Israel about to teach a lesson

[libertybear]

Some great articles on Israel's massacre over on Pat Buchanan's blog.

buchanan.org/blog

I doubt any of neocons (liberals) will like the articles, but it wouldn't hurt them to know that America is alone in its support of Israel's actions. It also wouldn't hurt the neocons to be educated on the fact that they are liberals and their positions are in contradiction to those held by true Conservatives. I mean, seriously, will anyone here dare to be more Conservative than "Go, Pat, Go"? Of course, not. I saw Mike Pence on CNN, yesterday. I truly wonder which country this neocon serves. He cannot be more dangerous to America.

I did some research on why American fundamentalists support Israel. It has to do with something in the Bible claiming that Christ will return to Earth when the Jews return to Israel. There's also some Bible passage that roughly reads "God blesses those who bless Israel, and the inverse." Until the end of WWII, fundamentalists were hardly friends of Jews, but that changed with the rise of powerful preachers in the Radio and TV Age who took a literal view of certain Bible passages. When the Jews got their country in 1948, certain Protestants saw that as a sign and have been since running with it.

As fundamentalist Protestant Christians really only exist in any significant numbers in America, this Bible-based support of Israel among Christians is not found in any other country.

We're nearing the point of calling red-state support of Israel a violation of the separation of church and state.

I call it. there is no "bible passage" that "roughly reads" anything like that. Maybe you shouldn't be misquoting the Bible like that?

 

[smoking357]

I call it. there is no "bible passage" that "roughly reads" anything like that. Maybe you shouldn't be misquoting the Bible like that?

Sigh.

Genesis 12

1Now (A)the LORD said to Abram,
"Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father's house,
To the land which I will show you;
2And (B)I will make you a great nation,
And (C)I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so (D)you shall be a blessing;
3And (E)I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse
(F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

 

[techres]

Some great articles on Israel's massacre over on Pat Buchanan's blog.

Yep, same blog that is pushing his book that we could have coexisted and had a better world by not going to war with Hitler:

Yep.

 

[libertybear]

Sigh.

Genesis 12

1Now (A)the LORD said to Abram,
"Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father's house,
To the land which I will show you;
2And (B)I will make you a great nation,
And (C)I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so (D)you shall be a blessing;
3And (E)I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse
(F)And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

sigh

This is in direct reference to Abram not Jews. This is a common misinterpretation of one verse that often leads to comments like yours in quotes which is in fact misquoting.

So just so we are clear you wont find "God blesses those who bless Israel, and the inverse." in the Bible. You also wont find "He who blesses Israel will be blessed and he who curses Israel will be cursed." They just are not in there.

 

[public servant]

Yep, same blog that is pushing his book that we could have coexisted and had a better world by not going to war with Hitler:

Yep.

Buchanan's blog also blames 9/11 on the Israeli version of the CIA. I think it's pretty clear where Buchanan stands on Israel. It gets better.

Buchanan's blog goes on to claim that "the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.”

Someone else started out blaming everything on the Jews...



I think we all know how that ended. Perhaps that's what Buchanan wants.

 

[CarmelHP]

Buchanan's blog also blames 9/11 on the Israeli version of the CIA. I think it's pretty clear where Buchanan stands on Israel. It gets better.
(........)

I think we all know how that ended. Perhaps that's what Buchanan wants.

I'm not quite sure when it was that Buchanan started losing his mind, but it's been getting progressively worse. He's now a stark, raving lunatic.

 

[88GT]

Issrael planned on a massacre so they armed thamselves with paintball guns?
Seems to me that they did all they could to avoid killing anyone. When is the last time the Coast Guard used paintball guns to board a ship?
Israel offered to ship the aid to Gaza themselves if they would offload it at a port for a security search (just as they have done many times before) and Egypt made the same offer. It was refused. The whole idea of the flotilla was to force a confrontation and a press report, same as always.
Do a google search for "Pallywood", very interessting.

Israel is guilty until proven guilty.
Remember that my opinion is worth the same as yours

This bears repeating.

How long as the blockade been in place?

How many ships have been allowed to pass through provided they submit to a search?

My understanding is that the answer to both questions does not support the idea that Israel is itchin' for a fight. Lord knows they've have plenty of opportunity and yet they still refuse to be provoked.

I do know 2 things. Israel won't board any more ships that refuse to follow directions and one of these days Israel is going to stop moving the line in the sand.

 

[smoking357]

I'm not quite sure when it was that Buchanan started losing his mind, but it's been getting progressively worse. He's now a stark, raving lunatic.

And yet The Unnecessary War has been lauded in paleoconservative and Libertarian circles as an outstanding bit of scholarship.

It's time for Buchanan's opponents to admit that they're Liberals. His opponents merely start with where they want to end up and close their ears and minds to proof or reason.

 

[srcoley]

1. People that are aiding the enemy are aiding the enemy. It is an act of war against you unless you decide that it is permissible aid. This is not complicated.

So maybe the U.S. aiding Israel is what got us into this war on "terror"(retaliation)?

 

[smoking357]

sigh

This is in direct reference to Abram not Jews. This is a common misinterpretation of one verse that often leads to comments like yours in quotes which is in fact misquoting.

So just so we are clear you wont find "God blesses those who bless Israel, and the inverse." in the Bible. You also wont find "He who blesses Israel will be blessed and he who curses Israel will be cursed." They just are not in there.

Again, you completely missed the point. The passage is used by fundamentalists to convince Protestant Christians to support Israel.

Please research the matter prior to posting again.

 

[techres]

And yet The Unnecessary War has been lauded in paleoconservative and Libertarian circles as an outstanding bit of scholarship.

It's time for Buchanan's opponents to admit that they're Liberals. His opponents merely start with where they want to end up and close their ears and minds to proof or reason.

I will go with this analysis:

Buchanan’s interpretation generally holds that British and American participation in both WWI and WWII was avoidable if British leaders had recognized that Germany was no threat to the vital interests of the British Empire. Banking his thesis on such supposed benevolence from Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler, Buchanan criticizes various British policies of the 1920s and 1930s (who doesn’t?), and argues collaterally with Hitler’s statements disclaiming fundamental conflicts with Britain. The weakness in Buchanan’s line of thinking, of course, is that by 1939, Hitler’s international word was worthless; yet Buchanan hinges his case on what might have happened had Britain let Hitler go after Poland in 1939 as it had Czechoslovakia. Speculating a better future had the West permitted Nazi Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe, Buchanan cites the historical costs of Britain and France having at last drawn the line against aggression. Convinced? Controversial as is his wont, Buchanan reminds his large readership that the immediate ignition of WWII can still be disputed. --Gilbert Taylor

Nope, not convinced. This actually puts Buchanan way beyond Neville Chamberland. Trust Hitler? Yeah, worked well for Stalin, worked well for the millions in the camps, and apparently works well for some in America today.

But not me.

 

[88GT]

I will go with this analysis:

Buchanan’s interpretation generally holds that British and American participation in both WWI and WWII was avoidable if British leaders had recognized that Germany was no threat to the vital interests of the British Empire. Banking his thesis on such supposed benevolence from Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler, Buchanan criticizes various British policies of the 1920s and 1930s (who doesn’t?), and argues collaterally with Hitler’s statements disclaiming fundamental conflicts with Britain. The weakness in Buchanan’s line of thinking, of course, is that by 1939, Hitler’s international word was worthless; yet Buchanan hinges his case on what might have happened had Britain let Hitler go after Poland in 1939 as it had Czechoslovakia. Speculating a better future had the West permitted Nazi Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe, Buchanan cites the historical costs of Britain and France having at last drawn the line against aggression. Convinced? Controversial as is his wont, Buchanan reminds his large readership that the immediate ignition of WWII can still be disputed. --Gilbert Taylor

Nope, not convinced. This actually puts Buchanan way beyond Neville Chamberland. Trust Hitler? Yeah, worked well for Stalin, worked well for the millions in the camps, and apparently works well for some in America today.

But not me.

Yeah, kinda hard to argue there's threat no to Britain's vital interest when he's sending bombers over to pound London to dust.

 

[libertybear]

Again, you completely missed the point. The passage is used by fundamentalists to convince Protestant Christians to support Israel.

Please research the matter prior to posting again.

Are you on drugs? I did not miss anything. YOU misquoted the Bible and I called you on it maybe you need to do some research before posting again.
I don't know what is so hard about accepting that fact but you seem to be in denial about it.

I don't really care what the fundamentalists do as long as they don't do it to me or around me. If they start misquoting the Bible in front of me then I will correct them just like I have you.

Please at least read the Bible before quoting it again you are obvisly just repeating what other (wrong) people have said...

 

[smoking357]

Are you on drugs? I did not miss anything. YOU misquoted the Bible and I

Man, you just can't find the point.

It's all above. Read. Read,again.

Wow.

 

[shooter521]

You guys are obviously talking around each other. Please knock off the bickering and get this thread back on topic (which evidently had to do with the Israeli naval blockade, though you couldn't tell it from the last few pages).

 

[IndyBeerman]

I do know 2 things. Israel won't board any more ships that refuse to follow directions and one of these days Israel is going to stop moving the line in the sand.

Want to bet on that? Israel will do what they think needs to be done for thier national security.

Actually, Israel is not moving the line, it's others, what will matter is when Israel stomps on the hand that's holding the stick, that's making the new line.

 

[Turn Key]

Ziva David - anyday

 

[88GT]

Want to bet on that? Israel will do what they think needs to be done for thier national security.

I guess the subtlety was too subtle.. What the implication of my post meant was that Israel won't risk any more lives simply to board and inspect. They will now assume that all ships attempting to forcefully run the blockade while simultaneously failing to submit to the searches is intent on no good. At which point they will take the appropriate measures.

Actually, Israel is not moving the line, it's others, what will matter is when Israel stomps on the hand that's holding the stick, that's making the new line.

You're wrong: the aggressor is never the the one drawing the line. Israel draws their line, it gets crossed, they fail to respond in a manner that prevents future line-crossing. They draw a new line, it gets crossed, they fail to respond appropriately. And so on and so forth. Their line is fast approaching the wall that is behind their back. And when they feel the cold brick, that will be the end of "Mr. Nice Israel."

 

[smoking357]

Great article on the blockade today by Pat Buchanan:

Lift the Siege of Gaza by Patrick J. Buchanan

 

[junglerogue]

Good point 88GT, I wish the US (i.e. president) had enough tenacity to act uni-laterally in regards to national security and porous borders!