Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOne way to keep Bibi Netanyahu from making trouble is to keep him so busy meeting US envoys and diplomats that he doesn't have time for anything else. That appears to be President Obama's strategy this week, since Netanyahu will be meeting with a veritable avalanche of Americans, including: George Mitchell, the US special envoy; Jim Jones, Obama's national security adviser; Robert Gates, the holdover secretary of defense who is showing no signs that he intends to go away; and Dennis Ross, the neocon-linked NSC official whose actual job remains ever vague.
Unless this is an covert effort to push Israeli hotel prices higher during the tourist season, the goal of the US effort seems to be to prepare Israel for what may, in fact, be a serious effort by the United States to resolve the Palestine conflict. There've been rumors floating that Obama may be thinking about proposing the outlines of a comprehensive US peace plan as early as this September. If so, it would be a plan that goes far beyond the nasty dispute over Jewish "settlements" -- i.e., massive, concrete and asphalt cities being built in the environs of Jerusalem and around the West Bank -- to include the elements of a final status agreement.
Or, on the other hand, Obama can do what AIPAC wants, namely, to continue to call for endless negotiations between the two sides.
It's been known for many years, or decades, what that might look like: the establishment of state called Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, within borders slightly modified from the 1967 lines acceptable to both sides, with Palestine's capital in now-occupied East Jerusalem, an accord on Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homeland, etc.
A question is: what sort of guarantees will Obama promise Israel to get them to feel more secure? General Jones, the former NATO commander, is an advocate for stationing US and/or NATO troops in between Israel and Palestine, not as a fighting force but as observers and guarantors. Presumably, though Israel would insist that Palestine be "demilitarized," General Dayton and his US team of military advisers, who've been working closely with Jordan and the Palestinians, would accelerate their efforts to create Palestinian army and police units. There's talk about a formal US security guarantee for Israel, though what form that would take isn't clear. And some, including pro-Israel neocons in the United States, have proposed bringing Israel into NATO. Last week, Hillary Clinton proposed what sounded like a "nuclear umbrella" over Israel and the Arab states as a guarantee against an acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, and there's no doubt that the US will provide assurances to Israel about Iran. (In fact, however, the threat from Iran is wildly hyped by Israel and its allies, and there is much less there than meets the eye.)
Mitchell is trying to complete the package by working hard to bring Syria into the mix, which would be useful for several reasons -- because it would split Syria and Iran, because it would allow Syria to put some pressure on Hamas to make a deal with Fatah to re-unify the Palestinian movement, and because Syria could be helpful in reining in Hezbollah in Lebanon, especially now that Hezbollah has suffered an electoral setback in the June vote. After Mitchell's meeting with President Assad of Syria, Assad's spokesman said: "The messages coming to us from President Obama stress his administration's determination and resolve to open a new page with Syria."
A new report by the Center for American Progress says that the Israel-Palestine conflict is in "stalemate," but it says there is a "window of opportunity" to get things rolling, and it proposed four steps: a plan for Palestinian elections, the strengthening of Palestinian institutions, steps to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and "a public outreach and strategic communications effort in the Middle East outlining U.S. regional strategy, with increased attention to Israeli public opinion." The Center suggests "moving quickly toward first negotiating permanent borders between Israel and the West Bank." But the report stops well short of recommending that the United States put forward its own ideas on what a solution might look like.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Okay, remember, before we get started...Larry promised!-
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 09:47am
A question is: what sort of guarantees will Obama promise Israel to get them to feel more secure?
more like get them to be less greedy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 09:50am
"And some, including pro-Israel neocons in the United States, have proposed bringing Israel into NATO."
no thanks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 09:52am
Well, given how many mirages there have been and how many "Real Peace" have flowered......put down your bets, ladies and gentlemen.....in the house that Iran is steadily building.....
Posted by Happy at 07/27/2009 @ 09:55am
good luck, humans.
i am now going to copy'n'paste EVERY article i can find about some president or other's "initiative" to bring "peace" to the levant.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 09:56am
happy,
you have no clue about iran.
anyhoo,
if mr. obama could pull this one off, people might even forget about unemployment.
for a week or two.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 09:57am
the answer to the blog's title question is, of course, "a mirage"
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 10:04am
--if mr. obama could pull this one off, people might even forget about unemployment.
Bush Senior brought about Madrid and true hopes for peace by truly pushing the Israelis and still lost the election to the recession. So let us not hope too much for internal politics. If he pulls it off it will just be the best legacy long-term but I am not counting on immediate electoral effects.
The problem after a possible solution is that the governments of the Muslim states around Israel will then be in trouble, as without the excuse of Israel (and, in the case of Egypt, the money that the US pays as tribute for Israel's security), I am not sure too many of them can survive. And that would be an exciting world to live in.
Posted by dimik72 at 07/27/2009 @ 10:15am
If he pulls it off it will just be the best legacy long-term but I am not counting on immediate electoral effects.
Posted by dimik72 at 07/27/2009 @ 10:15am
of course not.
however, peace could possibly <i>improve</i> the prospects of the region's governments (unfortunately, in many cases) because there just may be more jobs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:25am
Fortunately for Israel, Bibi can walk and chew gum at the same time and this "dream" of Dreyfuss to see a big push to destroy Israel through US bullying is just not going to happen.
East Jerusalem will never be the capital of any Arab nation. NEVER
<Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, said [Jerusalem Post, May 25, 1997]:
Islam does not permit giving up one inch of Palestine and states that Palestine belongs to the Muslims, belongs to the Palestinian people, not to the Jews. Bartering land is not liberation and is not permissible in Islam.
We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the prophet Muhammad said: "The resurrection of the dead will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them…"
Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi, Palestinian Television, 30 March 2001
On September 13, 1995 - the same day that the peace agreement ceremony was held in Washington D.C., Yasser Arafat spoke on Jordan Television:
Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.>
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:33am
A debate between a secular Arab and defenders of Islam's fight against Israel and the Jews
http://tinyurl.com/ej4mz
I don't think I could have made the case any better than she does.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:35am
Islam's fight against Israel and the Jews
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:35z
kinda like larry's fight against islam.
THE WHEELS ON THE BUS....
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:43am
Evil Islam created by satan the devil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqjKKeSj82k
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:47am
kinda like larry's fight against islam.
THE WHEELS ON THE BUS....
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:43am
It's not me fighting Islam. It's Islam fighting against the rest of the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:48am
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs think humans are nuts." -- John Steinbeck
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:50am
SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 10:51am
"It's not me fighting Islam."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:48am
Hmmm?
"Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm
Smearing Obama (The Sequel) posted by Ari Berman on 10/06/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 10:54am
"Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stays up all night wondering if there really is a D-g?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 11:00am
It's frankly disgusting, the way that the overtly racist and brutal Israeli rogue nation is treated with such care and concern in the US.
All: there is no hope for a peace plan. The reason why is that the Israelis don't want a peace plan. The Israelis don't want peace. The Israelis covet the land, and expropriate (ie, steal) the land or take it by force. They have a supremacist, triumphalist view of themselves that ranges from the merely colonial to the outright fanatical religious belief that they are "chosen" and have a divine mandate to whatever land or resources they want.
What we could hope for in the US is for the Israel lobby to have less of a death grip on our government and elite media. From propagandists like Ethan Bronner at the NYT through the "lobbyists" (who sometimes apparently engage in espionage) working the Hill, Israel has way to much power to influence the US.
Even if the US cannot help bring justice and peace to the land of Palestine, the US could at least try to free itself from the permanently dystopian mess there by working towards a divorce from one of the chief problem children in the region, yes, Israel.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/27/2009 @ 11:04am
And of course, once again, we're back to the SAME....OLD......Robert Dreyfuss Mid-East thread paradigm...
1. "Israel can do no wrong" crowd...
2. "Israel can do no right" crowd.
# 1's solution (those who'll actually not try to be "subtle" about it)...have Israel take over Gaza and the WB to form "historica Israel"...and then make sure to keep the Arab-Israelis divided as a voting bloc (or "other measures").
# 2's solution.....drop all aid to Israel and if that doesn't work, sanctions; if that doesn't work, an embargo; if that doesn't work..."other measures".
And anybody disagrees with #1 or #2 is either a "terrorist lover" or a "Zionist stooge for AIPAC".
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 11:11am
Is there a defense of Mirage Act?
Posted by abell12ct at 07/27/2009 @ 11:21am
"It's not me fighting Islam."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:48am
Hmmm?
"Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm
Smearing Obama (The Sequel) posted by Ari Berman on 10/06/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 10:54am
There is no contradiction there Mask. I hate any ideology that seeks to destroy every one who does not yield to it. But it also means that they are they ones generating the fight. Unless you don't believe in the right of self defense.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:22am
abell!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 11:30am
I hate any ideology that seeks to destroy every one who does not yield to it.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:22am
naw, you just let god do your dirty work.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 11:31am
More from the religion of peace and the "Palestinian" leadership
We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are speaking about is 'Hudna', a temporary ceasefire.
Arab Knesset Member Abdel Maleh Dahamshe, Palestinian Television, 1 September 2000
You say that is old history? "Palestinian President Abbas" (the supposed friendly one) video stating that he will never accept a Jewish state of Israel
http://tinyurl.com/of3vjs
Here also with Arab youth on April 29th of 2009
<Palestinian Authority president and Fatah chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated unequivocally Monday that he does not accept the Jewish state.
"I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will," he said at a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Parliament in Ramallah.
At the end of the conference, Abbas was presented with a large framed map of "Palestine," covering the entire area of Israel.>
http://tinyurl.com/q432wl
<Hamas Racism: Jews are evil - "Their children will be exterminated."
Imam who participated in "Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace" calls for extermination of Jews
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Apr. 19, 2009
"The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."
[Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]>
http://tinyurl.com/c74yu7
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:39am
SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2009 @ 12:02pm
As I said in my previous post, Bibi and Israel will not allow Obama to try and bully them into suicide with the Arabs
<Anti-Obama Rally in Jerusalem by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) For the first time in years, the nationalist camp will hold a large scale rally against United States policies vis-à-vis Israel.
The protest will be held in downtown Jerusalem, on Agron St. on Monday evening, and is being organized by the Residents Committees of Binyamin and Samaria, as well as the nationalist umbrella organization Mateh Maamatz, the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities, and Komemiyut.
Knesset Members and others representing various parties, including the Likud, will speak
The slogan for Monday's demonstration, and the message to Obama and his envoys, is, "Yes to Israeli Independence, No to American Dictates!">
http://tinyurl.com/l35cl7
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 12:06pm
antisocialist-Doesn't Israel take money from us?If they do then they will have to turn down the money if they want independence,but if they take our money then we can place conditions on that..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/27/2009 @ 12:14pm
While Iran may have other issues in the Middle East, A peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, along with settling border issues with neighboring Arab states, would remove any reason for an attack on Israel by Iran. The U.S. will have to do some serious arm twisting to bring Israel to the peace table. Since both Israel and Iran have active nuclear power plants, it would be insane, if either country launched a preemptive attack. We don't need any more Chernobyls.
Posted by pjcasey at 07/27/2009 @ 12:16pm
this is just another attempt to put pressure on israel to make some kind of concession in order to bring so called peace to the region.it WILL not work.the zionist jews in the USA have way too much influence and power.there can be peace in the region if american jews allow it but they will never do.israel is a huge money making enterprise for american jews and without it this powerful entity will not be able to have such a tremendous influence on our political system.get real.how on earth are you going to ask shumer,lieberman,waxman and their mercenaries in the republican and especially the so called democratic party to put pressure on those criminal land theives?
Posted by excalibur999 at 07/27/2009 @ 12:22pm
War and the threat of war is the best way for governments to control the people. Obama knows this. The threat of war will forever be with us as long as governments need to keep us in our place.
This social order has existed for centuries. Fear is necessary. Without that fear we begin to plainly see just how manipulated we are.
The US government isn't interested in ending the war in the middle east, or anywhere else. Really? Why? Because the Federal Reserve cartel actually finances all of it for all sides of the "conflicts."
Remember, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/27/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by excalibur999 at 07/27/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well said. As Israel states emphatically......"we have no interest in becoming a 51st state." But Israel does have an interest in continuing to receive unrelenting and unconditional American taxpayer dollar military and economic assistance. This is what is so surreal about this whole discussion...it is as if we had no leverage over this malevolent parasite. Israel has clearly violated conditions on our military and economic aid. Pull the plug - period. We don't need to be negotiating anything. Cancel the strategic oil reserve clause while we are at it, and cancel free access to our intelligence sources.
Israel is a safe haven and home for international Jewish mafia, who have no interest in becoming subject to closer US scrutiny and regulation. The rabbis busted in NY recently will clue you in. The dual citizen infestation in our political structure is pathetically treasonous, and we just gave the green light to it all by dismissal of charges against Israeli operatives and spies.
A really bad idea is to invite Israel into NATO - you have got to be joking! Quickest way to destroy an alliance is to invite a recalcitrant inconsequential trouble making spot on the map into your alliance. Israel's belligerance is bound to create problems and test the alliance with its guaranteed on-going squabbles which it has no intention of ever resolving. Peace would not stop the gravy train wouldn't it? I can't believe what a stupid idea this is.
Cut the bloodsucker off. We call the shots. We need to stop this charade and waste of time - right now.
Will it happen? No. But the framework of this foreign policy debate really is a complete and utter sham.
Posted by OneVote at 07/27/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:22am
"Mom! I only hit him because he hit me first! He started it!!!!"
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 12:49pm
"Bush Senior brought about Madrid and true hopes for peace by truly pushing the Israelis and still lost the election to the recession."
But Bushes have said many times, even semi-publicly, that as far as they were concerned, they lost the '92 election due to The Lobby, daddy Bush having refused to guarantee a further $10 billion "loan" to Israel. He was told to his face in the Oval Office by AIPAC senior reps that "you'll pay politically." He was furious with them.
Having lost, the Bushes swore they would never cross AIPAC (& Likud) again.
None of this is a secret. Even Obama paid court to AIPAC as a candidate. And, wonder of wonders, so did Sarkozy, flying to NY to meet in private just before starting his presidential campaign. The meeting was noted by some press, however, although only in passing.
Anyone expecting the US to use its considerable leverage over Israel now is deluded.
Posted by sloper at 07/27/2009 @ 12:57pm
Unbelievable, yet predictable. As usual with the anti-semites, it's Israel that is the one standing in the way of peace in the ME. Yet I repeat, here is the Arab Abbas, stating that he doesn't recognize the existence of Israel.
"Palestinian President Abbas" (the supposed friendly one) video stating that he will never accept a Jewish state of Israel
http://tinyurl.com/of3vjs
Here also with Arab youth on April 29th of 2009
<Palestinian Authority president and Fatah chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated unequivocally Monday that he does not accept the Jewish state.
"I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will," he said at a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Parliament in Ramallah.
At the end of the conference, Abbas was presented with a large framed map of "Palestine," covering the entire area of Israel.>
http://tinyurl.com/q432wl
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 1:32pm
"At the end of the conference, Abbas was presented with a large framed map of "Palestine," covering the entire area of Israel.>"----Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 1:32pm
Wouldn't that be pretty much ANY map printed before 1948?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
Wouldn't that be pretty much ANY map printed before 1948?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 2:06pm
But this is a current map. All "Palestinian" maps show only an arab nation-Israel doesn't exist for them.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 2:23pm
It will be suicidal for the USA and the european country to allow israel to join nato.this is the same racist nation that has pointed it,s deadly nuclear missiles towards europe and much of the islamic world and will not even hesitate to point them at our direction too.
The problem is that true american patriots have no voice in the media anymore.cnn,nbc,msnbc,abc and all other sources of so called information(zionist disinformation)are all owned by zionist mafia.wolf blitzer and the owners of cnn such as jonathan kleinman are active members of the spy network of aipac.i really don,t understand why the USA should sacrifice so much of our wealth and well being and security for a bunch bandits and land theives.
Posted by excalibur999 at 07/27/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 2:23pm
But, Larry, Palestine doesn't exist for you...does it?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 2:23pm
But, Larry, Palestine doesn't exist for you...does it?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 3:06pm
Sure it does. they just call themselves Jordan
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 3:12pm
Ahhh...of course....just like they said at San Remo and at the ONE international authority you will "acede dominance to"....the League of Nations, right?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 3:50pm
The US already has identified its peace proposal -- President Clinton at the close of Camp David. When and if peace comes, it will be substantially the same as Clinton's proposals. Perhaps not with Netanyahu as the Israeli PM, but the next Barak or Olmert, both of whom offered the Palestinians close to what President Clinton proposed. More important than Pres. Obama recommitting to Clinton's outline is the PA making a border proposal for Israel to consider. Israel has tried twice and been rebuffed twice. OK Now let's see the PA's offer. (A return to the 1967 lines is a non-starter, just as is a unified Jerusalem as the Israeli capitol. Everyone knows there will be adjustments to the line, including a division of East Jerusalem and the Old City. So let's see where the PA offers to draw the new line.)
Posted by gren at 07/27/2009 @ 4:22pm
Who thinks the question of palestine and israel will drag on for centuries, like the question of the status of Northern Ireland?
Who thinks the question of palestine and israel will not drag on, but will instead provide a flashpoint for a very big conflict in the way that, for instance, World War I started in the Balkans, with the assassination of the Archduke?
Who thinks that a peace conference will settle everything quietly, like the partition of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic?
Posted by Mistral at 07/27/2009 @ 4:29pm
But this is a current map. All "Palestinian" maps show only an arab nation-Israel doesn't exist for them.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
funny that current maps of the United States don't include the sovereign Indian nations w/in the borders. guess the u.s. doesn't respect the Indians.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 4:45pm
funny that current maps of the United States don't include the sovereign Indian nations w/in the borders. guess the u.s. doesn't respect the Indians.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 4:45pm
With such high quality debate point in the Left/Palestinian corner, guess we know why making mirages are your specialty!
Posted by Happy at 07/27/2009 @ 4:56pm
"After Mitchell's meeting with President Assad of Syria, Assad's spokesman said: "The messages coming to us from President Obama stress his administration's determination and resolve to open a new page with Syria."
Thanks for the read. How about a piece about the current cast of characters in Syria?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/27/2009 @ 4:59pm
With such high quality debate point in the Left/Palestinian corner, guess we know why making mirages are your specialty!
Posted by Happy at 07/27/2009 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"high quality debate point(s)" in anonymous blog commentary?
talk about oxymoronic!
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
Unbelievable, yet predictable. As usual with the anti-semites, it's Israel that is the one standing in the way of peace in the ME.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 1:32pm
That's because Israel rejects peace. 22 Arab states have signed a peace initiative, which offers to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders and normalize relations with Israel.
Israel has rejected the offer, so there is no doubt that Israel is the one standing in the way of peace in the ME. It also debunks the myth that recognizing Israel is a path to peace.
Yasser Araft did recognize the existence of Israel and it achieved nothing,except get him killed.
Of course, Netenyahu is the one who does not support the creation of Palestinian state, at least not a viable one.
On the other hand, Hamas does support a 2 state settlement.
Who would have thought we'd have this as the status quo?
Interesting however that Abbas does not recognize Israel yet Abbas is Israel's puppet.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:33pm
Sure it does. they just call themselves Jordan
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 3:12pm
Rubbish. As earl as 1922, all the inhabitants of Palestine were known as Palestinians.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:34pm
The slogan for Monday's demonstration, and the message to Obama and his envoys, is, "Yes to Israeli Independence, No to American Dictates!"
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 12:06pm
In America, those on welfare don't get to tell the government to go to hell. If Israel wasn't independence, they can start by refunding the massive aid cheques they get every year and pay for their own weapons.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:38pm
Unless you don't believe in the right of self defense.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:22am
A rapist does not get to argue self defense when the victim tries to resist.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:53pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Arafat wasn't killed. He died after living out his final two years atrociously as the Israeli "defense" forces surrounded his compound with military forces, in an attempt to psychologically shatter the Palestinian resolve surrounding the man, and in attempt to make themselves feel more brutal and more powerful, but he was not killed.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/27/2009 @ 6:53pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 6:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
An added note - that maniac you are addressing is a religious fanatic and racist loon. He has openly favored ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories here, if you can attribute to a demented weirdo like him some kind of "political view" as opposed to just simple craziness. He's one of these guys who stands on the street corner railing at passerby and holding a sign that says "Repent the end is near!"
I don't understand why people commenting on these pages bother to reply to him, or several others who just write pointless post after pointless post after pointless post to the point where they are writing 10 words for 1 word in a Nation journalist's little web log entry.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/27/2009 @ 6:59pm
Fortunately for Israel, Bibi can walk and chew gum at the same time and this "dream" of Dreyfuss to see a big push to destroy Israel through US bullying is just not going to happen.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 10:33am
According to Larry, every previous Israeli government has been committed to destroying Israel, because every one of them, including Olmert, has acknowledged that the settlement's are illegal.
Jerusalem will be shared between the palestinians and Israel, sooner or later. Israel's population is diminishing and will soon be overtaken by Arabs.
http://tinyurl.com/mgsc7l
Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, said [Jun 16, 2009]:
"The militant Hamas movement, whose charter calls for the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine, would be prepared to accept a state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya said Tuesday."
On September 9, 1993, Arafat signed an agreement whcih stipulated:
"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."
http://tinyurl.com/n93cs3
"In the late 1980s, Israel helped nurture Hamas -- yes, the same organization that the IDF is bent on destroying today -- as part of its long-standing effort to undermine Yasser Arafat and Fatah and keep the Palestinians divided. This decision backfired too, because Arafat eventually recognized Israel and agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, while Hamas emerged as a new and dangerous adversary that has refused to recognize Israel's existence and to live in peace with the Jewish state."
http://tinyurl.com/75qb2l
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 7:05pm
An added note - that maniac you are addressing is a religious fanatic and racist loon.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/27/2009 @ 6:59pm
I am well aware of that syfriendly, which is why his arguments are so easily to dissect.
Larry is a right wing extremist who pretends to be a Christian, but in reality, simply exploits Christianity as a means to exercise his bigotry and xenophobia.
I suspect that he is also an anti semite who is exploiting Zionism for his own macabre ideology.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 7:08pm
Arafat wasn't killed.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/27/2009 @ 6:53pm
That's debatable.
http://altnews.com.au/drop/node/3945
Former Longtime Confidant Accuses Ariel Sharon of Assassinating Yasser Arafat
http://tinyurl.com/ngo5je
Uri Dan's new book about Ariel Sharon contains some jaw-droppers. The Haaretz review written by Uri Dromi says this about Sharon's potential involvement in Arafat's death:
"Dan reveals a little and conceals much when he hints that Arafat's death was not caused by any illness. He himself suggested to Sharon that Arafat be captured and brought to trial in Jerusalem, like Eichmann, but Sharon reassured him that he was dealing with the problem in his own way. Then Arafat fell ill, was flown to Paris for treatment and died. Was Sharon involved? This is what Dan wrote then in Maariv that in the history books prime minister Ariel Sharon will be remembered as the man who eliminated Yasser Arafat without killing him. Let every reader figure it out for himself."
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 7:13pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 7:08pm
you're an idiot. go back into your jihadist hole.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 7:39pm
Lets be Honest, they way we will ever see peace is, One if all Palestinians simply just disappear. Only Jews allowed to live in Israel.
But that will not help the Zionist movement, this conflict, provide these pigs with a reason for our tax dollars ($6 billion) to be piped.
Unfortunately we will never see peace, the two state solution is the real mirage. Its sad to see a group of leaders so obsessed with reminding the west about WWII , and yet ignore the fact they have become worse than that. Avraham Burg is right, but sadly. This is all fantasy.
The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes ( Avraham Burg)
Posted by AnyMan786 at 07/27/2009 @ 7:42pm
I hate any ideology that seeks to destroy every one who does not yield to it. But it also means that they are they ones generating the fight.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
It is always obvious that none of the leftwing ever reads about or attempts to understand the teachings of Islam as reguards Jews, Christians, and all others considered Infidels by Islam. To read the verses would entail disguarding all they falsely apprehend from third parties about its teachings and the truth is of no real intrest to them!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/27/2009 @ 7:45pm
urmygyro,
You say (incorrectly) : "............
funny that current maps of the United States don't include the sovereign Indian nations w/in the borders. guess the u.s. doesn't respect the Indians......."
Not true.
Mask knows about the Six Nations, but you apparently don't. In the middle of the map (link to map below) is the home of the Onondagas.
http://maps.google.com /maps?q=Onondaga%20County%20NY& f=s&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na- us-syn-gm&utm_medium=ha& utm_term=onondaga%20county%20maps
(Link may contain spaces that need to be taken out after pasting into your browser)
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 7:58pm
urmygyro,
With the link I provided you will need to zoom in one level to get the identification of the Onondaga reservation on the map. The link defaults to the highest zoom level when you first call it up.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:01pm
Mask,
You said (way up above): ".............And of course, once again, we're back to the SAME....OLD......Robert Dreyfuss Mid-East thread paradigm...
1. "Israel can do no wrong" crowd...
2. "Israel can do no right" crowd........"
Although there is some truth in what you say with regard to the fact that anytime Israel is brought up here on The Nation, the threads play out the same way each and every time.........I still have to question......why do you frame this with regard to Israel?
Don't forget, there is another side to the equation here.....the Arabs, Palestinians and Islamic world......
That side of the equation has no intention of ever allowing Israel to exist......That side of the equation does not accept the existence of the Jewish state and will do everything in it's power to avoid doing so.
That side of the equation wants Israel gone regardless of whatever they have said publicly regarding agreement that Israel has a right to exist.
You need to look at this through the framework of why does that side of the equation refuse to ever concede anything or make any kind of a MEANINGFUL agreement with the Israelis that would allow the existence of Israel in the area that is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.
When Israel comes up, on these blogs, we always have:
1. Anti-Israel venom from bloggers like syfriendly and Shingo.
2. Naive promotion of "peace" by Frosty Zoom.
3. Well-intentioned but naive belief that peace is possible, demonstrated by some such as pjcasey above.
4. Somebody will bring the Native Americans in to the conversation, such as urmygyro did.
5. And then, finally, detailed commentary and facts from antisocialist that show Israel is right and her enemies are wrong. I wish you bloggers would pay attention to antisocialist.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:17pm
I did forget to mention in my analysis above that these Israel threads are kicked off by a The Nation article that always seems to be anti-Israel, although not with the racist venom of syfriendly and Shingo, but still anti-Israel nonetheless.
For example Mr. Dreyfuss starts out "....One way to keep Bibi Netanyahu from making trouble....."
Right off of the bat you can see that Mr. Dreyfuss is biased against Israel, or at least against Israelis who recognize the need to defend Israel rather than engage in "peace" with her enemies that want no Israel, where each "peace agreement" brings the goal of no Israel closer for those who are trying to achieve it.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:21pm
Shingo,
You said above ".....That's because Israel rejects peace. 22 Arab states have signed a peace initiative, which offers to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders and normalize relations with Israel.
Israel has rejected the offer, so there is no doubt that Israel is the one standing in the way of peace in the ME. It also debunks the myth that recognizing Israel is a path to peace.
Yasser Araft did recognize the existence of Israel and it achieved nothing,except get him killed. ....."
Shingo, you forget, those agreements are known as hudna.
Arabs/Islamic people make agreements but hudna says it is OK if they don't live up to them.......
In fact.....the agreements are made with no intention of living up to them!
The word agreement does not mean the same thing to them as it means to Americans.
With the Arab/Islamic world, the "agreement" is not really an agreement, but just a stall for time.... to rebuild or regroup or create a more favorable situation for the next effort (or attack) against their enemies.......the "agreement" is also a mechanism to get their enemies to concede things.....a way of getting some victories and concessions without having to win them on the battlefield.
Neither the Arab states, nor Arafat, really meant that they were willing to allow the existence of Israel when they made these "agreements"......
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:28pm
you're an idiot. go back into your jihadist hole.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 7:39pm
how very Christian of you Larry. try as you might to deny you try to deny your bigotry toward Muslims, it slips out from under you like a bowl movement.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 9:21pm
Shingo, you forget, those agreements are known as hudna.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:28pm
That's just racist bile sjchermak....
We hear a lot of this from anti Semites who say that Jews consider goys to be idiots to whom they are not bound by promises or contracts.
All you're doing is taking the rubbish from the Protocols of Zion and applying them to Muslims. Ben Gurion said that Israel would accept the UN partition of Palestine, but once Israel was legitimized, said that Israel would not allow the partition to restrict Israel's plans to expand and steal land.
In any case, if you want to make the case about the hudna, then why the insistence that the Arabs recognize Israel if they can't be trusted anyway?
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 9:32pm
Don't forget, there is another side to the equation here.....the Arabs, Palestinians and Islamic world......
That side of the equation has no intention of ever allowing Israel to exist......
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:17pm
But that so called equation has already been debunked.
22 Arab States have already offered to make peace and normalize relations with Israel.
Now there are Zionist wing nuts like yourself, that do not want to accept this peace initiative because it would mean an end to Israelis hegemony and expansion. In the case of Larry, it might mean he has to wait a little longer for Jesus to return.
The biggest contradiction however, is that Islamophobes like yourself will insist that the Muslims can't be trusted, while simultaneously insisting that the only impediment to peace is that the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel.
So if your case is to be believed, why didn't the Arabs states pretend to recognize Israel and decades ago?
When Israel comes up, on these blogs, we always have:
1. pro Israel propaganda from the likes of yourself, BigPastrue and Larry.
2. Unconditional blame placed squarely on the Palestinians.
3. The contradictory argument that peace will come when the Arabs accept Israel, while insisting that the Arabs always lie and cannot be trusted.
4. Somebody will bring the Holocaust, Nazis and Darfur into the equation. Other will mention that the Jews have always been there.
5.And then, finally, spin and propaganda from antisocialist ignore the elephant in the room, ir the occupation.
Sometimes, antisocialist will just have a meltdown and call you a jihadist for not agreeing with him.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 9:43pm
Right off of the bat you can see that Mr. Dreyfuss is biased against Israel, or at least against Israelis who recognize the need to defend Israel rather than engage in "peace" with her enemies that want no Israel, where each "peace agreement" brings the goal of no Israel closer for those who are trying to achieve it.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:21pm
As is well demonstrated here, Zionist shills will use circular reasoning to defend Israel's crimes, no matter what.
Israel wants peace, but cannot risk peace, and therefore rejects peace.
Support for a 2 state solution is ignored by the likes of sjchermak and Larry, because they can't give a cogent answer, so they stick to the canard that the Arabs wont accept Israel and that Israel's only option is to continue stealing more land.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 9:49pm
Shingo, I'm quite sad to say, is winning the argument.
Gazans now regret voting for Hamas, for the same reason Afghans cheered on the American invasion of their country after initially supporting the Taliban. This is why Hamas canceled future free elections. If free elections were held, it is highly unlikely that Hamas would win. Israel should have toppled their rule, sent in a surge of humanitarian aid, announced and dropped leaflets announcing that it planned to hold free elections and withdraw ASAP, and then it should have done so. It could then have normalized relations with Gaza and ended the blockade. It could have worked to end the humanitarian disaster there. This would have helped them negotiate with Syria. This would have been a great first step for peace. Instead, the war in Gaza was pointless.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 10:48pm
sjchermak--the Indians were forced on those lands genius. read b/w the lines bro!
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 10:58pm
The term islamaphobic is ludicrous in that it implies that there is cultural and societal co-equivalent legitimacy between the ME and the West, that it is the West that is less tolerant, and that any critique of Islam is based on irrational xenephobia as opposed to sequential logic. This is not the case. The Koran really does advocate the killing of nonbelievers. It really does state that women are inferior sex objects who can morally be beaten and raped. It explicitly commands racism and hatred of Jews.
But, the Bible commands genocide, slavery, and rape as well.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 11:04pm
Those who condemn cartoons mocking Islam and call for censorship of them hate not intolerance but freedom. This is why they glorify Saddam despite his killing of millions of Muslims but condemn the holding of free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq as a crime against humanity. They use the term islamaphobic on cartoons but have defended genocide against Muslims in Bosnia, Iraq, and Sudan. They desire to boycott not the regimes in the ME that oppress Muslims but the democracy of Israel. Free countries in the region, like Iraq, Israel, and Kuwait would not be free if they had their way.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 11:21pm
Free countries in the region, like Iraq, Israel, and Kuwait would not be free if they had their way.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 11:21pm
Not sure what you mean by free given that Iraq is still the most dangerous country in the world.
Kuwait is not a democracy and is hardly free.
There were countries with worse human rights records than South Africa under apartheid, but would you argue that the boycott was unjustified?
In the case of Iraq, it's fine and dandy to argue for liberation (even when the invasion was based on lies) but even if you're gullible enough to believe we woudl have invaded had the country had no oil, what's the point if the cure is worse than the disease? The invasion has led to the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis.
As for the cartoons, who could care less?
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 11:40pm
The term islamaphobic is ludicrous in that it implies that there is cultural and societal co-equivalent legitimacy between the ME and the West
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 11:04pm
No it's not ludicrous. It's as real as racism, because it's simply racism directed at a Muslisms, usually Arab Muslims.
Islamaphobia, like racism, is based on fear and ignorance of an unfamiliar society and religion, just as was the fear that blacks weer savages.
It doesn't require that the object of this racism is more or less tolerant that us.
The preponderance of criticism of Islam on this forum is certainly based on irrational xenephobia as opposed to sequential logic. Take sjchermak for example, and his hunda screed, which is certainly lifted from some right wing xonophic source. Sjchermak would have us believe that lying and duplicity are unique characteristics of the Muslim religion, which borders on derangement.
As you pointed out, a superficial reading of the Bible would reveal that it too advocates the killing of nonbelievers. That a woman is a man's possession, therefore the inferior sex etc., but you wont find judgments as to the legitimacy of Christian based nations made on the basis of these sins.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 11:49pm
As you pointed out, a superficial reading of the Bible would reveal that it too advocates the killing of nonbelievers. That a woman is a man's possession, therefore the inferior sex etc., but you wont find judgments as to the legitimacy of Christian based nations made on the basis of these sins.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 11:49pm
Point out one verse in the NT commanding Christians to kill nonbelievers.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:59pm
Point out one verse in the NT commanding Christians to kill nonbelievers.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/27/2009 @ 11:59pm
Why do you insist on sticking to the NT Larry? Not comfortable with the old, or isn't that also part of the Bible?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 12:10am
For the benefit of sjchermak, here is an example of how a hudna type argument can be made about Judaism.
"Rabbi Israel Dwek, the spiritual leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the wealthy Monmouth County suburb of Deal, took to his pulpit on Saturday to cite the Talmudic Law of Moser that prohibits a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew. Rabbi Dwek then renounced his son, Solomon Dwek, the failed real estate developer whose 2006 indictment on bank fraud charges motivated him to cooperate with federal prosecutors in a sting operation that led to the arrests of 44 individuals on Thursday. The group included three mayors, two state legislators, a multitude of local officials, and several Rabbis. As explained to PolitickerNJ.com, Rabbi Dwek will sit Shiva for Solomon Dwek, observing the Jewish custom of mourning for an immediate family member who has died."
So as we can see, according to this Rabbi, Talmudic Law demands that Jews lie to non Jews to cover up the crimes of Jews.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 01:10am
i thought you'd be mad.
mad? no. you just learned the two most important lessons in life. never rat on your friends. and always keep your mouth shut.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/28/2009 @ 02:29am
hello Shingo
Please do not attempt to discuss the Talmud, because you neither know nor understand it. The Talmud does not prohibit Jews from giving honest testimony, regardless of its impact on Jews, and in fact requires it.
Further, it is hamas itself which says it will not enter into a permanent peace treaty with Israel, but only a hudna, which is a temporary cease fire which can be broken in the vevent of various circumstances.
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:03am
NEWS FLASH!!!!
In order to restore a final and lasting peace between Israel and the threatening Arab nations the Obamanation that makes desolation is send V.P. foreign relations specialist in chief JOE BIDEN to arrange a summit! (the disclaimer we are not responsible for the ethnic demeaning or slander of national identities that may result is important to note)
Remember how during the campaign cycle Obamanation and the Demoncrats always lauded Joe Bidens vast foreign relations experience and competence! Bwahahahahah!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/28/2009 @ 08:11am
HALACHIC QUESTIONS Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
A Jewish Informer
(In commemoration of the yahrzeit of HaGaon HaRav Yitzhak Hutner, z"l, 20th Kislev -- December 19.)
Question: Jewish law considers the crime of informing upon a fellow Jew a most vile and odious sin. Why? What is the nature of the sin of the informer (the mosser) that galvanizes such a negative reaction?
Response: The Rambam rules that an informer is not to be deemed part of Klal Yisrael (Hilchot Mamrim 2:2). In another section, the Rambam notes that an informer is not to receive a share in the World to Come (Hilchot Teshuva 3:12). The rationale of the Rambam, says Hagaon Rav Hutner, z"l, is based upon the following theory: One who separates himself from the ways of the community (ha'poresh mi'darchei tzibbur) "even though he does not sin... has no share in the World to Come" (ibid. 3:11). Thus, separation from communal standards is tantamount to exclusion from the Jewish people. This, moreover, does not have to relate to any specific sin. Informing on Jews, contends Hagaon Rav Hutner, is an action that goes against the essence of Jewish communal standards. It is a behavioral pattern that is simply not Jewish. This is not what Jews do. As such, the informer (mosser) is excluded from Klal Yisrael because of his refusal to conform to the moral character of the Jewish people (Pachad Yitzhak, Pesach, Ma'amar 63:5).
Rabbi Cohen is the Rav of the Mizrachi Kehilla in Merbourne and the author of several halachic works, the latest being "How Does Jewish Law Work?" (Jason Aronson)
*************************************************************
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen's artic
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 08:18am
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry Gren - it is called protecting your own. As to bearing false witness - those prohibitions apply intra-community, not extra-community.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 08:21am
Citizen of the United States of America Stephen M. St. John notes that the Talmudic Law of the Moser, or the Law of the Jewish Informer, is essentially a covenant prohibiting a Jew from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew, which is diametrically opposed to the adversarial process of our own legal system and therefore conducive toward obstruction of justice. Furthermore, among employees at all levels in our intelligence and law enforcement communities, the Talmudic Law of the Moser, or Law of the Jewish Informer, constitutes an impediment to frank and uninhibited exchanges of information in the discharge of their duties and therefore poses a serious threat to our national security. Citizen St. John cannot overemphasize the great importance of this very real issue of the Talmudic Law of the Moser, or Law of the Jewish Informer, the history of which one may read in the Jewish Encyclopedia (no longer available to read online as of 14 July 2005). In Citizen St. John's complaint of judicial misconduct docketed under Micellaneous Number 01-0030 on 1 June 2001 by the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, he cites a contemporaneously published article promulgating the Talmudic Law of the Moser, or Law of the Jewish Informer, which was written by Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and published by The Jewish Press located in Brooklyn, New York , and is reproduced below. Again, Citizen St. John points out that the Talmudic Law of the Moser, or Law of the Jewish Informer, is a very real issue, not unlike the Mafioso code of Omerta. The Warren Commission was oblivious to it. So was the 9/11 Commission. We continue to ignore this issue at our national peril..............
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 08:29am
hello onevote
you are confusing and conflating "informing" with "testifying."
The former is voluntary, the second is obligatory.
Also, the teachings you cite were written at times when Jews lived as a hated, persecuted, alien minority.
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:29am
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
Care to give me a cite to support your argument?
So - we will let Jewish criminal activity go on, and I will not raise a hand willingly? So the burden is on Goyim to penetrate the criminal Jewish cabal? Don't think I am going to sleep any better.
A hated-persecuted-alien minority - right! In the eyes of world Jewry, they were violating Talmudic Law.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 08:37am
hello onevote
I am sorry if I disturb your anti-semitic rantings. The Talmud also teaches that one should never argue with a child, an idiot or a drunk. I will not argue with you again.
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:40am
Why do you insist on sticking to the NT Larry? Not comfortable with the old, or isn't that also part of the Bible?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 12:10am
Because of the facts.
Jesus said in Luke 16:16 "the law and the prophets were until John. Since then the Kingdom of G-d has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 08:49am
For those who want to know the truth about the Talmudic law re: Jews informing to secular authorities, I invite you to the following link, for an uncensored discussion by Rabbi Cohen, which rebuts the libelous antisemitism that Onevote gleefully spreads here:
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:51am
/www.jewishideas.org/rabbi-j-simcha-cohen/reporting-and-prosecuting-jewi sh-crimin
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:51am
Posted by sjchermak at 07/27/2009 @ 8:17pm
And SJ, you're good at looking at ONE side, but not your own.
Your "Historic Israel" crowd...your "Let Israel 'take the gloves off' in Gaza" crowd....and the even wackier "Disagree with Likud policies and you're disagreeing with God" crowd (Yes, I've actually seen that on another blog!).
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 09:04am
For those who want to know the truth about the Talmudic law re: Jews informing to secular authorities, I invite you to the following link, for an uncensored discussion by Rabbi Cohen, which rebuts the libelous antisemitism that Onevote gleefully spreads here:
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hmmmm......very interesting. The only child here is you Gren. You will note that what I post is from Jewish scholars, not neo-nazi. Stop resorting to insult - you do yourself and your fellow Jews a disservice. I know there are Jewish groups committed to the truth such Jews for Palestinian Justice in Great Britain. But these are Jews that can distinguish between religious belief and norms of ethical and moral human behavior, and they try to keep their secular and non-secular lives distinct.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:10am
/www.jewishideas.org/rabbi-j-simcha-cohen/reporting-and-prosecuting-jewi sh-crimin
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
can you check you cite?
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:17am
'Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה) -- also transliterated Halocho and Halacha -- is the collective body of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions. Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life. Hence, Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish Law", although a more literal translation might be "the path" or "the way of walking." The word is derived from the Hebrew root that means to go or to walk.[citation needed]'
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:37am
Views today See also: Talmud#Present day Orthodox Judaism hold "halakha" is the divine law of the Torah (Bible), rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees and customs combined. Rabbis made many additions and interpretations of Jewish Law, they did so only in accordance with regulations they believe were given to them by Moses on Mount Sinai see Deuteronomy 5:8-13. See Orthodox Judaism, Beliefs about Jewish law and tradition.
Conservative Judaism holds that Halakha is normative and binding, and is developed as a partnership between people and God based on Sinaitic Torah. While there are a wide variety of Conservative views, a common belief is that Halakha is, and has always been, an evolving process subject to interpretation by rabbis in every time period. See Conservative Judaism, Beliefs.
Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism both hold that modern views of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (seen as binding) on Jews today. Those in the traditionalist wing of these movements believe that the Halakha represents a personal starting-point, holding that each Jew is obligated to interpret the Torah, Talmud and other Jewish works for themselves, and this interpretation will create separate commandments for each person. Those in the neo-traditional wing of Reform include Rabbis Eugene Borowitz and Gunther Plaut.
Those in the liberal and classical wings of Reform believe that in this day and era most Jewish religious rituals are no longer necessary, and many hold that following most Jewish laws is actually counter-productive. They propose that Judaism has entered a phase of ethical monotheism, and that the laws of Judaism are only remnants of an earlier stage of religious evolution,...Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:45am
BTW, for further evidence of the antisemitic loonie bins that Onevote uses as a source for his drek,his 8:29 a.m. post cites to the following garbage heap:
www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_St-John-13Aug2007.html
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
okay - we shouldn't concern ourselves with the Italian mafia because after all, the "code of silence" was a natural reaction to resistance of Spanish rule of southern Italy in 16th century. Likewise, we shouldn't worry about the Jewish "code of silence" because it too was a reaction to Jewish persecution. Sidney Korshak would love your take.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 12:12pm
'It was a tribute to Sidney Korshak's success that he was never indicted, despite repeated Federal and state investigations. And the widespread belief that he had in fact committed the very crimes the authorities could never prove made him an indispensible ally of leading Hollywood producers, corporate executives and politicians.'
NY Times Sidney Korshak, 88, Dies; Fabled Fixer for the Chicago Mob By ROBERT McG. THOMAS Jr. Published: Monday, January 22, 1996
Fascinating. And not one mention that Korshak was Jewish mafia allied with Italian mafia. A "tribute" to success indeed, according to NY Times.
also of interest.......
'Mr. Korshak moved to California in the late 1940's and found Hollywood executives as eager as Chicago businessmen to hire him to insure labor peace.'
Mr. Korshak was very instrumental in securing control of movie industry by Jewish interests.
A fascinating history. A "dubious" hero.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 12:34pm
Onevote uses as a source for his drek,his 8:29 a.m. post cites to the following garbage heap:
www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_St-John-13Aug2007.html
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
maybe if more jews had died in 9/11 you wouldn't think 9/11Truthers were loonies Gren? funny that Israeli citizens were given advance notice on the fateful day. truthers questions are unanswered. you want to sweep it under the rug, because you are afraid where the finger of blame might point. tell me again how the third tower came down?
you want to believe the song and dance of an administration who wanted to use the military to arrest American citizens?
go right ahead. but Truthers think you are the loony, or more disturbingly, part of the coverup.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 1:03pm
"maybe if more jews had died in 9/11 you wouldn't think 9/11Truthers were loonies Gren? funny that Israeli citizens were given advance notice on the fateful day."----Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 1:03pm
How many Jews DID die in 9/11 and could we assume that was the "cover story sacrifice" of their brethren that AIPAC and Israel were willing to make?
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 1:39pm
How many Jews DID die in 9/11 and could we assume that was the "cover story sacrifice" of their brethren that AIPAC and Israel were willing to make?
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
How many Israeli's died is probably of more relevance.
'On September 12, 2001, the Internet edition of The Jerusalem Post reported, "The Israeli foreign ministry has collected the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack."
Yet only one Israeli was killed at the WTC and two were reportedly killed on the "hijacked" aircraft.
Although a total of three Israeli lives were reportedly lost on 9/11, speechwriters for President George W. Bush grossly inflated the number of Israeli dead to 130 in the president's address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.'
Rense.com
Verifiable NY Jewish body count don't exist that I am aware of, but I've read guestimate accounts of somewhere between 300 to 400, which is approximately 10% of dead. Note that the Jewish population of Manhattan is approximately 21%.
As to the cover story - well, I just don't know. I am still trying to find answers - and so should you. When American citizens die and there are unanswered questions, I have to question the motivations of those who wish silence the questions with labels of lunacy. Calling someone a lunatic is active advocacy for shutting down the investigation and closing the books - not a wish for avoidance of painful memories.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 2:21pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 2:21pm
Uh-huh. OV...you didn't go by another "nom de blog" aka "nick" on this site once before did you? Something along the lines of "Peanut Butter Cups" or something you'd use to un-stop a toilet?
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And here I thought you were sincere....lol......
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 3:22pm
antisocialist, the NT supports slavery.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and His teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts."(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) Jesus approves of beating slaves in Luke 12:47-48 NLT. The Bible not only says that gays, witches, unbelievers, and followers of other religions should be killed but states in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT that everyone in a town where one person worships another God should be killed. In the Bible, God kills 371,186 peple directly and orders the death of another 1,862,265. Luke 16:17 NAB says that the laws of the OT are binding forever. Jesus says they are binding "till heaven and earth pass away" in Matthew 5:18-19 RSV. He adds: "not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments... shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BTW - check out the Zogby poll that 70% of Americans believe that 9/11 was covered up and that the investigation should be reopened!
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 3:25pm
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BTW - check out the Zogby poll that 70% of Americans believe that 9/11 was covered up and that the investigation should be reopened!
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Whoops....70 million Maskie...sorry.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 3:26pm
funny that current maps of the United States don't include the sovereign Indian nations w/in the borders. guess the u.s. doesn't respect the Indians.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/27/2009 @ 4:45pm
only when it's time to buy cigarettes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2009 @ 3:56pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 3:24pm
Where does one begin with the ill-informed and those who take scripture out of context?
The NT doesn't endorse slavery. We are told to accept whatever condition we find ourselves in, free or slave, because this world is not ours. Our Lord said His kingdom is not of this world and Colossians says that those who believe have been transferred as citizens from this kingdom of satan into the kingdom of the Son.
The Luke passage is not about Jesus endorsing beating slaves. It is a parable about rewards for obedience and punishment for disobedience to our master (which is Jesus).
As I said previously, Christians are not under the Law of Moses. We live in the era of grace.
The Law is forever for those who reject Christ. They will be judged first according to the Law of Moses. But there is no commandment for Christians to carry out the Law. We are called to proclaim all people to repent and receive the good news (gospel) that Christ has provided Himself as the punishment for the Law to them that believe.
All has been accomplished concerning the Law. Perhaps you could also draw upon the scripture at the cross wherein Jesus proclaimed "It is finished".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 5:28pm
Because of the facts.
Jesus said in Luke 16:16 "the law and the prophets were until John. Since then the Kingdom of G-d has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 08:49am
You still haven't answered my question Larry. Why are you not prepared to discuss the Old Testament when it comes to incitement to kill non believers?
Is it because you know you cannot win that argument?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:34pm
Hello Gren,
Please do not attempt to discuss the Talmud, because you neither know nor understand it. Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:03am
Nice evasion gren.
If you'd read my post, you would have realized that I wasn't citing or even discussing the Talmud, but quoting from a news source that cited the interpretation of the Talmud according to a Rabbi. If you have a problem with his interpretatino, take it up with him.
As for the teachings you being written at times when Jews lived as a hated, persecuted, alien minority, there are many Jews who still believe that.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:38pm
You still haven't answered my question Larry. Why are you not prepared to discuss the Old Testament when it comes to incitement to kill non believers?
Is it because you know you cannot win that argument?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:34pm
No, it's because it doesn't apply to Christians. Christians are not under the law of Moses. Christians are not called to proclaim the law of Moses. Christians live in the era of grace.
The OT scriptures that you are attempting to link to Christians ONLY apply to Israel and the Jews of Israel. Secondly, most were specific to points in history for Israel.
I will not make a linkage that doesn't apply no matter how much you want it to.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 6:43pm
Here is one example of why Larry is so specific about setting the goal posts about this debate.
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:43pm
No, it's because it doesn't apply to Christians. Christians are not under the law of Moses. Christians are not called to proclaim the law of Moses. Christians live in the era of grace.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 6:43pm
Of course it applies to Christians. Christianity is based on the entire Bible and Bible prophecy.
And you are wrong that Christians are not called to proclaim the law of Moses. Moses delivered the 10 Commandments did he not?
They do not apply specifically to Israel and the Jews of Israel. In fact, Israel and the Jews of Israel have their own holy book.
"I will not make a linkage that doesn't apply no matter how much you want it to."
Translation: I will not argue points I cannot win.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 6:47pm
It seems pointless to argue with someone who doesn't know the slightest thing about Christian doctrine.
My only concern is that there are people who know nothing of Christianity who might actually listen to your nonsense and believe that you actually know what you are talking about.
I have been a theologian for nearly 30 years and you think that you are the expert and I don't know what I'm talking about?
You are the type that hates truth, which is perhaps why you hate Christianity and Judaism so much.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 6:55pm
It seems pointless to argue with someone who doesn't know the slightest thing about Christian doctrine.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 6:55pm
I understand Larry . You can't win this argument so you are looking for an excuse not to debate it.
Yes I do know what I am talking about and having witnessed the content of your posts over a number of months, it is easy to conclude that your obsession with Israel is born of the very text that you denounce as having any relevance to Christianity.
You might be a theologian, but the gaping holes and contradictions in your argument, along with your right wing political beliefs has demonstrated that study is not guarantee against ignorance.
In fact, your very statement that Christianity and Judaism have anything to do with truth is a measure of how deranged and out of touch with reality you are.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:04pm
Another passage from the Bible, known in Christian circles as "The Good Book".
Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:05pm
Further, it is hamas itself which says it will not enter into a permanent peace treaty with Israel, but only a hudna, which is a temporary cease fire which can be broken in the vevent of various circumstances.
Posted by gren at 07/28/2009 @ 08:03am
Gren,
The peace treaty I was referring to was signed by 22 Arab States, that Israel has rejected, so unless you can find any reference to a hudna, I suggest you come up with something better.
Hamas has said it will enter into a long ceasefire with Israel and supoprt a 2 state option. It has not said anything about a hudna.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:12pm
How many Israeli's died is probably of more relevance.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 2:21pm
Please don't go there OneVote.
Israel is a foreign country with a population less than half of New York. Statistically speaking, if no Israelis died on 911, it would hardly be proof of a conspiracy.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:28pm
I understand Larry . You can't win this argument so you are looking for an excuse not to debate it.
Yes I do know what I am talking about and having witnessed the content of your posts over a number of months, it is easy to conclude that your obsession with Israel is born of the very text that you denounce as having any relevance to Christianity.
You might be a theologian, but the gaping holes and contradictions in your argument, along with your right wing political beliefs has demonstrated that study is not guarantee against ignorance.
In fact, your very statement that Christianity and Judaism have anything to do with truth is a measure of how deranged and out of touch with reality you are.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:04pm
you can never win an argument by your continued lying.
It's time to put you on ignore. Unfortunately, you are just another hater.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 7:30pm
antisocialist, if your best argument for the truth of the Bible is that, after endorsing horrific crimes, it contradicts itself, your argument requires an amoral God.
Let's say that we agree rape is unethical. Clearly, it would be equally amoral regardless of the time period in which it took place. Clearly, we could not draw a line in the sand and say that on one side of it, rape was moral, but on the other side amoral. But this is what your "God" does. He condones rape sometimes, supports it sometimes, and condemns even looking at a woman with lust on other occassions.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 7:33pm
By the way, how do you rationalize the loving nature of God with the hideous amorality of people being roasted in a furnace for all eternity because they masturbated, or had sex out of marriage, or had sexual fantasies, or questioned God's teachings, or didn't believe, or read books that expressed "impure" ideas?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 7:42pm
you can never win an argument by your continued lying.
It's time to put you on ignore. Unfortunately, you are just another hater.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 7:30pm
That's fine Larry, but whatever religious cult you belong, it isn't Christian.
Right wind extremists can only exist in hermetically sealed environments. Enojy yours.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:43pm
Especially since the infinite punishment is worse than the finite crimes, and none of the crimes I listed above are in my view amoral.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 7:45pm
Remember how during the campaign cycle Obamanation and the Demoncrats always lauded Joe Bidens vast foreign relations experience and competence! Bwahahahahah!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/28/2009 @ 08:11am
On this point, I have to say I am in 100% agreement with you BigPasture. I think Biden is experiencing the early signs of dementia.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:49pm
Statistically speaking, if no Israelis died on 911, it would hardly be proof of a conspiracy.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Statistically speaking you would be right. But that is not the context of the statement. The context is evacuation of Israeli citizens from the World Trade Center well before attack.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 7:49pm
The context is evacuation of Israeli citizens from the World Trade Center well before attack.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 7:49pm
Would you care to explain how the evacuation of Israeli citizens from the World Trade Center was carried out without anyone noticing?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 8:04pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/28/2009 @ 08:49am </i>
Hmmm...this seems like a nice challenge to inerrancy, wouldn't you say? Jesus clearly sets up "the kingdom of heaven" as a CONTRAST with the law and the prophets. Since the kingdom of heaven is, by definition, the anchor of good, that which is other than it falls short of it. In other words...his statement seems to entail that the law was NEVER a source of salvation, just as (which you haven't responded to at all) he says that what goes into you DOES NOT defile (and by implication, never did).
This helps solve one of the other problems of inerrancy: moral relativism. That way, when Jesus says things that clearly contradict prior law, you don't have to say "well, it was obligatory then, but it's wrong now." Ironic, isn't it? Inerrancy, which is built on the idea of creating a certain foundation, instead leads to moral relativism because it rejects the idea of moral principles that have always held true.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:12pm
<i>Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 7:33pm</i>
This isn't an argument against Christianity per se; it's an argument against inerrancy. More precisely tuned, in other words, the arguments you're making are reasons why I find it impossible to believe that the Bible is inerrant. I think anyone defending inerrancy has to ask themselves a few questions (keeping in mind the premise that God is perfectly good):
1) Can genocide be morally justified?
2) Can rape be morally justified?
But here's the kicker. Larry shoots himself in the foot right here:
<<The NT doesn't endorse slavery. We are told to accept whatever condition we find ourselves in, free or slave, because this world is not ours. Our Lord said His kingdom is not of this world and Colossians says that those who believe have been transferred as citizens from this kingdom of satan into the kingdom of the Son. >>
If you buy this argument, it follows inescapably that the movement to abolish slavery was wrong. Why? Because if we should accept the situation in which we find ourselves, slaves should accept being slaves and masters should accept being masters.
So to Larry, are you willing to say that:
a) Genocide can be morally justified b) Rape can be morally justified c) The antislavery movement was wrong
Or are you willing to perhaps suggest that the Bible is not inerrant and Paul's conclusion may have been mistaken?
This isn't meant to be a cheap shot at Christianity, Larry, I really do mean it as an honest question. Quite frankly, I think problems like those I've listed are reasons why I've honestly found myself utterly unable to defend inerrancy. I don't think Christianity necessitates it and I find it an incredibly hard (if not impossible) position to defend.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:24pm
Would you care to explain how the evacuation of Israeli citizens from the World Trade Center was carried out without anyone noticing?
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't come to work tomorrow on orders of Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Google "Operation Northwoods" and let me know what you think................
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 8:27pm
I don't think Christianity necessitates it and I find it an incredibly hard (if not impossible) position to defend.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:24pm
Outstanding arguments Thrawn .
Those like Larry, will always argue from the position that there is no contradiction in the Bible, or that perceived contradictions are evidence of poor comprehension of the text and it's context.
Larry's inconsistencies are further exacerbated by his political ideology, which is itself riddled with racism, bigotry and an undying taste for right wing authoritarianism.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 8:58pm
Google "Operation Northwoods" and let me know what you think................
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 8:27pm
I know all about it. Blowing up a plane over the Carribean where no one can see it is one thing. Blowing up shy scrapers in full view of billions of people is another.
Northwoods was never pulled off.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 9:02pm
Thrawn does indeed make good points.
So, antisocialist, let me ask you this: why would you worship a God that you openly admit you believe lacks any fixed values of any kind save for that everyone should do as he says?
Shingo, what makes you say antisocialist is a racist? Nothing I've read by him displays any real bigotry at all. Maybe this is because I'm politically on his side at least with regard to abortion, foreign policy, and healthcare, but I don't think that is a fair thing to say about him just because the two of you disagree.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 9:23pm
Shingo, what makes you say antisocialist is a racist?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 9:23pm
Here's one example. Where as you listened to the substance of my argument and challenged me on those points, antisocialist simply dismissed me as being a jihadist.
There's plenty other examples. While you and I disagree on practically everything, at least you're a stand up guy.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 10:08pm
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Think you are conveniently forgeting a few details there pal...........
Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Operation Northwoods memorandum (March 13, 1962).[1]Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.
The plan stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.
Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:29pm
Well, him calling you a jihadist was rather bizarre and seemed somewhat hysterical, which was one reason I wrote earlier that, while I didn't agree with you, you were winning the debate on Israel/Palestine. That still doesn't prove he is a racist.
I also bet we don't disagree on some domestic issues. I don't know for sure, but seeing as your political views are far left, I imagine you would agree with me that drugs should be taxed and regulated, prostitution should be as well, flag burning should not be outlawed, ect.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 10:37pm
Northwoods was never pulled off.
Posted by Shingo at 07/28/2009 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
But it was contemplated wasn't it - seriously contemplated.
What you should be expressing disbelief on is that our government could ever even contemplate such an act. Your focus on the scale of 9/11 versus Northwoods is seriously missing the point. Once such an act is on the table for discussion, you are already down the rat hole of tyranny.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:47pm
James Bamford summary
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:59pm
I also bet we don't disagree on some domestic issues. I don't know for sure, but seeing as your political views are far left, I imagine you would agree with me that drugs should be taxed and regulated, prostitution should be as well, flag burning should not be outlawed, ect.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/28/2009 @ 10:37pm
While I probably come across as a far lefty to you, I actually gravitate much more to Libertarianism. I would have picked Ron Paul over Obama any day, so yes, on domestic issues, we would probably see eye to eye .
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 12:21am
But it was contemplated wasn't it - seriously contemplated.
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 10:47pm
Contemplated, perhaps, but how seriously is debatable.
There are countless crazy ideas being tossed around at government levels that never see the light of day.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 12:24am
There are countless crazy ideas being tossed around at government levels that never see the light of day.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 12:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
Really? And executed and approved by joint Chiefs of Staff?
Give me some examples - similar to Operation Northwoods.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 12:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are a fish out of water on this one.
Don't offer advice on 9/11 to others when you have no idea what you are talking about. That is my advice to you. Capiche?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 08:04am
Posted by OneVote at 07/28/2009 @ 3:26pm
70 million out of 300 million is...
23%.
Congrats. That's about 10% LESS than the number of Americans who believe aliens have visited us.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:32am
Congrats. That's about 10% LESS than the number of Americans who believe aliens have visited us.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 08:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well - that is 70 million out of the populace that is "old" enough to have an opinion on the matter I presume.
If we take that 70 million and divide by voting age population (approx 213 M?),the ratio climbs to 32%.....oh boy Maskie......
If we take that 70 million and divide it by votes caste in the 2008 presidential election (124 M?),the percentage climbs to 56%. I would of course recommend using votes caste as a measure of a citizen's concern over governmental affairs, and at least a passing knowledge of domestic and international events.
So.........you were saying?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 10:36am
Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:12pm
The law was never the source of salvation for the Jews. It is blood atonement.
Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.'
Leviticus 16 provides the entire procedure for the Chief Priest to make atonement with a sacrifice of blood for himself, for the Holy Place, and for all of the people of Israel, for the forgiveness of their sins.
I didn't know you asked me about food defilement. I agree with Jesus obviously that it's not what you put in your body that defiles you, but what is in your heart. I don't know what that has to do with the issue at hand.
The kingdom of heaven is a contrast to this world since this world is called by Jesus as ruled by satan.
The kingdom of heaven is the promise for those who trust in Jesus to be delivered from this world and all of it's corruption.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:13am
Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:24pm
a) Genocide- the OT instances of genocide dealt with tribes of people that were engaged in totally depraved living. They even would sacrifice their children and drink the blood. G-d ordered that genocide which is HIS RIGHT.
The Bible says that all mankind deserves death because we are sinful. That G-d has allowed any to live at all speaks to His mercy.
b) the Bible does not state that rape is morally justified. In Deut 22:25-29 it states that if you rape a married woman, the penalty is death. It states that if she is unmarried, you are punished by paying the father of the woman and then marrying her with no future option for divorce. What do you think is the likelihood that such man would have a pleasant life after that?
c)The antislavery movement was right because it confronted a lie proposed that the Bible justified Christians creating slaves. The bible does no such thing.
This does not contradict what I said about being satisfied with whatever state you find yourself in. Slavery is not G-d's will or desire. But our life is not about this world. It is living in the kingdom now (spiritually) as we prepare to live in it phsyically.
Frankly, just as I have never found anyone's argument against inerrancy to have merit during the past 30 years, I still don't find where you have made any arguments that damage or debunk this essential doctrine of Christianity. Whereas you find it difficult to defend because of a lack of comprehension on supposed contradictions, I find it easy when you understand scripture and basic hermeneutics.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:27am
antisocialist-Having God allow us to live does not show that God has mercy.You keep forgetting that God created us to be the way we are and is responsible for much of what we do.The OT states that a woman cannot be raped in town and must be put to death if she claims she was raped in town.That is insane.If you have to marry a woman that you raped then it is the woman who is being punished and not the man.The Bible does allow slavery so the anti slavery movement violated both the teaching about accepting your lot in life and the fact that slavery is allowed.If slavery was not your Gods will or desire then your God would have made it illegal,but did not do so even though your God had the perfect opportunity to do so considering the fact that the Jews had been slaves.The fact that you ignore arguments that dispute your views does not mean that you are correct.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/29/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:27am
"b) the Bible does not state that rape is morally justified. In Deut 22:25-29 it states that if you rape a married woman, the penalty is death. It states that if she is unmarried, you are punished by paying the father of the woman and then marrying her with no future option for divorce. What do you think is the likelihood that such man would have a pleasant life after that?"
And what do you think the likely hood is, that the WOMAN (i.e. victim) would have a pleasant life after that?
"The Bible says that all mankind deserves death because we are sinful. That G-d has allowed any to live at all speaks to His mercy."
Wow! What a prick. And this is the 'god" you worship?
I want to belong to a cult which claims moral superiority, amidst the self flagellating belief that they don't even deserve to live.
Maybe, just maybe, your world view isn't the best vantage point from which to judge others. Nor, perhaps, to formulate ideas about life and culture, that may move humanity forward to something other than our immanent demise and subsequent judgement by the guy who thinks we're not worthy to live.
Ramen.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 07/29/2009 @ 12:11pm
antisocialist-The reason that people have vastly different views about Scripture is because it is not easy to understand and because it contains contradictions.People have come up with different explanations for these contradictions just as people define born again in different ways.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/29/2009 @ 12:14pm
And what do you think the likely hood is, that the WOMAN (i.e. victim) would have a pleasant life after that?
Posted by Malcontent at 07/29/2009 @ 12:11pm
Compare that to her outcome in Islam or other religions where she would have been stoned to death or killed by other means.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
antisocialist-A married woman who claims to have been raped in town is put to death, according to the Bible, and right and wrong is not a comparison thing.Just because another religion has a worse punishment does not make the other punishment right.Your God punishes a rape victim.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/29/2009 @ 12:21pm
So, antisocialist DID answer one of Thrawn's questions, the one about if genocide could be morally justifiable. He said it could be and has been. He even said that if "God" ordered the extermination of 99% of all humans, it would actually be proof of His mercy because of the 1% that remained alive. He then said that we are all SO sinful, we MIGHT AS WELL just die. All of us. We all disgrace God. He noted that the tribes that he says deserved extermination often killed their own children, though the Bible says children who are disobedient or stray from the faith should be murdered. He said that they lived in a depraved manner while he was dehumanizing them, though to him, masturbation or sex out of marriage is probably enough to be called depraved. He conceded that the Bible does punish rape VICTIMS, but keenly noted in a pathetic call for moral relativism that while this wasn't EXACTLY moral PER SE, "other religions are EVEN MORE unethical than mine, which PROVES that MY religion is true!" Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe it just goes to show you that organized religion is a corrupt and rigid system that oppressively mandates mass conformity as regards dress and ethics and art and sex and recreation and literature and that vows infinite torture for thought crimes that the invisible man in the sky who is always reading your mind can convict you of. How else but due to a rigid and conformist doctrine could a morally normal person like antisocialist defend genocide in the context of his Church TOLD him it was defensible? His argument has become morally and intellectually untenable as well as indefensible.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 1:54pm
How else but due to a rigid and conformist doctrine could a morally normal person like antisocialist defend genocide in the context of his Church TOLD him it was defensible? His argument has become morally and intellectually untenable as well as indefensible.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 1:54pm
My "church" didn't tell me anything; It was G-d who did so.
Your whole stand is based upon the premise that YOUR moral standards are suprerior to that of G-d. that makes you a son of your father, the devil as Jesus would state it.
So it seems that your name is a lie and you don't stand for liberty at all. You stand for enslavement to the bondage of both evil and the ego of man that elevates himself as higher than G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
"Compare that to her outcome in Islam or other religions where she would have been stoned to death or killed by other means."
OK. Then compare her outcome to a secular/ rationalist outcome, where the perp is incarcerated and the victim receives help.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:18pm
"So it seems that your name is a lie and you don't stand for liberty at all. You stand for enslavement to the bondage of both evil and the ego of man that elevates himself as higher than G-d."
I see, loveliberty v.4.0 Then, you stand for enslavement to the bondage of both evil and the ego of "god" that elevates himself as higher than rational thought, forged in the minds he created. With penalty of eternal death, for dis-belief.
Beleive as you wish. But please explain how worshiping anything/anyone expands your, or anyone elses liberty? Seriously.
Posted by Malcontent at 07/29/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:18pm
"Your whole stand is based upon the premise that YOUR moral standards are suprerior to that of G-d. that makes you a son of your father, the devil as Jesus would state it."
Is that a typo or nonsense? One is the son of his father, regardless. What is that suppossed to mean? I am the devil?
Posted by Malcontent at 07/29/2009 @ 3:19pm
"Your whole stand is based upon the premise that YOUR moral standards are suprerior to that of G-d. that makes you a son of your father, the devil as Jesus would state it."
Is that a typo or nonsense? One is the son of his father, regardless. What is that suppossed to mean? I am the devil?
Posted by Malcontent at 07/29/2009 @ 3:19pm
Jesus proclaimed that we are either the children of the devil or children of G-d. He further stated that if you reject Him, you are rejecting the Father also. We are only the children of G-d through faith in Christ.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:37pm
My stand is indeed based on the premise that genocide is always indefensible and that rape victims should not be forced to live the rest of their lives married to their rapist or else be tortured forever in Hell. If God disagrees on these points, he is frankly a wicked despot and I would sure wish regime change is possible. But you have no evidence at all that God has said those things. Your argument is based on the premise that you JUST KNOW the Bible is unarguably the word of God even if it does command amorality and contradict itself and even though it is riddled with proven scientific errors and historical fabrications, from the story of the Nativity involving a major fabrication to get Jesus to Bethlehem to the belief that the universe is 6,000 years old to the impossibility of the plagarism Noah's Ark fairy tale to the idea that plants could live without the sun and all human languages developed all at once and all creatures were created exactly as they are right now simultaneously. If God had wanted to reveal spiritual truths to the authors of the Bible, he would have revealed scientific truths that everyone at the time would have laughed at so that when they were proven true everyone would have no doubt as to which religion was the truth. Instead, most everything in the Bible that could be proven true or false was proven false. All that remains are spiritual revelations that cannot be proven true or false. Are we to take it at face value in the name of faith that God revealed spiritual truths to us in this way so that we have no reason to think them correct ON PURPOSE to, uh... "test us"? Especially since He'll torture us forever if we don't believe? Is God pathologically insane?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 4:13pm
Is God pathologically insane?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 4:13pm
No, just those like yourself who deny Him.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:26pm
If that is your best rebuttal to my argument, I think you've lost this debate.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 4:32pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:13am </i>
This isn't a response to the argument because the argument wasn't addressing salvation. My argument was that the OT clearly says that things like food can defile you. That's why, when Jesus' followers weren't following ritual purity, he had to make the statement about food not defiling you to begin with. His statement was mutually exclusive with what Levicitus maintained, as were many others of his (love your enemy). If loving your enemy was the law, that which prescribed otherwise (previous law, as Jesus himself says) did not accurately reflect objective moral principles.
But then, the real interesting part comes:
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:27am </i>
Is your position that God is morally justified in committing genocide? Including against children? That's your position? If God is justified in doing literally anything he wants, saying "God is good" means absolutely nothing. A morality which places no limits on what an actor may justifiably do might as well not exist.
But...I don't even need to rely on that argument because you make a huge concession. You say that the antislavery movement was right. Unfortunately, you completely miss why that kills inerrancy. Paul says, as you aptly point out, that everyone should be content as they are. This means that slaves should be content to be slaves, masters should be content to be masters, and everyone in general should be content with the status quo because this world doesn't matter. Leave aside for a moment that this ISN'T what Jesus said. If everyone should be content where they are, movements to spur massive social change are at best misplaced or at worst wrong. Inerrancy can't accomodate reform because your Paul quote says we shouldn't.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:44pm
So in sum, here's why inerrancy fails:
1) On the question of genocide, it trivializes the statement "God is good" AND simultaneously trivializes the very notion of objective morality. Genocide is totally wrong...unless you believe God commands you to do it. Moreover, your position ACTUALLY SAYS that God can basically do whatever he wants to people. At that point, saying "God is good" means literally nothing.
2) On the question of rape, your position is blatantly nonresponsive. Imprisoning a woman in a marriage with her rapist is torture. It's wrong. The fact that there are systems worst than that doesn't change the fact that it was wrong. Humans might be excused for doing wrong on the path to improvement, but God doesn't command evil. Simple as that.
3) On social change, you concede while refusing to admit it. Paul's quote unambiguously entails that efforts for social change are misguided; "everyone should be content where they are" can mean nothing else. This means, by implication, that the antislavery movement was mistaken rather than morally necessary. You reject this...as do I...but inerrancy must affirm it.
4) Your position can't accomodate statements by Jesus that are mutually exclusive with previous requirements, whether those requirements be moral or ritual. He rejects some of both. Either morality itself changed (doubtful), or the prior law got somewhat close but somewhat missed the boat (i.e....had errors).
You either reject objective morality or reject inerrancy. Take your pick. For me, the choice is pretty simple, especially since you've never proven why inerrancy is necessary.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:49pm
One slight clarification on the genocide stuff: explain to me how a perfectly loving God can command the slaughter of children.
As I've said, the choice seems relatively clear. The Catholic Church calls its position inerrancy, but as far as I know, it doesn't say that God actually commanded genocide. Why? Because it realizes that your brand of inerrancy has some serious flaws.
I've given you four independent arguments, all of which are sufficient to show why inerrancy is hopelessly flawed.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:52pm
Is God pathologically insane?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 4:13pm
No, just those like yourself who deny Him.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:26pm
If that is your best rebuttal to my argument, I think you've lost this debate.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 4:32pm
I don't think so. It is insanity to not only deny G-d, but then to call Him Insane is itself the height of insanity.
I mean what will be your comeback at your judgment? "I was just joking"?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 6:56pm
I didn't call God insane, because He doesn't exist. I asked why He revealed His word in such a way as to make most of what was written in the book that revealed it that could be proven true or false be proven false, leaving only unprovable spiritual revelations divorced entirely from facts and not supported by any (such spiritual truths cannot be proven true or false). If He did it to test us, that is ludicrous given that if scientific facts proven to be true were revealed in the Bible, everyone would know what religion was true (and given that He'll torture us forever if we don't believe). Re-read my earlier post and respond to my argument or give up. Don't ask me how I'll defend myself on judgement day.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 7:54pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 6:56pm </i>
Judgment? Hmm...that's another interesting question. So if someone, through every bit of exploring they can do, comes to the conclusion that God doesn't exist...they go to hell to? I guess that means when Jesus said "I will draw all men to myself"...he really just meant "some men." Same with "as all were dead in Adam, all in Christ are made alive."
And, now that I think about it, what about the story (not meant as metaphorical, I don't think) in which God repents for considering the destruction of the children of Israel? Did God actually repent? Or did someone just think he did? Because that puts you in a bind between either God not being morally perfect or the Bible not being inerrant.
As I said, I mean all of this in earnest questioning and dialogue. It seems that the more time goes on, the more the cumulative case builds against inerrancy. Some important arguments still wait to be responded to.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 8:12pm
antisocialist apparently believes that everything God does is automatically morally justified BECAUSE God says that He is the basis of morality EVEN THOUGH God's alleged word contradicts itself on matters of ethics! If you argue with him, he tells you that you're going straight to Hell. Perhaps he is simply willing to say that morality is flexible, relative, and subjective to the will of God out of fear of Hell. He tells us all to condone genocide against children while refusing to kill. If we say no, he says God will punish us. This requires "principles" that are LITERALLY infinitely elastic. If he can only defend this unprincipled stance through threats, it stands to reason that one could conclude that being threatened, rather than reasoning with sequential logic, is the primary motivating factor leading him towards his point of view.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:05pm
Perhaps he is simply willing to say that morality is flexible, relative, and subjective to the will of God out of fear of Hell. He tells us all to condone genocide against children while refusing to kill. If we say no, he says God will punish us. This requires "principles" that are LITERALLY infinitely elastic.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:05pm
Very well put libertyfortheoppressed. Larry often cites his 30 years of theological studies to buttress his argument,s, but in the end, his fallback position is that God works in mysterious ways.
It reminds me of a creationist who goes to great lengths to cite scientific "evidence" to debunk evolution, but when asked why, if T-Rex as ealy a vegetarian, did he need such big teeth. The answer given was to eat watermellons.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 02:15am
This isn't a response to the argument because the argument wasn't addressing salvation
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:44pm
Actually you did say the law was a source of salvation
< Since the kingdom of heaven is, by definition, the anchor of good, that which is other than it falls short of it. In other words...his statement seems to entail that the law was NEVER a source of salvation Posted by Thrawn at 07/28/2009 @ 8:12pm >
The purpose of the law was 1) to provide a distinction between the pagans and the Jews for right living before G-d, 2) the impossibility of keeping all parts of the law was to show the Jews that man can never be good enough on their own to achieve right standing with G-d. So when Jesus appears and begins teaching kingdom living precepts, He is not saying the Law was wrong. He is saying that at the next level, the one where you are reborn and empowered by the Holy Spirit, there is a new dynamic at work in your life.
Where the genocide comes in is due to the corruption of nature in the Jewish people (as with all people). In order to prevent their ultimate total destruction and slide into the same depravity as others, G-d ordered the genocide, including children.
A couple of points to this:
1.As I said previously, because of sin, all mankind is deserving of death and scripture makes this clear.
2.Every response of yours (as with others who disbelieve) is based upon "your view of moral good". It is not based upon G-d's standards.
Your belief system apparently cannot accomodate the concept that G-d's moral standards and justice is different from your own and superior to your own.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:44pm Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:49pm Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:52pm
Continued response
1.Here is G-d's explanation to Moses < "However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).
3. As to the children
Probably the most difficult part of these commands from God is that God ordered the death of children and infants as well. Why would God order the death of innocent children? (1) Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). (2) These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents. (3) By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. This is because G-d does not make them accountable until they reach an age of a capacity to reason out right from wrong and make those decisions.
<God is justified in doing literally anything he wants, saying "God is good" means absolutely nothing. A morality which places no limits on what an actor may justifiably do might as well not exist>
Again you are applying "your version of what is moral".
G-d's actions ALWAYS bring the right moral outcome
Your conflict continues to be YOUR morality view that justice should never entail complete punishment.
This is the entire problem with any attempt to entrust moral judgments to mankind. One person may say that any punishment is too much.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 09:51am
to Thrawn continued;
Your battle with inerrancy actually centers in large part on this concept that finds supposed errors or contradictions in the Bible based upon "YOUR" moral views, and not of someone beyond yourself.
In other areas, you evidently lack any training or instruction in basic biblical hermeneutics. The examples are numerous, but your inclusion here of the supposed "repentance" of G-d is a good one.
the Hebrew word here, naham, means to sigh. It was used by the Jews to attempt a description of G-ds actions in response to their own.
In some cases, G-d sighed as only a parent can when their child does just the opposite of what you told them to do.
In some cases, it reflects G-d emoting over His ability to change His course of action in response to Israel righting themselves and doing the right thing. In none of these cases did it mean that G-d had to compromise His righteousness or His standards.
As to a supposed contradiction in Jesus drawing all mankind unto Himself and yet people still going to hell, your argument again falls short.
Jesus offers all mankind the reversal of their sentence of death. But the offer doesn't equal fulfillment for each individual. That's because it is contingent on acceptance and change by the individual. No one is forced to receive Christ as their savior. People can and do reject Him and the gift of salvation. You can find them right here at the Nation who proudly claim that they prefer hell.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:02am
2) On the question of rape, your position is blatantly nonresponsive.
3) On social change, you concede while refusing to admit it. Paul's quote unambiguously entails that efforts for social change are misguided; "everyone should be content where they are" can mean nothing else. This means, by implication, that the antislavery movement was mistaken rather than morally necessary. You reject this...as do I...but inerrancy must affirm it.
4) Your position can't accomodate statements by Jesus that are mutually exclusive with previous requirements, whether those requirements be moral or ritual. He rejects some of both. Either morality itself changed (doubtful), or the prior law got somewhat close but somewhat missed the boat (i.e....had errors).
You either reject objective morality or reject inerrancy. Take your pick. For me, the choice is pretty simple, especially since you've never proven why inerrancy is necessary.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:49pm
There has been nothing you have offered that weakens the inerrancy argument. As I've said, your conclusions are formed by your decision to substitute YOUR moral views over that of G-d.
On the rape, prior to the Law, the practice was the same with the Jews as with the pagans. The woman was always killed or exiled out of the community simply for being the victim.
Do you honestly believe that it is worse to be dead or homeless than to continue to live in stability and with the support of family and community?
G-d is also providing the offending man with the opportunity to change. Do you not find that a good thing?
Slavery issue to follow
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:11am
3) On social change, you concede while refusing to admit it. Paul's quote unambiguously entails that efforts for social change are misguided; "everyone should be content where they are" can mean nothing else. This means, by implication, that the antislavery movement was mistaken rather than morally necessary. You reject this...as do I...but inerrancy must affirm it.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/29/2009 @ 5:49pm
My answer remains essentially the same. This is also borne out when Paul tells Philemon that while he is in his rights under Roman law not to free Onesimus, Paul hopes that Philemon will see that Onesimus is a fellow brother in Christ and should be received and treated as if he were Paul himself.
Likewise, we are told to be submissive to our human govts. In most of human history, govts have not had any real sense of democracy and the equal worth of all men and women. Therefore, since we are not called to change govts but people, it is consistent to say that we must be content in the situations that we find ourselves.
But the US is different. It is the first govt that really opened the door (despite shortcomings in the initial constitution) to acknowledge G-d's pre-eminent role in giving liberty and rights to all mankind. Because of that, Christians were able to push to have leaders recognize the ultimate truth of what they had already incorporated; that all men as the Declaration of Independence stated, all men are endowed by their creator with these rights of liberty, justice, and equality.
And this is the message of the gospel. As Paul stated, in Christ, there is neither slave, nor free, both are equal with G-d. If both are equal with G-d then human govts need to recognize this.
Inerrancy is thus not affected in the slightest.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:22am
antisocialist-A rape victim who is forced to live with her rapist is not getting the support of family or community nor did your God provide the rapist with the opportunity to change,but gave the rapist his victim so that the rapist could keep raping her.On top of that the rapist can continue to rape virgins and keep getting them since no limits were placed on how many virgins you could rape and keep.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 10:26am
antisocialist-There is no way to whitewash what the Bible says about rape and slavery and it is meaningless to attempt to do so.It is not just non believers who decided that some of what your God said was moral is immoral.Most Christians arrived at that conclusion,also,and got rid of slavery and decided that rape victims are victims and it would be immoral to kill them if they live in town or force them to marry their rapist.You,also,believe yourself to be more moral than your God.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 10:35am
antisocialist-You keep forgetting to mention that married rape victims who live in town are punished by death for being a rape victim.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 10:46am
antisocialist, your circular reasoning is a joke. You cannot even come up with a proper justification for genocide. You say you know it was just because the Bible SAID SO, and give us "G-d's explanation to Moses". When rationalizing the extermination of children, the best you come up with is: "Children are not innocent (Psalm 51:5; 58:3)". Then, you start trying to contradict yourself on this point, saying "By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have entrance into Heaven. This is because G-d does not make them accountable until they reach an age of a capacity to reason out right from wrong and make those decisions." If they cannot use reason to distinguish right from wrong, then they ARE innocent, after all! "This is because G-d does not make them accountable"? He doesn't make them "accountable" for the crimes of their parents but He does exterminate them in the name of retribution for such crimes? AND THEN you start trying to contradict yourself AGAIN, saying that they don't deserve to go to Heaven because God knew that in the future they would have been "evil". If He knew that, why would He invite children who would grow up to be evil to Heaven? Then you say "These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents." Ah-ha! That explains it! They were killed because you say it was "likely" that they would have prayed to a different God!
"On the rape, prior to the Law, the practice was the same with the Jews as with the pagans. The woman was always killed or exiled out of the community simply for being the victim. "
So? "These laws are even MORE unethical than my religion's!!!!" That doesn't make "God's" laws any more moral.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:50am
"Do you honestly believe that it is worse to be dead or homeless than to continue to live in stability and with the support of family and community? "
The "family" that antisocialist here says offers "support" to the rape victim is her rapist.
"You can find them right here at the Nation who proudly claim that they prefer hell."
No. They don't BELIEVE in Hell.
"Your belief system apparently cannot accomodate the concept that G-d's moral standards and justice is different from your own and superior to your own. "
No, they cannot accomodate the idea that God's morals are always objectively true even if God's moral standards change across time and repeatedly contradict themselves on numerous occassions over and over again. You reject the idea of objective morality.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:57am
"Your battle with inerrancy actually centers in large part on this concept that finds supposed errors or contradictions in the Bible based upon "YOUR" moral views, and not of someone beyond yourself. "
No, the contradictions in the Bible are not based on our individual concept of morality. They are based on those moral standards of "God". God commands genocide. Then He says never kill even in self-defense. Then He says kill disrespectful children. Then He says all children are too innocent to distinguish right from wrong and will go to Heaven when killed. God's standards cannot be objectively always right if they contradict themselves unless you do not believe in objective morality.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:03pm
If they cannot use reason to distinguish right from wrong, then they ARE innocent, after all! "This is because G-d does not make them accountable"? He doesn't make them "accountable" for the crimes of their parents but He does exterminate them in the name of retribution for such crimes? AND THEN you start trying to contradict yourself AGAIN, saying that they don't deserve to go to Heaven because God knew that in the future they would have been "evil". If He knew that, why would He invite children who would grow up to be evil to Heaven? Then you say "These children would have likely grown up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents." Ah-ha! That explains it! They were killed because you say it was "likely" that they would have prayed to a different God!
"On the rape, prior to the Law, the practice was the same with the Jews as with the pagans. The woman was always killed or exiled out of the community simply for being the victim. "
So? "These laws are even MORE unethical than my religion's!!!!" That doesn't make "God's" laws any more moral.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:50am
No one on earth is born innocent. We are all born in sin. However, because children up to the age of accountability are not able to make a reasoned decision not to sin, G-d does not judge them to hell. The same would hold true of a severely retarded person.
You have entered a number of convoluted points that are not mine,but reflect your own conclusions that have no basis in scripture.
And those laws are unethical in your view. As I said to Thrawn, you are basing your conclusion on your moral standards which are purely subjective, as are every persons when they rely upon their own judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 12:38pm
antisocialist-What sin did the newborn commit?That is the question that you guys can never answer because you know that the child was not born in sin,but just repeat what the Bible says without thought because you are too scared of this God to question these things.. You believe that many of those laws are immoral and have stated that slavery is a sin even though your God said that it is not a sin.Nor do you advocate that we force rape victims to marry their rapist because you believe that to be immoral.You use your own judgment just like those you are pointing the finger at.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 12:48pm
No, the contradictions in the Bible are not based on our individual concept of morality. They are based on those moral standards of "God". God commands genocide. Then He says never kill even in self-defense. Then He says kill disrespectful children. Then He says all children are too innocent to distinguish right from wrong and will go to Heaven when killed. God's standards cannot be objectively always right if they contradict themselves unless you do not believe in objective morality.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:03pm
1. G-d never said you cannot kill in self defense. If you are trying to suggest that from the 10 commandments, the correct wording from the Hebrew rasah which always means to murder with premeditation. This is different from the Hebrew word nakah which is used to describe accidental killing or where there is doubt that it was intentional.
2. Death to children was ordered for children who cursed their parents. this doesn't mean speaking a vulgarity. this is a child who calls for death and disaster to come upon his/her parents. If a child has that much hate towards the parents, how much more will they hate and bring wrongdoing to others? There is no chance that this person will honor or obey G-d.
You may find that harsh, but it's because like many, you only think in terms of this time in the span of eternity.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:06pm
"No one on earth is born innocent. We are all born in sin. However, because children up to the age of accountability are not able to make a reasoned decision not to sin, G-d does not judge them to hell"
But he does command them to be exterminated.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 1:20pm
"2. Death to children was ordered for children who cursed their parents. this doesn't mean speaking a vulgarity. this is a child who calls for death and disaster to come upon his/her parents. If a child has that much hate towards the parents, how much more will they hate and bring wrongdoing to others? There is no chance that this person will honor or obey G-d. "
What if they have abusive parents?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 1:24pm
antisocialist-It is a fact that children grow and change and it is a fact that there are hardened criminals who have turned their lives around making your claim that those bad children will never be able to honor or obey God untrue.Of course,the parents may deserve to be cursed because not all parents are good parents.Your excuses for these laws are poor excuses that are easy to be shown to be poor excuses.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 1:26pm
antisocialist-A child who acts out in that manner was either raised to act that way or they have something wrong with them and you do not kill children because they were raised wrong or because they have a medical or psychiatric issue.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2009 @ 1:40pm
What if they have abusive parents?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 1:24pm
Then G-d will judge the parents for it.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:49pm
Then G-d will judge the parents for it.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:49pm
So like taxes, God gets you not once, but twice.
So explain toi use what happens to still born children Larry? They are not free from sin and have not had a chance to repent, and cannot enter heaven, so they are screwed right? Is there any fine print in the Bible for these unfortunates?
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 6:06pm
No one on earth is born innocent. We are all born in sin. However, because children up to the age of accountability are not able to make a reasoned decision not to sin, G-d does not judge them to hell. The same would hold true of a severely retarded person.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 12:38pm
Guilty until proven innocent. Another sign of God's eternal love for us.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 7:06pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:02am </i>
Let's deal with one core area of clash. You say that many of my arguments stem from my own moral sense. That's somewhat true. You say that God's moral sense is superior to ours. Also true. However, it does not follow from that that "good" means entirely different things to us and to God...because if that were true, saying "God is good" would mean virtually nothing. That's the huge problem you run into; whatever God is said to have done, you say "well, God's ways are higher than ours." The question I've posed to you stands: is there anything someone could attribute to God for which you could say "God could not have done that because God is good." At the point where you've condoned genocide, I feel like that will be difficult.
The other problem is this: my arguments aren't all about a clash between my moral intuitions and what God is said to have done. I also argue from internal incoherencies within the texts themselves. Many of these arguments get only superficial responses.
So let's go to the genocide argument:
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 09:39am </i>
You say, essentially, that the genocide can be justified in moral terms. I find this problematic at the outset because I don't believe genocide CAN be justified, and unless you reject the concept of it as a categorical war crime, I don't see how you can either.
Even if you could justify it, though, the sparse justification you offer is terrible. Literally, it's "they teach bad things, so they'll drive you to sin." If you buy this argument, and you also buy your opposition to Islam, explain how the same reasoning wouldn't justify nuking Mecca.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 9:55pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 09:39am </i>
Argument #2: Ritual purity. You offer no response whatsoever. I confess that my word choice was poor; I did not mean to imply that the law was a source of salvation. What I did mean to say was that at the time of Leviticus, it was understood that certain foods could render you defiled. That was the belief. Jesus says "only what comes in can defile." Unless you affirm moral relativism, Jesus statement means "what you eat could NOT defile." Jesus' statement is mutually exclusive with what the Old Testament taught. Why does that matter? Because God does not teach that which is false. If food never defiled, God did not teach that it defiled.
Argument #3: Rape. Virtually no response. "There were laws out there that were worse" isn't a response. The fact that the law allowing rapists to marry their victims is morally repugnant...stands. You've never challenged this premise because it's clearly true. "But it could be worse" isn't a good justification.
Argument #4: Slavery. This is actually one of the more interesting ones. Your response, though fascinating, isn't responsive. My argument isn't that the Bible finds slavery OK. My argument is that the specific statement given from Paul finds antislavery MOVEMENTS problematic. When he says "slaves should remain slaves," the fact that they're TREATED a bit better doesn't make them not slaves, and this position STILL opposes any effort to actually make slavery illegal. Paul's statement of "stay as you are," again, can mean nothing else.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:02pm
Finally, Argument #5: Repentance. Here's where you're simply wrong:
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:02am </i>
You can't explain away the repentance verse (and yes, there are multiple) as simply "He simply sighed." Here are a few (with the first being the one I thought of):
Exodus 32:14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
That's not sighing. There's a clear sequence of "God planned to do X, God then repented and decided not do." That is a change of heart, a huge problem for your theology. One more:
Jonah 3:10 God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them.
Finally, the universal salvation issue, where again your interpretive framework doesn't fit the verse.
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 10:02am </i>
This isn't responsive to the two verses. The first says "I will draw all men to myself," not "I will encourage all men to follow me." The closest read seems to be "I will carry all men with me." At the very least, it signals that only your ACTIVE REJECTION could possibly send you to hell, which is much more expansive than what you defend.
The other one, even more problematic for you, is "as in Adam, all were dead, in Christ all are made alive." Original sin is understood as universal, therefore, the gift of Christ is universal. Original sin also (by YOUR OWN argument) comes to human beings without our choice. Therefore, since Paul seeks a precise analogy between the two things, the gift of Christ ALSO comes without our choice. Again, the most conservative interpretation possible is that God will not force anyone to go to heaven. That still means that the only way someone doesn't go to heaven is if they choose not to.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:09pm
Here's a few more, just in case they're needed:
"All mankind shall see God's salvation- Luke 3:6"
"I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers , neither height nor depth, nor anything in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."- Romans 8:38-9
"On this mountain the Lord Almight will prepare a feast of rich foods for all peoples, a banquet of aged wines- the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away tears fromall farces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth." - Isaiah 25:6-8.
And here's a nice one, too.
"I am God and not man- the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath."- Hosea 11:9
You cannot say that your stance on salvation is derivable from an inerrant Bible because there are parts that simply don't say what you want them to say. They affirm a God who is, not just in word, but in deed, perfectly loving and perfectly gracious. Slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. You don't worship God because he's infinitely powerful; you worship him because he's infinitely good, beyond what we even dare to be. That is why the gospels are actually gospel. Not because they provide a tiny chance for salvation, but because they proclaim a God who cannot be contained by the narrow boxes we humans try to draw around him. " My argument is: the God who never stops looking for sheep #100 never gives up on anyone, just as the Prodigal Son's father never gave on him. As Revelation itself says, the gates of heaven never slam shut.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:21pm
Just so we're clear, I don't defend universal salvation because I don't believe God is coercive. The best way I can think to put it is this: God will never drag any individual back to the gates, BUT he will constantly, eternally be standing at the door ready to welcome with open arms anyone who decides to join the party (and by all descriptions given, that's what the kingdom of heaven is...a giant banquet, a feast a celebration, ie....a party; see Prodigal Son).
Virtually none of my arguments has seen adequate response, nor have you given any reason why inerrancy is even remotely necessary. Jesus certainly didn't think so; why else would he flout existing laws?
I affirm that God is love. That means that he doesn't order genocide, he doesn't imprison rape victims with their rapists, he doesn't want us to stand by and accept evils like slavery, he doesn't need to repent, and he doesn't slam the door on every single person who doesn't breathe the name of Jesus before they die. I believe God is none of those things. To buy inerrancy, you must believe that God is all of the above. I find myself utterly incapable of doing so. Good actually means something; it doesn't change with the ever-shifting will of a powerful being. God is a perfectly good and ever gracious parent, not an abusive one.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:26pm
The other one, even more problematic for you, is "as in Adam, all were dead, in Christ all are made alive." Original sin is understood as universal, therefore, the gift of Christ is universal. Original sin also (by YOUR OWN argument) comes to human beings without our choice. Therefore, since Paul seeks a precise analogy between the two things, the gift of Christ ALSO comes without our choice. Again, the most conservative interpretation possible is that God will not force anyone to go to heaven. That still means that the only way someone doesn't go to heaven is if they choose not to.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:09pm
Superbly put Thrawn. Outstanding analysis of the flaws and fundamental contradictions in Larry's dogma.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 11:21pm
You cannot say that your stance on salvation is derivable from an inerrant Bible because there are parts that simply don't say what you want them to say.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/30/2009 @ 10:21pm
This ultimately explains why Larry is so reticent to discuss the Old Testament.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 11:22pm
"You say, essentially, that the genocide can be justified in moral terms. I find this problematic at the outset because I don't believe genocide CAN be justified, and unless you reject the concept of it as a categorical war crime, I don't see how you can either.
Even if you could justify it, though, the sparse justification you offer is terrible. Literally, it's "they teach bad things, so they'll drive you to sin." If you buy this argument, and you also buy your opposition to Islam, explain how the same reasoning wouldn't justify nuking Mecca."
I'd love to see antisocialist's response to this argument.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:26pm
"That's not sighing. There's a clear sequence of "God planned to do X, God then repented and decided not do." That is a change of heart, a huge problem for your theology."
If God decided that engaging in a course of action was just, according to antisocialist, it would be automatically objectively moral. But God repented and decided that His initial decision was unjust. God's second decision according to antisocialist would ALSO be automatically objectively moral. This means that the standard for objective morality, according to antisocialist, is variable across time and infinitely elastic. Nothing is "right" or "wrong" forever; at one moment genocide may be ethical, at the next hideous. antisocialist does not believe in objective morality and openly admits that the "God" he worships is without any fixed values of any kind.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:37pm
<i>Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 11:37pm </i>
Right. I think inerrancy, if you embrace it fully and follow it to its logical conclusions, utterly undercuts objective morality and because ultimately anchored in either fear of power or belief in an utterly inscrutable moral framework. Ironically, I think it requires morality to be both fixed (we know exactly what it is so we know clearly when someone deviates from it) and inscrutable (such that anything attributed to God by any book in the OT or NT is automatically consistent with the good). In fact, he seems to basically admit this. A morality that is compatible with all possible actions is meaningless; if anything God could possibly do to or for human beings is morally justified, morality doesn't mean anything because there's nothing that it excludes.
Another, related, problem is that Larry's argument about everything God does being good begs the question. The question about many of the actions the OT alleges God did isn't whether God was justified in doing them, but whether they were done by God in the first place. I think this results in a big problem for Larry because it means he has no real way to determine whether an act attributed to God really was performed by him.
What I'd also be curious about is this: can a perfectly good being not only commit genocide, but command human beings to genocide one another? If the Darfur genocide were, somehow, the other way around (the Christians killing the Muslims), would you (Larry) be willing to entertain even for a moment the suggestion by a Sudanese leader that God commanded them to do what they did? I honestly don't think you would. I think you truly believe God speaks today (as I do), but that he would never command such a thing.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/31/2009 @ 08:44am
Correction on the first paragraph:
I think inerrancy, if you embrace it fully and follow it to its logical conclusions, utterly undercuts objective morality and becomes ultimately anchored in either fear of power or belief in an utterly inscrutable moral framework.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/31/2009 @ 09:15am
I think any Semitic religion , if you embrace it fully and follow it to its logical conclusions, utterly undercuts objective morality and becomes ultimately anchored in either fear of power or belief in an utterly inscrutable moral framework.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2009 @ 11:52am
But, fortunately, for those who disagree, my philosophy is not based on the inerrant word of a vengeful and capricious god.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2009 @ 11:55am
<i>Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2009 @ 11:52am </i>
Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/02/2009 @ 5:54pm