination. (27)
The Jews, during World War II, were the first victims of an all-out attempt at the physical annihilation of a people, but there is no guarantee that such an effort will not be repeated against some other group. "... The mere fact that every modern government possesses such power cannot but alter the relations between those who govern and those who are governed. This power must also alter the texture of foreign relations." (XXVIII)
In a very real sense, "Auschwitz has enlarged our conception of the state's capacity to do violence. A barrier has been overcome in what for millennia had been regarded as the permissible limits of political action." (29)
Our continued interest and fascination with the Nazi period should keep us vigilant. "it is entirely possible that this is the end that awaits many races and nations -- maybe all of them. And the Jews will then prove to have been the first victim of this new experiment." The question remains, Has "Auschwitz become an eternal warning or merely the first station on the road to the extermination of all races and the suicide of humanity"? (30)
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/uniqueness.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| If it attacked a country like Iran it would have major consquences for the entire region. |
No more than any other country.
Iraq attacked Kuwait. Al quaeda attacked the world trade centre. Both had massive global consequences that I dare say outweigh any Israeli precision strike on natanz.
India and Pakistan are currently engaged in a nuclear arms race, buuilding nuclear subs and missile after missile. They rattle sabres often. North korea has a bomb, maybe it could reach the US.
All of the above strike me as far more significant than an Israeli preventive surgical strike on an Iranian facility.
Iran doesn't need an excuse to attack israel remember. They could do so at any time.
| Quote: |
| Given how many wars Israel has been involved in, it is not some insignificant pinprick of a nation. |
But if "number of wars" = importance, then sudan, angola and other african states must surely be regarded as the most important countries on earth?
| Quote: |
| Also considering the nuclear option that Israel has, and given the fact that if Israel felt threatened enough it would use that option, it is an important country. |
But so would any country defend itself if necessary.
So you're not worried about Iran nuking Israel, you're only worried about Israel retaliating?
Israel is a responsible nuclear power, it does not constantly threaten its neighbours.
Iran and North korea however, behave like drug addicts waving a needle. Yet for some reason they do not set off Leon's warning system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| If it attacked a country like Iran it would have major consquences for the entire region. |
No more than any other country.
Iraq attacked Kuwait. Al quaeda attacked the world trade centre. Both had massive global consequences that I dare say outweigh any Israeli precision strike on natanz.
India and Pakistan are currently engaged in a nuclear arms race, buuilding nuclear subs and missile after missile. They rattle sabres often. North korea has a bomb, maybe it could reach the US.
All of the above strike me as far more significant than an Israeli preventive surgical strike on an Iranian facility.
Iran doesn't need an excuse to attack israel remember. They could do so at any time. |
Look at the mess that Iraq caused. Iran has the potential to do a lot more. It's not just about attacking Israel, if Iran feels threatened it has the power to upend the region, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and to start exporting its terrorism beyond the Middle East. Unlike most countries it has an extensive network of terrorist proxies it can use to retaliate and maintain deniability. Not really something to be cavaliar about. The immediate danger of this has passed, but it is still very much an issue of concern. I am a lot more concerned about Pakistan, but there are no threads about Pakistan, or the other countries for that matter. I'm not interested enough to start my own thread, to be honest.
| Junior wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| Given how many wars Israel has been involved in, it is not some insignificant pinprick of a nation. |
But if "number of wars" = importance, then sudan, angola and other african states must surely be regarded as the most important countries on earth? |
Those wars are humanitarian disasters, and unfortunately largely overlooked. Those wars also have little chance of spreading. My country is not their patron. Also, none of thoose countries have the natural resources found in the middle east. None have nuclear weapons.
[quote="Junior"]
| Quote: |
| Also considering the nuclear option that Israel has, and given the fact that if Israel felt threatened enough it would use that option, it is an important country. |
But so would any country defend itself if necessary.
So you're not worried about Iran nuking Israel, you're only worried about Israel retaliating?
Israel is a responsible nuclear power, it does not constantly threaten its neighbours.
Nope, Iran is, by any reasonable estimate many many years away from having a workable bomb. I'm not worried about Iran nuking Isreal. It doesn't fit into the Iranian strategy. By the time Iran would have the bomb, the current president whoose name I wont' bother mispelling, will be gone. Despite his being the loudest voice in Iran, he wouldn't have the power to use it, only the Grand Leader would. Iran wants very badly to be a major player in the region, and can't be if the region is destroyed. Pakistan and India both hate each other more than Iran cares about Israel, and Pakistan is overwhelmed with state supported terrorists. If they haven't bombed each other, I'm not worried about it. Isreal would use their nukes, even if they weren't attacked by nukes.
| Junior wrote: |
| Iran and North korea however, behave like drug addicts waving a needle. Yet for some reason they do not set off Leon's warning system. |
Their behaviour is very perdictiable and self serving. What would happen if one of them were attacked is also perdictiable, and worrisome to say the least. Also, you need to stop accusing me of not caring about unrelated things, its an annoying and sophmoric habit, which has not basis in reality. Are thoose countries the matter at hand? No, so of course I'm not going to go on at length about them, if you are so concerned start a thread, and I'd be glad to waste time there as well, I'm desk warming so I have more than enough to go around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Nope, Iran is, by any reasonable estimate many many years away from having a workable bomb. I'm not worried about Iran nuking Isreal. It doesn't fit into the Iranian strategy. |
Even though the Iranian govt. has stated that it does?
IRAN THREATENS ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL
TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran�s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani�s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
Yes bombing other countries just isn't their style at all
Iran charged over Argentina bomb
The blast was the worst terror attack in Argentina's history
The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.
Argentine prosecutors are calling for the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others.
Chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack.
Hezbollah and Iran both deny that they were involved in the blast, which killed 85 and wounded 300.
The blast, on 18 July 1994, reduced the seven-storey Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA) community centre in Buenos Aires to rubble.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6085768.stm
| Leon wrote: |
Isreal would use their nukes, even if they weren't attacked by nukes |
Ah. So your argument is based on an unverifiable imaginative hypothesis. How about the tooth fairy. is that another pillar of your argument?
You're about the most lame debater so far on these anti-Israel threads. Actually hold on..there was mises. That was unsurpassable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
