I've often heard several claims against religion. Perhaps one of the most common has been pointed at the Israel-Arab conflict over the Palestine region. Many people say, "How terrible. Two religious factions are ruthlessly killing each other. How could anyone possibly believe in religion?" To some extent I agree with them and to some extent I don't.
The reason why I don't agree is because the Arab-Israeli conflict in my mind is not an issue of religion. If you look at numerous countries, we all have numerous religions and are cultural melting pots of diversity. Therefore, the only plausible reason why the Middle East is a volatile region is perhaps because there is a religious divide between Hebrews and Arabs. However, this too isn't substantiated as both the Torah and the Koran advocate peace and moral decision making.
I think at the core root of this issue, religion is being used as an excuse or rather a means to an end in order to achieve some other goal. The "goal" in my personal opinion is "command and conquer." In my honest opinion, the origins of this conflict deal with a fairly noble organization by today's standards, the United Nations.
It is fairly ironic to think of the United Nations as the major catalyst of causing the Arab-Israeli conflict to begin. After all, the United Nations was the successor of it's failed predecessor the League of Nations and was formed in order to prevent a World War III from occurring.
In 1922, the UN in my opinion did something drastically stupid. Even though many people make the claim that hindsight is always 20/20, I think that even for that time period, the UN probably made the stupidest decision that still remains today. They decided to make Palestine a partially Jewish state.
Before they made this decision, Arabs inhabited these territories and built homes in this region. To suddenly have the UN come and go, "Hey guys. Going to have to evict you. We're going to make this region 1/3 UN, 1/3 Israel, and you can have the other 1/3," is simply obnoxious. Imagine some cop barging in your house and telling you that you have to leave because French speaking refugees from Africa want to form a Quebec II.
Arab forces were angry over the UN resolution. Sparks flew and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War broke out. In subjective terms, Israel pretty much kicked ass and claimed much of the territory it has today. But still, there was always a sour note even after the Camp David Accords was signed.
Using this as a pre-text, I always thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict was more of a selfish battle of owning a region of land. Would God really want such bloodshed over a piece of land? Is there a boundary between loving forgiveness and religious intolerance? It's a fine line to walk. And I don't think any religious expert can offer a definitive answer. The ones who usually do are the fundamentalist radicals who usually make far-fetched promises of the world beyond, "Kill 100 Hebrews and you will gain 100 Virgins!"
One thing which I was always curious about is why 100 Virgins? Why not 100 Prostitutes or 100 well-trained strippers? I mean, wouldn't someone want to waste time teaching 100 girls how to properly have sex? Then again, maybe they're scared of getting STDs in heaven. I always wondered what happens to the 100 virgins after they have sex. Are they still virgins? Does the guy get a new girl every time he has intercourse? Interesting. I wonder if there is a "virgin-machine."
Then again, heaven doesn't make much sense to me either. What's so great about heaven? Sure I get to be with God, but I mean, why does everyone make heaven to be so amazing? I mean, it must be pretty boring there because everyone there is more or less perfect. In the New Testament of the Scripture Jesus explains that all sins are seen equal in the eyes of the father. Therefore, stealing candy from your friend is just as grievous a sin as murdering a job competitor to gain the position of Vice President. By this logic, heaven must be spotlessly sinless because one sin makes heaven no better than hell.
So heaven is boring. What about hell? Hm. I always thought hell was a pretty cool place. Pretty chill. There's poker, gambling, and other stuff going on. Only reason why hell might suck is because it's too free. Anarchistic. There's no guidelines and there's drunk people fighting each other everywhere you go. But I mean, it isn't as boring as heaven.
Then there are some that describe afterlife in Purgatory. And that's just no fun. You can keep your purgatory. I'd rather play poker with the Joker or even play an excited round of Bible Bingo with Barnabas.
Branching off yet again, I always read people talking about "Christian this" or "Christian that"- Excuse me brother, "Christianity" might as well be 40 different religions given the # of different denominations there are: Calvinist, Armeniest, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Zwingly, Non-denominational, Biblical, Roman Catholic, Something-Catholic, I Left After CCDC-Catholic.
And yes. There are major differences. I always was impressed that Roman Catholic managed to stay for the most part Roman Catholic-ish. After the Martin Luther reform, holy crow, lots of denominations formed. In some sense, I think this is because the Lutheran approach advocated the love of Jesus and personal contact with God while Catholicism emphasized more of a, "follow the rules. The cardinals/pope/bishop is the word of God." In short, one was more regulated than the other.
Even though I like rules because they regulate things and seem to substantiate a faith, I also remembered that Jesus would criticize the Pharisees who were religious men of the Jewish faith. The Pharisees were often lawyers and believed you had to do "this and that" in order to get into heaven. Perhaps the biggest divide on this issue was the fact that the Pharisees were not following God's law but their own human-made law which they claimed was God's law.
Diverging yet again, I don't believe it possible to criticize anyone else's religion because I'm not God. You're not God. How can we claim we know the voice of God and whose God or gods are correct when we live on this planet for a very short period of time.
You cannot live for God. I apologize if this is your goal in life. But trust me, if God doesn't send you telepathic messages or is your personal parent, then I do not know how you can possible solely live for something which doesn't directly provide messages or assistance to guide you every step of the way. Everyone finds their own meaning in God and interprets the bible to their personal lifestyle. It's pretty cool. But the walk of life originates from inside the person and then reaches out to God.
My personal biased view of God is that he's a Monarchy King. Whatever he believes in is perfect. If you're wrong, you're wrong. In terms of living life, I believe God helps those who help themselves. I mean think about it, talk is cheap. If you don't show some backbone, no one takes you seriously. You have to at least provide people something to work with.
In the end, I always have the most skeptical interpretations of how things can be seen. For example, what if eternal life is nothing more than a reference to the organic process of decomposition. I mean, we get buried, we get eaten by bacteria and worms, and then we benefit the soil. Then hopefully we become good fertilizer for new crops which feed new life. Therefore we are a part of the new generations life and therefore live "eternally." I mean why not.
If you read all that, wow. If you didn't read all that, wow.
they didnt have a country anyways, and arabs didnt get evicted out of nowhere.
they just did alot of stupid things that led them to everything that happened.
and its not really about religion, it's just a strategy, none of the muslim countried gave a dam for the palestinians and the "hostile jewish take-over" (oh yeah, we were so mean, we bought their land with our money, and we built our own cities, and we won in wars they started, that's so evil) until they made it religious.
which also helps them recruit, just like the crusades, only less successfull.
it was about land and jelousy back then and now its mostly about land and hatred.
That is some intense rambling. When I am "tipsy" and I ramble it's usually about the most stupid things one could ever imagine. I wouldn't even be able to think like that sober, let alone tipsy.
WiseAlon32 Wrote:they didnt have a country anyways, and arabs didnt get evicted out of nowhere.
they just did alot of stupid things that led them to everything that happened.
and its not really about religion, it's just a strategy, none of the muslim countried gave a dam for the palestinians and the "hostile jewish take-over" (oh yeah, we were so mean, we bought their land with our money, and we built our own cities, and we won in wars they started, that's so evil) until they made it religious.
which also helps them recruit, just like the crusades, only less successfull.
it was about land and jelousy back then and now its mostly about land and hatred.
yeah and the stupidest thing they ever did was letting the jews hide in their homes during the holocaust.
2008-08-05, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 2008-08-06, 05:47 AM by Lylac.)
WiseAlon32 Wrote:they didnt have a country anyways, and arabs didnt get evicted out of nowhere.
they just did alot of stupid things that led them to everything that happened.
and its not really about religion, it's just a strategy, none of the muslim countried gave a dam for the palestinians and the "hostile jewish take-over" (oh yeah, we were so mean, we bought their land with our money, and we built our own cities, and we won in wars they started, that's so evil) until they made it religious.
which also helps them recruit, just like the crusades, only less successfull.
it was about land and jelousy back then and now its mostly about land and hatred.
The Arabs did get evicted. The Jewish community was sparse all over the world with most of them concentrated in Germany. There were only 800,000 residents when the state of Israel was created, with the majority of the residents being Arabs. Now there's ~8 million and 3/4s of that is Jewish. The Arabs were literally forced from their land when the partition was made with their houses being bulldozed down. And I really beg to differ when you say the Arab nations did nothing when the declaration was made. The 6-day war started for a reason, but you probably have a biased opinion to start with because I'm assuming you're Israeli by the way you use a first-person pronoun in your post. Israel did not build their own cities from scratch, they had help from the UK, France, and the Americans, and still receive funding from the Americans. Things like the Suez Canal were captured with French and English help, and goods that were meant for Arab nations that travelled through the Red Sea were always captured by Israel.
And regarding many of the Jews being in Germany is matter of time. After 1945 most of the Jews were still in Germany due to them being forcefully relocated to Germany. Prior to the war the majority were in Poland (the Tsars relocated Russian Jews to Poland)and Russia...
Israel is probably the most hated on country in the world. So I won't even speak of them except that I admire their courage (and their ability to bribe US Politicians). But then again their "alliance" with the Apartheid-era South Africa probably hurt the relations, even with the USA. Giving nuclear weapons from the Americans to the South Africans who were under a UN arms blockade? Generally not a good idea. However, the reason America gives weapons to Israel is because one of America's strongest allies in out Middle-Eastern suicide policy has been Israel. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons only compels the Arabs to develop their own. In fact, the Israels have an operation planned near the destruction of Israel to fire all their SRBM Jericho missiles at all nearby Arab nations.
The war between Israel and its neighbors is not and never was condoned by God. The greedy politicians and religious leaders have caused this ongoing conflict, not God.
About the virgin machines : They don't exist, it is merely a ploy to attract young males to stupid schemes.
But heaven : Is not another reality in my opinion, it is merely eternal joy, the feeling you have when you feel accomplished, that you've lived your life for meaning, just that feeling and the presence of God for all eternity. Me likes that much more than the Hollywood/Pop culture clouds.
And hell : Is not another Earth in my opinion, it is merely eternal suffering. The loss of a loved family member, that is the true flames of Hell. Fire and brimstone are nothing compared to eternal sadness. You'd be unable to take the easy way out and kill yourself, you're eternity would be ever painful. I suppose this is tragic that Satan punishes us so, for we all sin and few repent. (Anyone with severe/manic depression would know what I'm talking about)
And for Christianity: We're grouped together by our belief in Jesus and his message(s). The interpretations of these messages is what causes splits, sectarianism and many denominations. While I do not agree with all denominations, I'm sure all true denominations agree with me when I say Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus is the savior. I'm more surprised that you didn't accuse us of being a Tri-theistic religion because of the Holy Trinity, but rants can only go so far.
Living for God: Say as you may, but perhaps we see a higher authority, a reason to live our lives with standards and not to degrade ourselves merely for pleasure or goods you can only possess for a lifetime. Our happiness will last beyond our death ... (Even if there is no God, I'll die feeling accomplished and that my life has done good for the Earth)
And once again Jesus always preached to treat others as you'd like to be treated, so those who give donations/alms (to people, not to Churches) will be rewarded, by the feeling of helping someone. The same feeling you get when you give to the Red Cross.
/Rant (And yes the overly Christian theme of my avatar/signature is only there to annoy people)
2008-08-06, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 2008-08-06, 07:12 AM by WiseAlon32.)
Lylac Wrote:The Arabs did get evicted. The Jewish community was sparse all over the world with most of them concentrated in Germany. There were only 800,000 residents when the state of Israel was created, with the majority of the residents being Arabs. Now there's ~8 million and 3/4s of that is Jewish. The Arabs were literally forced from their land when the partition was made with their houses being bulldozed down. And I really beg to differ when you say the Arab nations did nothing when the declaration was made. The 6-day war started for a reason, but you probably have a biased opinion to start with because I'm assuming you're Israeli by the way you use a first-person pronoun in your post. Israel did not build their own cities from scratch, they had help from the UK, France, and the Americans, and still receive funding from the Americans. Things like the Suez Canal were captured with French and English help, and goods that were meant for Arab nations that travelled through the Red Sea were always captured by Israel.
uh, no.
when the state of israel was declared, it had barely 1/4 of the land it has now, the arabs got most of the land, the more important land, and the more strategic lands, but because they started a war they lost it, and they didnt get evicted (most of them, like 90%), they ran off, they left their own houses.
the 6-day war was at 1967, the declaration was at 1948... and the arabs made it a religious conflict during the 30's by some arab leader in israel (he also had something to do with the nazis, but i'll learn about it next year).
while the british had israel, they helped the arabs too.
after israel was declared it doesnt matter who helped us, cuz we had a country and the arabs didnt and still doesnt, and if we have a country we should get more help than a group f people with no country.
btw, during the 30's there was an operation made secretly by the jews in israel, in which they built 52 towns (took 1 night to build each town, but bascially, a house with a roof, a tower and a wall surrounding them was legally a town).
kleptophobia, wtp are u talking about? where the hell did u hear about such operation?
and the UN existed at 1922, only it had another name but it was like the UN, the american president decided to make it (what's his name, wilson?) after world war I to prevent another world war.
As for the operation it is called the "Samson Option" and I quote "The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well."
The League of Nations is nothing like the United Nations... Woodrow Wilson was a huge supporter of the League of Nations (in fact it was his brainchild and one of his 14 points). However, due to politics the United States refused to join the LoN which basically gave Hitler and Mussolini the power to disobey the LoN at every turn. Not to mention most Americans wanted to stay isolationist. The League of Nations was just a similar organization to the UN but it had little in common in how to preserve the peace. The League of Nations never had the power to stop tyrants, but some argue neither does the United Nations...
kleptophobia Wrote:As for the operation it is called the "Samson Option" and I quote "The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israels alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a last resort against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well."
The League of Nations is nothing like the United Nations... Woodrow Wilson was a huge supporter of the League of Nations (in fact it was his brainchild and one of his 14 points). However, due to politics the United States refused to join the LoN which basically gave Hitler and Mussolini the power to disobey the LoN at every turn. Not to mention most Americans wanted to stay isolationist. The League of Nations was just a similar organization to the UN but it had little in common in how to preserve the peace. The League of Nations never had the power to stop tyrants, but some argue neither does the United Nations...
oh, i get it, but you're wrong...
first of all, it doesnt have to be the arab nations, though it's most likely to be them, it can be any enemy, and it's not a specific number of nuclear weapons, it'll just be nuclear, no one can tell how many.
and we'll only do it in 3 conditions:
1. if the israeli air force will be destroyed
2. if enemy soldiers will enter the boundries of israel
3. if israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons
and in the 1st 2 cases it is more likely that israel will use tactical weapons instead of sending their nuclear missiles to overcome the enemy.
the last one is more complicated and pretty reasonable.
and every country with nuclear weapons prbably have an operation like this, otherwise, what's the point of even making those weapons?
I've often heard several claims against religion. Perhaps one of the most common has been pointed at the Israel-Arab conflict over the Palestine region. Many people say, "How terrible. Two religious factions are ruthlessly killing each other. How could anyone possibly believe in religion?" To some extent I agree with them and to some extent I don't.
The reason why I don't agree is because the Arab-Israeli conflict in my mind is not an issue of religion. If you look at numerous countries, we all have numerous religions and are cultural melting pots of diversity. Therefore, the only plausible reason why the Middle East is a volatile region is perhaps because there is a religious divide between Hebrews and Arabs. However, this too isn't substantiated as both the Torah and the Koran advocate peace and moral decision making.
I think at the core root of this issue, religion is being used as an excuse or rather a means to an end in order to achieve some other goal. The "goal" in my personal opinion is "command and conquer." In my honest opinion, the origins of this conflict deal with a fairly noble organization by today's standards, the United Nations.
It is fairly ironic to think of the United Nations as the major catalyst of causing the Arab-Israeli conflict to begin. After all, the United Nations was the successor of it's failed predecessor the League of Nations and was formed in order to prevent a World War III from occurring.
In 1922, the UN in my opinion did something drastically stupid. Even though many people make the claim that hindsight is always 20/20, I think that even for that time period, the UN probably made the stupidest decision that still remains today. They decided to make Palestine a partially Jewish state.
Before they made this decision, Arabs inhabited these territories and built homes in this region. To suddenly have the UN come and go, "Hey guys. Going to have to evict you. We're going to make this region 1/3 UN, 1/3 Israel, and you can have the other 1/3," is simply obnoxious. Imagine some cop barging in your house and telling you that you have to leave because French speaking refugees from Africa want to form a Quebec II.
Arab forces were angry over the UN resolution. Sparks flew and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War broke out. In subjective terms, Israel pretty much kicked ass and claimed much of the territory it has today. But still, there was always a sour note even after the Camp David Accords was signed.
Using this as a pre-text, I always thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict was more of a selfish battle of owning a region of land. Would God really want such bloodshed over a piece of land? Is there a boundary between loving forgiveness and religious intolerance? It's a fine line to walk. And I don't think any religious expert can offer a definitive answer. The ones who usually do are the fundamentalist radicals who usually make far-fetched promises of the world beyond, "Kill 100 Hebrews and you will gain 100 Virgins!"
One thing which I was always curious about is why 100 Virgins? Why not 100 Prostitutes or 100 well-trained strippers? I mean, wouldn't someone want to waste time teaching 100 girls how to properly have sex? Then again, maybe they're scared of getting STDs in heaven. I always wondered what happens to the 100 virgins after they have sex. Are they still virgins? Does the guy get a new girl every time he has intercourse? Interesting. I wonder if there is a "virgin-machine."
Then again, heaven doesn't make much sense to me either. What's so great about heaven? Sure I get to be with God, but I mean, why does everyone make heaven to be so amazing? I mean, it must be pretty boring there because everyone there is more or less perfect. In the New Testament of the Scripture Jesus explains that all sins are seen equal in the eyes of the father. Therefore, stealing candy from your friend is just as grievous a sin as murdering a job competitor to gain the position of Vice President. By this logic, heaven must be spotlessly sinless because one sin makes heaven no better than hell.
So heaven is boring. What about hell? Hm. I always thought hell was a pretty cool place. Pretty chill. There's poker, gambling, and other stuff going on. Only reason why hell might suck is because it's too free. Anarchistic. There's no guidelines and there's drunk people fighting each other everywhere you go. But I mean, it isn't as boring as heaven.
Then there are some that describe afterlife in Purgatory. And that's just no fun. You can keep your purgatory. I'd rather play poker with the Joker or even play an excited round of Bible Bingo with Barnabas.
Branching off yet again, I always read people talking about "Christian this" or "Christian that"- Excuse me brother, "Christianity" might as well be 40 different religions given the # of different denominations there are: Calvinist, Armeniest, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Zwingly, Non-denominational, Biblical, Roman Catholic, Something-Catholic, I Left After CCDC-Catholic.
And yes. There are major differences. I always was impressed that Roman Catholic managed to stay for the most part Roman Catholic-ish. After the Martin Luther reform, holy crow, lots of denominations formed. In some sense, I think this is because the Lutheran approach advocated the love of Jesus and personal contact with God while Catholicism emphasized more of a, "follow the rules. The cardinals/pope/bishop is the word of God." In short, one was more regulated than the other.
Even though I like rules because they regulate things and seem to substantiate a faith, I also remembered that Jesus would criticize the Pharisees who were religious men of the Jewish faith. The Pharisees were often lawyers and believed you had to do "this and that" in order to get into heaven. Perhaps the biggest divide on this issue was the fact that the Pharisees were not following God's law but their own human-made law which they claimed was God's law.
Diverging yet again, I don't believe it possible to criticize anyone else's religion because I'm not God. You're not God. How can we claim we know the voice of God and whose God or gods are correct when we live on this planet for a very short period of time.
You cannot live for God. I apologize if this is your goal in life. But trust me, if God doesn't send you telepathic messages or is your personal parent, then I do not know how you can possible solely live for something which doesn't directly provide messages or assistance to guide you every step of the way. Everyone finds their own meaning in God and interprets the bible to their personal lifestyle. It's pretty cool. But the walk of life originates from inside the person and then reaches out to God.
My personal biased view of God is that he's a Monarchy King. Whatever he believes in is perfect. If you're wrong, you're wrong. In terms of living life, I believe God helps those who help themselves. I mean think about it, talk is cheap. If you don't show some backbone, no one takes you seriously. You have to at least provide people something to work with.
In the end, I always have the most skeptical interpretations of how things can be seen. For example, what if eternal life is nothing more than a reference to the organic process of decomposition. I mean, we get buried, we get eaten by bacteria and worms, and then we benefit the soil. Then hopefully we become good fertilizer for new crops which feed new life. Therefore we are a part of the new generations life and therefore live "eternally." I mean why not.
If you read all that, wow. If you didn't read all that, wow.
that was impressive in its own right, let alone the fact that alcohol was involved.
WiseAlon32 Wrote:oh, i get it, but you're wrong...
first of all, it doesnt have to be the arab nations, though it's most likely to be them, it can be any enemy, and it's not a specific number of nuclear weapons, it'll just be nuclear, no one can tell how many.
and we'll only do it in 3 conditions:
1. if the israeli air force will be destroyed
2. if enemy soldiers will enter the boundries of israel
3. if israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons
and in the 1st 2 cases it is more likely that israel will use tactical weapons instead of sending their nuclear missiles to overcome the enemy.
the last one is more complicated and pretty reasonable.
and every country with nuclear weapons prbably have an operation like this, otherwise, what's the point of even making those weapons?
aww, i feel bad for iran
if the world goes into nuclear warfare, iran will feel left out. ;-;
WiseAlon32 Wrote:oh, i get it, but you're wrong...
first of all, it doesnt have to be the arab nations, though it's most likely to be them, it can be any enemy, and it's not a specific number of nuclear weapons, it'll just be nuclear, no one can tell how many.
and we'll only do it in 3 conditions:
1. if the israeli air force will be destroyed
2. if enemy soldiers will enter the boundries of israel
3. if israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons
I said that Israel had an "operation planned near the destruction of Israel to fire all their SRBM Jericho missiles at all nearby Arab nations." Operation Sampson is like that in every aspect, except for who it targets. But most likely if Israel is losing a war with any Arab nation, they'll all (maybe not Egypt, they're dependent on America weapon imports) join in to make sure it is a victory. Thus an most ways Israel is destroyed (it is generally out numbered in wars) it will take out a population many times of its own just to prevent their enemies from completing their goal. Not saying America wouldn't do the same, just it is a reason why Arabs hate the Israelis.
WiseAlon32 Wrote:oh, i get it, but you're wrong...
first of all, it doesnt have to be the arab nations, though it's most likely to be them, it can be any enemy, and it's not a specific number of nuclear weapons, it'll just be nuclear, no one can tell how many.
and we'll only do it in 3 conditions:
1. if the israeli air force will be destroyed
2. if enemy soldiers will enter the boundries of israel
3. if israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons
and in the 1st 2 cases it is more likely that israel will use tactical weapons instead of sending their nuclear missiles to overcome the enemy.
the last one is more complicated and pretty reasonable.
and every country with nuclear weapons prbably have an operation like this, otherwise, what's the point of even making those weapons?
The point of nuclear weapons is a SHOW of power...
Not to use them
using them would be Global suicide.
EXAMPLE: Even IF you can blow out the US mainland... There are HUNDREDs(i think it is less actually) of pinpoint accurate submarines loaded with warheads.
...
Nuclear war is bad.
They are like holding a match to a bomb- we all threaten- but if anyone ACTUALLY does... BOOOM!
kleptophobia Wrote:I said that Israel had an "operation planned near the destruction of Israel to fire all their SRBM Jericho missiles at all nearby Arab nations." Operation Sampson is like that in every aspect, except for who it targets. But most likely if Israel is losing a war with any Arab nation, they'll all (maybe not Egypt, they're dependent on America weapon imports) join in to make sure it is a victory. Thus an most ways Israel is destroyed (it is generally out numbered in wars) it will take out a population many times of its own just to prevent their enemies from completing their goal. Not saying America wouldn't do the same, just it is a reason why Arabs hate the Israelis.
Israel's don't lose alot of wars though.
Infact they really promote pseudo-peace with the cool LAND FOR PEACE treaties.
Chompy Wrote:Israel's don't lose alot of wars though.
Infact they really promote pseudo-peace with the cool LAND FOR PEACE treaties.
Never said they did, I'm saying it is entirely possible their Defense Forces could fall prey to the combined might of the Arabs (especially with Saudi Arabia and Egypt importing new American, Russian, French, Chinese and British weaponry).
kleptophobia Wrote:Never said they did, I'm saying it is entirely possible their Defense Forces could fall prey to the combined might of the Arabs (especially with Saudi Arabia and Egypt importing new American, Russian, French, Chinese and British weaponry).
so they got good weapons... so what?
u think that we always had better weapons than our enemies? in our most successful wars our weapons were worse.
and today we have much more sophisticated weapons yet we lost our last war which was barely 2 years ago.
weapons dont mean pomegranate, its about strategy and luck.
