Moderate Muslims??

[Calandale]

If we let them go at it,
they will both lose. Nukes
ain't gonna make the near east
any more pleasant.

[Alex179]

If we let them go at it,
they will both lose. Nukes
ain't gonna make the near east
any more pleasant.

Are you retarded?   Israel has better technology right now, if unchecked they would able to crush Palestine and Lebanon.   France gave Israel their nuclear technology and it is impressive to say the least in how they have developed it themselves (for a small nation).   They also have a ridiculous airforce that is extremely well trained.   If we let them fight it out, there would be a clear victor if they actually went all out militarily.

There is no reason to use nukes.   You can kill everyone in that area without them, though I wouldn't mind making it so that land is impossible to live upon for centuries.   It would be fitting if neither religion/tribe/whatever could ever use that land again.

[Calandale]

Are you retarded?

Not that I know of.

 

Israel has better technology right now, if unchecked they would able to crush Palestine and Lebanon.

Uh huh. And Pakistan, and Iran would just sit and watch?

  France gave Israel their nuclear technology and it is impressive to say the least in how they have developed it themselves (for a small nation).   They also have a ridiculous airforce that is extremely well trained.   If we let them fight it out, there would be a clear victor if they actually went all out militarily.

You forget that Israel is a democracy. That makes them weak.
They're not about to start nuking, right off. By the time that
they do, others will be involved. Even if WE stay out, everyone
won't.

There is no reason to use nukes.   You can kill everyone in that area without them, though I wouldn't mind making it so that land is impossible to live upon for centuries.   It would be fitting if neither religion/tribe/whatever could ever use that land again.

Unless one is losing. Which would happen, in your scenario.
Do you really think that there aren't any loose ones kicking
around? Or that Iran/Syria wouldn't go chemical.

[Alex179]

Pakistan and Iran are going to have their own hands full.    Pakistan for one is about to get into another war with India and they are harboring Bin Laden.    Iran has chemical weapons and would get involved (which would of course bring the US into things).

Israel may be a democracy, but they are crazy enough to fight back with nukes unfortunately.   They wouldn't lose straight up to Lebanon or Palestine, even without nukes (their airforce would win it for them).   It would necessitate another Islamic state getting involved, which would eventually start WW3.    France is in charge of Syria and Lebanon, per the Mandate of Mesopotamia.   Good ol' Britian was responsible for Iraq and Palestine lol.    I would rather kill everyone in Saudi Arabia the most, to be perfectly honest.   That place needs it the worst.

We all should know by now that the USA will not stay out of the Middle East.   Some seem to think that politicians will change things and make us more isolationist, which I think is naive.   I wish we would just sit back and watch them all kill eachother off, but that won't happen.   The second someone outside of Palestine or Lebanon get into direct conflict with Israel, the majority of the UN will be involved (not just the USA).

[Calandale]

Lebanon and Palestine are non-entities, as far
as being states. The ONLY way Israel could
actually win against them is to pull a holocaust
of their own. I don't think that they can. Even
ignoring US opinion, the rest of the world HATES
them enough.

[Alex179]

Lebanon and Palestine are non-entities, as far
as being states. The ONLY way Israel could
actually win against them is to pull a holocaust
of their own. I don't think that they can. Even
ignoring US opinion, the rest of the world HATES
them enough.

That is why I want to kill all of them.   Problem solved if you kill off both sides.

[Calandale]

Crusade!

[Alex179]

The Crusades picked sides.   I want to kill both sides.

[Calandale]

Uh huh. Tell that to all the Christians killed after the siege of Acre. 

[Alex179]

Uh huh. Tell that to all the Christians killed after the siege of Acre. 

I can't, they died over a thousand years ago.   I don't give a shit about them anyways.    We can't go back and kill them again anyways.   What is more important is killing people now.   The world could do with about 3 billion less people or more.    I wouldn't mind seeing about 300 million people living on this planet, would be better than the current situation.    The Middle East situation is inevitable, might as well hurry along their demise (along with ours).   

[Calandale]

My point was simple - you are wrong.
The crusaders didn't give squat for anyone
but their own - which didn't even extend to
other 'groups' of crusaders.

[Alex179]

My point was simple - you are wrong.
The crusaders didn't give squat for anyone
but their own - which didn't even extend to
other 'groups' of crusaders.

You have no point.    My point isn't religiously motivated at all, unlike the Crusades supposedly were.    I am talking about now, and you bring up the Crusades, which has almost zero relevance due to the type of warfare employed back then.    I want to kill everyone, regardless of religion or race, in the area.    They won't be calling it the Holy Land anymore, as anyone who thinks of it in that capacity will be killed.   Instead, it will be a good place to visit if you want to die.

Want to visit on a pilgrimage and you are a Christian?   Too bad, you should get killed too.

[Calandale]

The Crusades picked sides.   I want to kill both sides.

I DO have a point, which is that your first sentence was crap.

[Alex179]

The Crusades picked sides.   I want to kill both sides.

I DO have a point, which is that your first sentence was crap.

People were there just for the sake of killing.   It was mostly Muslim vs ancient alien or Christianity vs Islam.  There were factions and mercenaries, but it isn't quite the thing I would have in mind for the Middle East and its people.   The Crusades were mostly there to protect Christians on pilgrimages, not kill everyone who even comes near the area regardless of their religion or affiliation.   It will be protocol.

A perfect place to battle test the world's first synthetic army.   The day when there is a military comprised mostly of robots is approaching.   I can't wait until that happens haha.

[Calandale]

No. The people who lived there rather wanted to stay.
Those who settled did too. It wasn't all about killing.
Nor did the muslims care much about jews or christians,
until after the crusades started, and they still weren't trying
to exterminate anyone.

As to pilgrimages, it all gets kind of mixed. Certainly
protecting them WASN'T that important, since the
person who did the most towards that end (Fredrick II)
was excommunicated for his efforts. Much was actually about
the maintainence  of the crusader states. But, when either side
was thwarted in their desires, they took it out on the inhabitants,
often of the same faith.