Thursday, 24 July 2014

Iran Supreme Leader: The Only Solution For Crisis Is Israel?s Destruction

quote [ Iran?s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated on Wednesday that the only solution for the region is the destruction of Israel, and that the armed confrontation must expand beyond Gaza. ]

Oh yeah, we want these guys to have nukes.
[SFW] [+1 Overrated]
[by maryyugo@4:18pmGMT]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:23pm GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Frankly no one should have nukes.

Except for Star Control.
damnit said @ 1:59pm GMT on 26th Jul
What about ground control, Tom?
sanepride said @ 9:01pm GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
-1 for 'The Daily Caller'. Right-wing agitprop piece of crap.
rndmnmbr said @ 12:34pm GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Considering the source, then I wouldn't be surprised if The Only Solution For Rain On Tuesday Is Israel's Destruction.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Israel is being a massive dick right now, but Khamenei goes on like a broken record about The Destruction of Israel.
Taleweaver said @ 1:26pm GMT on 25th Jul
Dat.

In response to a conflict that has been going pretty much unchanged for decades, an ayatollah has said what ayatollahs have been saying about that conflict for pretty much the same time.

How is this, in any way, even newsworthy?
pleaides said @ 1:45pm GMT on 25th Jul
I think it's at least worth mentioning that one 'side' is saying 'we're trying not to hurt everyone' whereas the other seems to saying the opposite. Note: I'm not saying that the rantings of Khamenei are equivalent to the statements of the Iranian, or even the Israeli, govts
sanepride said @ 2:29pm GMT on 25th Jul
It's also worth mentioning that there are prominent Israelis, including some in the government, who advocate comparable solutions toward the Palestinians.
And despite the official assurances from the Israeli government that 'we're trying not to hurt everyone' the actual results on the ground indicate otherwise, especially to the people being hurt. Platitudes only go so far when you're targeting hospitals and UN shelters.
ComposerNate said @ 4:36pm GMT on 25th Jul
"The Only Solution For Crisis Is Israel’s Destruction" frames Khamenei's statements as ruthless, manic rantings of a madman, or from maryyugo, a maniac beneath consideration.

A better translation may have been "The Only Lasting Solution for the Perpetual Palestinian Crisis Is Ending the Brutal Israeli Regime". This would be more accurate and familiar language regularly coming from traditional, conscientious politicians.

The first translation better suits the implication Khamenei said he is trying to hurt everyone. Or did I misunderstand?

Palestinian 'rockets' tend to hit cafes for two reasons. First, because those rockets are worthless, like folded up stop signs packed with gun powder and shot blindly over a wall, whatever they desperately have to fight back with. Most just land in a street and pop, or bounce off a wall. Some break windows. If Palestinians were capable of targeting, we can assume they would strongly prefer hitting active Israeli military however possible, though could expect little effect besides maybe scratching paint or soiling some britches. Second reason being Israel is filled with cafes and shops and pretty things, people going about their successful and fulfilling modern lives despite the occasional pathetic Palestinian 'rocket' bouncing around setting off car alarms. Israelis safely know that the further their government destroys the Hamas regime, the closer they are to a lasting solution.
Dumbledorito said @ 7:23pm GMT on 25th Jul
Not to mention that the Israeli PM pretty blatantly thumbs his nose at any negotiated settlement. He's about as serious about peace as Newt Gingrich is about wedding vows.
ComposerNate said @ 8:34pm GMT on 25th Jul
Listen to the news and notice they say things like "the conflict was at its worst today, Israelis running for cover and hundreds of Palestinians dead and injured."
ComposerNate said @ 5:12pm GMT on 24th Jul
Yes, many believe Israel should not exist as a sovereign country, that the system of government there should be destroyed, and that it is a problem which stretches well beyond Gaza.
maryyugo said @ 5:20pm GMT on 24th Jul
I don't care what Khamenei "believes". But when he starts to make defense-busting missiles to offer to terrorists, he endangers the people of Palestine even more than those unfortunate people already are. And he risks massive retaliation and war. He's a maniac.
ComposerNate said @ 5:47pm GMT on 24th Jul
"I don't care what he believes" is how you start, and "He's a maniac" how you close. It seems that's settled then in your mind.

Incidentally, Iran has not offered "defense-busting missiles" to anyone here. But it's good we're all concerned about what's left of the people of Palestine being "unfortunately" bombed by the Israeli government. Palestinians, if they can be allowed to assume such citizenship, must be living in perpetual terror, trapped under constant fundamental threat from birth to pathetic death, cowed to Israeli submission by their regular overwhelming generational violence. It must break all, or at least most, hearts. Particularly others in the region.
maryyugo said @ 5:56pm GMT on 24th Jul
The fate of the Palestinians in Gaza is determined largely by their unconscionable leaders who persist in futile but often damaging attacks on a vastly stronger foe. Instead of negotiating, they flail away with rockets, tunnels, and directed attacks on civilians, women and children. And then someone is surprised when Israel responds? If the militants did not hide their weaponry in hospitals, schools, mosques and even the UN, these sites would not be attacked by Israel.
ComposerNate said @ 6:08pm GMT on 24th Jul
Yes, those held under increasingly heavy boot often squirm, some desperately biting however able. It's a natural response for many. Perhaps the Palestinians will eventually have all of their willfulness burned from them in 200 years, Darwinian selection and internal breeding creating new humans okay with submission. It's happened before. A source of Israeli income, this slavery? The fence would have to stay up for regulations, I suppose.
LL said @ 7:18pm GMT on 24th Jul
I read somewhere that historian Benzion Netanyahu, the current Israeli leader's father, once said that it took catholicism 200 years to expel the moors from the Iberian Peninsula - when referring to the arab -israeli conflict. In other words, give it time. Palestinians won't be in the promise land forever, so your remark about having the willfulness burned from them in 200 years isn't so far fetched considering his son is leading the charge into Gaza.
HoZay said @ 6:54am GMT on 25th Jul
That seems backward. In the Moors-in-Spain analogy, wouldn't Israel represent the invading Moors? The Arabs (many) seem pretty dedicated to pushing the Jews into the sea. Time is on the Arabs' side, it seems to me.
pleaides said @ 8:30am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Considering their much larger birthrate I would agree
Taleweaver said @ 1:27pm GMT on 25th Jul
Ah, so THAT's why extremists Israeli politicians (or at least one of them) are calling to kill Palestinian mothers. Makes sense now.
LL said @ 3:36pm GMT on 25th Jul
Actually, for every 1 dead Israeli there seems to be 100 dead palestinians, many of which are children. Israel also loosens its requirements over immigration to grant citizenship to those that otherwise would be denied. Tax incentives/credits, from what I understand, are given to those that relocate to Israel. Also, Israeli birthrates are rising, according to Haaretz.

"Both Palestinian agencies agree on one thing: Palestinians are giving birth to far fewer children. Until the 1990s, a Palestinian woman gave birth to an average of six to eight children. That rate has now decreased to three to five children, and if we can trust the Palestinian Health Ministry’s registration of births, the rate is decreasing and has already reached the same level as that of the Jewish population, which is on the upswing."

From :

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/the-myth-of-an-israeli-palestinian-demographic-disaster.premium-1.484645
rhesusmonkey said @ 10:16pm GMT on 26th Jul
Good data; the previous stance from Israel on the incorporation of the occupied territories into a one-state nation was that this would undermine the idea of a Jewish State because if they remained democratic the population of non-Jews would rapidly outnumber Jews, thus leading eventually to removal of Jewish control from the state.

American Conservatives hold the same view on undocumented workers getting naturalized en masse because this would have significant impact on the voting populace of non-English, non-European people, and that might significantly skew the direction the country takes.
LL said @ 3:29pm GMT on 25th Jul
The Catholics, with crusaders from other Christian nations represent the Jews, and the moors, well, Arabs. It took 200 years but they were eventually expelled. Although the Palestinians fight, they are largely out gunned and out financed. Their collective will to fight will be broken, and do not have the resources so far to match deadly force with deadly force (according to Benzion Netanyahu).
ComposerNate said @ 9:39pm GMT on 25th Jul
Considering how shrunk Palestine has increasingly become, like a puddle drying up from the heat of regular explosives, I can see the comparison. It shouldn't be long before Palestine's just a regrettable memory. Then what will Israel do with its massive weapon stockpile and fake-humble aggression? Jews have assumed victimhood for so long, it should continue well beyond victory.
sanepride said @ 11:57pm GMT on 25th Jul
Jews have assumed victimhood for so long, it should continue well beyond victory.

I'm gonna have to call you out on what I think is an unfair assumption. First of all, Jewish persecution and institutional anti-semitism was an indisputable fact of life throughout Europe for at least a millennia before its ultimate manifestation as the Holocaust- and has persisted ever since. Keep in mind that these events are still within living human memory. Cultural paranoia is a completely valid phenomenon among Jews and remains a guiding force behind Israeli psyche and policy. Now sure this doesn't excuse the excessive aggression and ongoing subjugation of the Palestinians- plenty of Jews in Israel, the US, and elsewhere get that their own historical misfortunes should instead translate to compassion and empathy. The problem isn't an 'assumption of victimhood', it's a strong cultural memory of existential threat that, while no longer valid, still guides the mindset of Israeli policy makers and their benefactors.
ComposerNate said @ 12:23am GMT on 26th Jul
Jewish persecution and institutional anti-semitism was an indisputable fact of life throughout Europe for at least a millennia before its ultimate manifestation as the Holocaust- and has persisted ever since.

Yes, which is why they have assumed victimhood. Perhaps better presumed victimhood? I meant they often take on a role of victim, never implying it wasn't justified, only that it will likely carry on long after being justified out of embedded cultural tradition or similar.

Cultural paranoia is a completely valid phenomenon among Jews and remains a guiding force behind Israeli psyche and policy.

Sounds like another way of repeating my point, close enough. Your final sentence is a more exact elaboration of my point, yes.
sanepride said @ 1:20am GMT on 26th Jul
My point is that the 'victimhood' as you call it was real and still persists. What I'm saying is that, given the historical record, the perception is understandable. Many Israelis, including secular moderate peaceniks, remain convinced that their country is persistently in mortal peril. It's a mindset that can be difficult for non-Israeli/Jews to grasp.
ComposerNate said @ 7:24am GMT on 26th Jul
Indeed. Fully.

And with that mindset, what can you imagine will be Israel's actions and posture once Palestine eventually no longer earthly exists?
sanepride said @ 2:18pm GMT on 26th Jul
I dunno, such an outcome would leave Israel as an untenable apartheid state.
rhesusmonkey said @ 10:27pm GMT on 26th Jul
I don't agree with that, unless you also consider the US and Canada as "Apartheid states" with their treatment of natives. Which, I suppose you could, just looking for clarity here.

I fully expect to see a single-state solution in the area with increasingly minimized "reserves" for non-Jews. And to Nate's question, they simply move the conflict a little bit westward (to Jordan / Syria) or a little bit south-east (to Egypt).
sanepride said @ 12:13am GMT on 27th Jul
The difference is native peoples of North America are small minority. All of the Palestinians are of Gaza and the west bank, together with the current Arab citizens of Israel could well overwhelm the Jewish state.

As for moving the conflict to Egypt or Jordan, maybe you could devise a scenario where that makes any sense.
rhesusmonkey said @ 8:07pm GMT on 27th Jul
My point was the conflict with "Gazans" isn't with the people in Gaza - it is a fight between Muslim Arabs and Persians versus Jewish Arabs and Slavs. If there became one state where the lands currently deemed "The Occupied Territories" are permanently annexed by Israel, then the point of the conflict just moves to the present day borders with other countries. EG: It doesn't ever end.

now, the current political landscape is that Jordan and Israel are pretty chill, but they have a buffer between them that is the West Bank. Egypt is pretty chill because the US is paying them to be that way. Lebanon is "quiet" but I wouldn't say they are too happy with Israel, nor is Turkey (though they don't share a direct border). Syria is a clusterfuck as everyone knows, but that is IMO only a matter of time before Assad finishes killing off the resistance, and then they go back to squabbling over the Golan Heights. Plus you have Iran still saying that Israel as a country needs to be removed and replaced by an Arab controlled country, because obviously there aren't already enough of those in the region.
rhesusmonkey said @ 8:13pm GMT on 27th Jul
And yes, as for the "bomb in the womb", I'm not suggesting that permanent annex of TOT would mean free travel of ROR for the current Arab refugees, it would mean very much like what it means to be aboriginal in US or Canada: You can stay on the Rez to get some tax breaks and proclaim your independent nationhood, or you can leave the Rez and join the greater populace, which means abiding by the rules of that country. If they rules state you have to be a Jew to vote, then I guess you start believing a different set of superstitions.

I suppose arguably that is the goal of apartheid that you have two classes of citizens, and yes in this context, assuming that the non-Jew Arab population is combined to be 50% or more of the state, that they would create that type of system. Otherwise they may just see greater birth rates, and/or force (as with China) birth rate control on non-Jews through progressive taxation. At the end of the day it becomes the same "assimilate or die" mentality that is present today.
HoZay said @ 12:31am GMT on 27th Jul
Can't speak for Canada, but the US has definitely practiced apartheid via the Jim Crow laws, Indian rez and migrant labor practices. It's a lot better than it was, but it's not over yet.
Bob Denver said @ 1:20am GMT on 27th Jul [Score:1 Informative]
Dr. Verwoerd, the "architect of apartheid" modelled one of the key pieces, the Homelands on the Canadian reservation system. Our hands aren't that clean (well, mine kind of are because I was nowhere near Canada when it happened and our family boycotted South African goods back in the 50's).
Dumbledorito said @ 8:43pm GMT on 24th Jul
Negotiating. With Israel. The country that's always kept its word, especially with settlements?

And by "settlements," I mean, "allowing its citizens to push others off of their land they've held for generations by intimidation and use of force."

Tell me, if someone kicked you out of your home because they claim God gave it to them, would you write a sternly-worded letter?
ComposerNate said @ 12:32pm GMT on 25th Jul
Some more unfortunate Palestinian suffering this morning.

UN shelter in Gaza 'struck by Israeli shells'
Gaza health ministry says bombardment killed at least 16 people and injured 150 in UN-run school in Beit Hanoun. At least 16 people have been reported killed and 150 injured in the bombardment of a UN school in northern Gaza used to shelter civilians from fierce clashes on the streets outside.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/israeli-shells-hits-un-shelter-gaza-201472413198190287.html

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Chris Gunness, the spokesman for UNRWA, the UN's humanitarian organisation in Gaza, said his organisation had been in contact with Israeli forces as fighting closed in on the shelter.

"We gave the Israelis the precise GPS coordinates of the Beit Hanoun shelter. We were trying to coordinate a window [for evacuation] and that was never granted," he said.
larger2day said @ 8:04pm GMT on 24th Jul
Yes, they very well should. It will help with negotiations.
midden said @ 10:21pm GMT on 24th Jul
It's embarrassing to say, but honestly, it's hard to care about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict anymore. It's been going on my entire life, and I have no reason to expect it will be resolved before I die. After so many pointless deaths and endless suffering, I've grown numb to it. Dropping the state of Israel ontop of the Palestinians, post WW II, seems like a totally bone-headed move, but I don't see any way out of the mess now, without utter devestation of one people or another. If only the Zionists had wanted Florida, instead! Sure, it would have been messy, but nothing like the horrors in the Middle Eastwe've seen for sixty+ years.
maryyugo said @ 10:49pm GMT on 24th Jul
Not Florida, New Mexico. And it could still be given to them. There is nothing there except mostly sand, just like Israel when it was given to the Jews.
Adam said @ 4:38am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
No one gave us Israel. We took it in a war of independence stretching back years before 1948, and cemented it by winning the first Arab-Israeli War. I don't know what Netanyahu thinks he's doing now; Israel faces no serious military threats at the moment, as most of its neighbors are in such deep shit that they couldn't invade Israel if it were their #1 national priority. Hamas is a joke that cannot kill 2 Israelis with 1600 missiles. Iron Dome doesn't work - it only has something like 5% effectiveness - so most of the low kill rate of those scary Hamas missiles is because of simple incompetence. They are of course getting their own people killed for nothing, but the Israelis are the ones reacting to what's basically a flaccid dick with hugely advanced military force.

t think anyone left with a very big hammer feels compelled to start hitting things. Lacking a real enemy, Netanyahu is just throwing his weight around.
iosef said @ 9:08am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Likudniks such as Netanyahu are motivated far more by hatred and contempt for Arabs than love of their own country. They believe that they can terrorize the Palestinian people into leaving their homes so they can be occupied by Jewish settlers. By committing acts of terror and murder against Palestinians the state of Israel is incurring a heavy debt which I am very afraid will be paid back in blood sooner rather than later.

Zionism, which was originally a secular movement intended to safeguard Jews, has unfortunately been hijacked by religious zealots who are intent on destruction. Religious fundamentalism is a cancer which has already ruined Iran and is in the process of ruining Israel.
LL said @ 3:48pm GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
"No one gave us Israel. We took it in a war of independence stretching back years before 1948, and cemented it by winning the first Arab-Israeli War."

That's not the history I read in "O'Jerusalem," supposedly a neutral account of the creation of Israel. The only way Israel became Israel is with help from the British and the Americans, a UN mandate, as well as other nefarious means.
rhesusmonkey said @ 11:29pm GMT on 26th Jul
That's because that is not "actual history".

The UK and France negotiated with Arabs to rise up against their Turkish overlords of the Ottoman empire because they were on the "wrong" side of WW1. They simultaneously negotiated with UK based Zionist Jews to give them Israel in exchange for getting the US involved with the war effort ( since there were Zionist Jews that had influence on the current US President). The UK in particular did essentially a shell game with the Hashemites through some careful wordsmithing and left them in the dark about their plans to create a Jewish State in the region.

So, this was all done in the shadow of WW2, and the result was that the UK offered two nations to be created, one was Israel, the other Palestine. The Jews accepted Israel and the Arabs rejected Palestine (because they rejected the idea of Israel and wanted the entire territory to be an Arab country). This culminated in the aforementioned 1967 war, where Israel expanded their borders through occupation of lands designated for "Palestine" (and parts of Syria), and frankly they controlled a lot more territory than what is now called "The Occupied Territories" but they pulled back to their current borders. Oh, and forcibly pushed a lot of Arabs into refugee status in the process, though this basically started with the creation of Israel in '48.

Fast forward sixty years, and you have a sort-of reasonable relationship between Israel and the PA in the West Bank, which is still under Israeli occupation, and where Israeli settlers continue to illegally create structures on foreign land ("Illegally" in the terms of Geneva Convention, IIRC, but I could be mistaken. I'm not trying to use the term to inflame). Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2006 and instead set up a blockade, including (though I'm not sure how) the border control between Gaza and Egypt. So they basically went from "we are occupying your land and policing it to control order" to "we are putting your lands under siege and waiting for you all to die out". They control the amount of materials including fresh water that can be put into the region in an effort to control the flow of munitions, but that doesn't seem to really have done anything more than subjugate the population and force them to be more desperate. I see statements like "Gaza could have been like Singapore if only they stopped fighting!" and the answer is no, they can't until Israel lifts the blockade. Or resumes occupation and formerly annexes the land (and people) into Israel.
sanepride said @ 11:27pm GMT on 24th Jul
Well there are Indians there but we've already stolen their land, so no worries.
papango said @ 11:33pm GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Yugo has a blind spot for brown people. She can only see them when they are confirming her deeply held belief that they are animals who should be exterminated. No doubt she thinks Indian reservations are just poorly visited National Parks.
bobolink said @ 2:23am GMT on 25th Jul
I've been observing these ad hominem attacks on maryyugo as a racist for years. I don't see it. It's a tired meme. If you want to make the case, make it. If not, give it up.
papango said @ 2:29am GMT on 25th Jul
Oh, sweetie. Did nobody ever tell you that just because you 'don't see it' doesn't mean it's not there? Have you come all this way thinking you are the sole arbiter of who is and is not racist? Should I have been running my discomfort about yugo's constant stream of xenophobic race-baiting posts and comments past you this whole time?

bobolink said @ 10:30am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
"Oh sweetie." Really? Should I have my "discomfort" sensors on? When you post about religious fundamentalism and political repression by a leader or a group you are likely to find that 'they' are portrayed as 'xeno'. When you post about some portion of the seventy percent of the world's population that is not, you are posting about non-white people. Did no one ever tell you these things? You have shown me nothing other than an irrational desire to cling to hatred?

And just for the record, I have come all this way relying on my judgment. Do you have little elves that tell you it's okay to throw insults without backing them up? Do they absolve you of responsibility?

As I posted earlier, if you want to make the case, make it. If not, give it up.
GordonGuano said @ 2:39am GMT on 25th Jul
Agreed, maryyugo's only error is thinking that the pigfuckers under the hexagram are any better than the dogfuckers under the crescent. It's selective perception, maybe, but it lacks the wild-eyed sweaty obstinate fun of real racism.
papango said @ 2:48am GMT on 25th Jul
Sweatiness aside, how is 'selective perception' different from racism?
GordonGuano said @ 3:10am GMT on 25th Jul
Racism would be looking for any excuse, no matter how minor, to bash the browns or whoever. Taking time to rant about superficial stuff like baggy pants is a good indicator of racism. Nutpicking fucked-up statements from Muslim leaders is more like a hobbyhorse, sort of like how I can't talk about Star Wars without mentioning how unwarranted the hate for Jar-Jar is. To see people as less than human takes a little more effort, at least at first.

papango said @ 3:18am GMT on 25th Jul
That seems like hair splitting in the extreme. I would put yugo firmly in the 'taking time to rant' category. After her post about ISIS calling for FGM was shown to be unfounded, she defended her accusations as something she thinks they might do. That sort of commitment to the truthiness of lies about your enemies seems to me to fit nicely into the 'they're less than human' space.

I'm not really sure how dredging through jihad watch and other right wing paranoia sites for any article (no matter how unreliable the source) that she can wave around to prove her point is really any different to my grandmother clipping stories about Maori committing crimes to show me and my liberal mother.
GordonGuano said @ 3:59am GMT on 25th Jul
Heh, I hadn't read that bit in the post below yet. Fair enough. I will say that maryyugo is definitely not racist by 'Merican standards though, which basically amounts to never having lynched one of the "good ones".
papango said @ 4:03am GMT on 25th Jul
Oh yeah, it's definitely a spectrum.
arrowhen said @ 5:15am GMT on 25th Jul
Lol, "she".
pleaides said @ 8:34am GMT on 25th Jul
Resorting to ad hominem is beneath you, Papango.

Also, I've never noticed maryyugo advocate genocide. Would you care to substantiate that claim?
papango said @ 8:41am GMT on 25th Jul
Sadly old SE is gone. So yugo's long history of racial nastiness lives on only in memory. Don't worry, though. I'm sure it won't be long before her awful colours shine through again.
pleaides said @ 9:46am GMT on 25th Jul
How about we play the ball not the mary?
papango said @ 9:49am GMT on 25th Jul
I'm willing to give yugo the benefit of a fresh start, but I seriously doubt it will be too long before she returns to form. And I do not intend to sugar coat my disgust when she does.
pleaides said @ 12:18pm GMT on 25th Jul
I'm not asking you to pull any punches, just to take each issue on its merits. This place would be the more bland without your rapier insight.
pleaides said @ 12:19pm GMT on 25th Jul
That's not sarcasm btw.
papango said @ 9:15pm GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
I didn't think it was, given you are complaining about ad hominems.

My problem with taking the issues on their merits is that this, and the FGM post below (or above), don't have any. There's no meat here for me to sink my teeth into. The articles she has linked to are weak sauce and there is no attempt to look at anything in a broader context, or figure out what it might mean, or do any sort of analysis at all.

ComposerNate tried to engage with the actual issue (what Khamenei's stated opinion might mean for anybody) only for yugo to immediately say she doesn't actually care what Khamenei believes, that he's a 'maniac'. Which raises the question of why this was posted in the first place. Are the rantings a of a maniac newsworthy in and of themselves? I suspect not. Is it the conflict that makes it worthy? Well, yugo hasn't had anything to say about Ayelet Shaked's recent comments and coming from an Israeli politician that would seem more relevant.

There's no ball here to play. There's just yugo, insisting that Muslims are terrible people (and that somehow income disparity makes Indians awful as well, although it's fine for white pople, I guess).
midden said @ 2:19am GMT on 25th Jul
There are Indians in Florida, too, but the US has already screwed them over three ways to Sunday. Turning the State of Florida into the Nation of Israel would have been far less likely to have turned into a generations-long war with Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Cuba.
arrowhen said @ 6:38pm GMT on 25th Jul
Most of the Indians in Florida have only lived there since the 18th century, having fled there from wars in the north. There were some indigenous tribes, but it's believed they either died out or were absorbed into those refugee tribes.
maryyugo said @ 12:54am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:-1 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold
sanepride said @ 1:22am GMT on 25th Jul
Sheldon Adelson and Donald Trump aren't Indians.
maryyugo said @ 4:18pm GMT on 25th Jul [Score:-2 Flamebait]
filtered comment under your threshold
iosef said @ 4:39pm GMT on 25th Jul
Do record profits at Goldman Sachs mean that all Americans are now doing great?
iosef said @ 4:40pm GMT on 25th Jul
Shit I meant to not post this after realizing Maryyugo's comment was just trolling. SE really needs a delete button.
sanepride said @ 5:21pm GMT on 25th Jul
Influence of casinos on endemic Native American poverty.
The rest of that article is a pretty stark look at just how bad conditions on Indian reservations are, and continue to be.
So, as is so often the case, you're simply talking out of your ass.
Dumbledorito said @ 12:56am GMT on 25th Jul
Right, proximity to things like Jerusalem aren't at all important. Maybe Roswell would make a good substitute.
midden said @ 2:12am GMT on 25th Jul
Yes, the historical connection to that particular plot of land was a big motivator, but having a safe, peaceful place to call home is, too.
GordonGuano said @ 2:23am GMT on 25th Jul
Mormons believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. If you really wanted, you could find something in the Torah to prove that Albuquerque is the modern spelling of Jerusalem.
Dumbledorito said @ 3:05am GMT on 25th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
Not just anywhere in Missouri: Independence, Missouri. I live near there and the Garden of Eden it ain't. It is a great place to visit if one ever needs to be disabused of the idea that white people are the pinnacle of human evolution. I think the local government outlawed banjos to keep the stereotype from being TOO complete. If any religious nuts wanted to fight over the place, I doubt few would notice or care.
HoZay said @ 1:32am GMT on 25th Jul
There are also Spanish-descended people in New Mexico whose families have been there for hundreds of years.
Dr.Faustus said @ 4:16am GMT on 26th Jul
+1 Ironic

That's funny, but you're a bit late to give New Mexico to the Jews. Jews fled to what is now New Mexico to escape the Spanish Inquisition.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Expulsion_of_Jews_and_repression_of_conversos

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur