Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.
Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.
...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.
Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.
You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.
...the 1920's these attacks were set off by false rumors of Jewish actions, not by any actual deeds or policies of Jews.
Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.
You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.
Like the Zionists importing hundreds of thousands of Jews with the stated goal of taking over the country was not an action causing concern.
You are utterly without any integrity. The attacks were consistently set off by false rumors of Jewish massacres of Arabs or false rumors of Jews taking over Muslim holy places, not by geopolitical concerns. It is no surprise that you think immigration concerns justify massacres of civilians because of their race or religion.
Of course that completely ignored what I said.
If you go to the Middle East looking for oil, you don't need to stop in Israel. But, if you're looking for brains, for energy, for integrity, for imagination, it's the only stop you need to make"
Warren Buffet on Israel - YouTube
Google is setting up an “incubator” for technology start-ups in Israel, one of several ways the California-based Internet giant is trying to get an early look at innovations
Numerous technology giants including Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, AT&T, and Hewlett-Packard also have offices or research centers in Israel.
Initially, Google’s incubator will host roughly 20 “pre-seed” start ups, or about 80 people, for a period of a few months, after which new companies will come into the incubator to replace them, and the project will be open to many types of start-ups but has an emphasis on open-source technologies.
Google’s move is “very significant,” said Shuly Galili, executive director of the California-Israel Chamber of Commerce. “Google will have more accessibility to the talent and the know-how and what’s going on in that community,” she said, adding that she expects more U.S. tech companies to make similar moves in the future.
Galili is involved in a new “accelerator” for Israeli startups called Upwest Labs that will be based in Silicon Valley, providing a chance for Israeli entrepreneurs to work on their projects and meet with investors and technology companies based in the U.S. Google is one of Upwest’s sponsors, she said.
Israel has long been known as a tech hub, sometimes called “start-up nation.” An Israeli company called PrimeSense is a key technology provider for Microsoft’s Kinect, a motion-activated video game system. Several years ago SanDisk bought Israel-based M-Systems, which made flash drives, for $1.5 billion. In the late 1990s, AOL bought an Israeli company that made ICQ, an instant-messaging service, for hundreds of millions of dollars.
“The Israeli developer community is hugely innovative and has the potential to create many more ground-breaking technological developments,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement on Monday. “This project was initiated with a desire to encourage entrepreneurship and to provide support at exactly the stage when developers are often most in need of it. The technology incubator is part of Google’s efforts to strengthen its connections with the developer community,” the spokeswoman said.
toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.
As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole fucking country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.
toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.
As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole fucking country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.
What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.
As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole fucking country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.
What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.
The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!Reply to what? Your claim that the US would kill 80,000,000 people if the Ayatollahs gave a terrorist group a nuke to use against the US? Ok, I'll reply. You're an idiot.
The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.
As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole fucking country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.
What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Ok, so how many do you think will be killed in a retaliatory strike? And I never said 80 million, 1000 nukes up their ass was just a comment meaning lots!
The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?
The US would not need to use any nukes to sufficiently punish the Ayatollahs, and using nukes would be counter productive to the US' campaign of non proliferation. With conventional weapons we could take out their nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, most of their military and sufficiently damage their economy so that it would have the same effect on Iran's ability to strike at us through terrorists as a nuclear attack that might kill million while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?
No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.
No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?
No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.
That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.
Islam exists for one single purpose and that is to exterminate every Jew on Earth and to kill or convert everybody else who doesn't adhere to Islam. Period. There are no other qualified explanations. Period.toomuch & wolve, you guys are too blinded by your own biases. I agree with some of the stuff you guys say (because I'm not really on any side, there's been bad stuff done by both sides, that's for sure), but you guys act as though Israel is the only victim. Just bringing up anti-semitism and the holocaust shows that you're losing traction in your arguments.
As for Iran giving Al-Qaeda a nuke so that they can nuke a US city, is pretty absurd. Like no one's going to make the connection to Iran and blow the whole fucking country up? Really? They'd be insuring their total destruction, the US has like 20,000 nukes. C'mon man, get real.
What? No replies? (and JStoned, fuck off, you don't count)
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
No, I'm saying if Iran were to nuke the US, you don't think that the US would retaliate with nukes?
No, and I explained why in my previous post. The purpose of the reatliation would not be revenge but to weaken Iran's ability to do further harm to us, and the US can do that just as well with conventional weapons as with nukes and cause far fewer civilian casualties and without weakening our campaign against nuclear proliferation. The future is more important than the past, and with that in mind, it makes more sense to retaliate with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.
That's just plain dumb, a nuclear war breaks out and you don't use yours. What if they're hiding more launchers and nukes in places you hadn't seen? Your brilliance as a tactician will get us all killed. But then again, there's always lots of scotch to drink and a lot of cigars to chew on, and you can still be considered a great leader at this board, hehe.
