[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

"both convinced that establishing control over certain places will hasten the return of their hero?"

Here you referenced Wikipedia verbatim "Gush Emunim supporters believe that the coming of the messiah can be hastened through Jewish settlement on land they believe God has allotted to the Jewish people as outlined in the Hebrew Bible."

Sorry. If I was cutting and pasting from a wiki, do you think I would have mispelled their name? I suppose you're trying to infer that I, like you, only get my information from the internet and conversations with people, regardless of what I have said to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Well, sorry, but that's not what they believe.... nor do they believe the Messiah is a "returning hero". So stop bullshiting. You're not in any position to be debating religious Zionism or the teachings of Rabbi Kook.

First, you don't know what the Hell I'm talking about, now you're enough of an expert that you confidently assert that I don't know anything about it... Instant expert, just add internet.

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Israel and Iran had ties before 1979 - what happened in 1979, hmmm? Whatever provocations you would like to assign Israel, does little in exhonorating these leaders "always, now and forever" of just hating Jews. The expression may be political, but their reasonings are not. When Jews in Iran are restricted from going outside on rainy days, is that political? Why would I want to discuss the merits of a nuclear Iran with someone who claims it's due to political reasoning that Persian Jewish women can't test ripened fruit in a market.

If Iran wants nuclear energy then they need to stop talking about war, and stop funding a proxy conflict. If you want a balance of equals, then they'll need to stop questioning Jewish soveriegnty and act as equals first.

I didn't say Iran was after nuclear energy. Again: Reading is fundamental. If you don't for some reason actually want to discuss this, then stop posting. If all you want to do is bump your gums regardless of what those that would argue with you have actually said, then go argue with the stop sign down the street. I have addressed everything in your last post, and you have yet to address my fundamental points on this topic. Instead, you are proving Max exactly right in his criticisms of your style of pseudo-argument. I thought maybe you had a chance to prove him wrong here, too...