Footwedge;886994 wrote:Let me rephrase...since your comprehensive skills aren't your long suit.....Evangelical Chistians are always looking for new members from all walks of life...and from all religious backgrounds....escept for you Muslims, stfo.

This ranks right up there in your Top 5 most ignorant statements made by Footie list. Do you have ANY idea how completely and patently FALSE this is?

Evangelical Christianity seeks to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to everyone including Muslims.

As a member of an evangelical church in Ohio and now in Pennsylvania I can assure you that I have in fact witnessed Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and many more publicly and willingly and WITHOUT coercion accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Most have then voluntarily become active official members of our church.

Tobias Fünke;887070 wrote:It's a good thing we didn't take any land from people...

LOL, no kidding. Actually, we tried to wipe those people out. I'm not saying we are any better, trust me. Our history is just as bad and evil as any other countries that have wronged indigenous people on their land.

Footwedge;886952 wrote:I didn't say that they were the biggest human rights violators on the planet. I said they were by far and away the country with the most UN violations. It's hard for me to take you seriously when you cannot comprehend what a poster actually states.

As for the Christian thing.....I don't think the fundamentalist Evangelicals allow too many Muslim Americans to join their churches either.

I comprehended in your post "most UN violations" + comparing Zionist policies to Nazi Germany = human rights violations.

And voila, your very next post mentions the UN Human Rights Council, a body which presumably deals with human rights violations.

Footwedge;886962 wrote:The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern Israel and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.[SUP][1][/SUP]
From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab–Israeli conflict. In early Security Council practice, resolutions did not directly invoke Chapter VII. They made an explicit determination of a threat, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and ordered an action in accordance with Article 39 or 40. Resolution 54 determined that a threat to peace existed within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, reiterated the need for a truce, and ordered a cease-fire pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter. Although the phrase "Acting under Chapter VII" was never mentioned as the basis for the action taken, the chapter's authority was being used.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The United Nations General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions saying that the strategic relationship with the United States encourages Israel to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices.[SUP][3][/SUP] The 9th Emergency Session of the General Assembly was convened at the request of the Security Council when the United States blocked efforts to adopt sanctions against Israel.[SUP][4][/SUP] The United States responded to the frequent criticism from UN organs by adopting the Negroponte doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

You forgot this part:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2011)

Israel has 300 nuclear weapons and a military every bit as advanced as our own. I think they would be fine if we meddled less in the region. And even if you want to argue that we should take care of Israel, the simple fact is that we have no money to give them, so there is no need to even worry about it.

iclfan2;886718 wrote:I don't really care about Israel, but I don't necessarily get the Israeli love fest that goes on in this country. Yea they are our allies, but it seems like people defend them no matter what, regardless if they are the ones bombing people or stealing land.

Please inform us, which land did Israel "steal"?

Footwedge;886922 wrote:Easy question. Real easy in fact. You implement Ron Pail's foreign policy, their would be virtually no terrorism in the world. They don't hate us for our lifestyle...nor our religious views. They hate us for our occupation of their lands and putting pro West puppets in power, governing their own people.

The sad thing is you actually believe that. You can't be serious with half of the BS you spewed in this post and the previous few posts above it.

Footwedge;886952 wrote:I didn't say that they were the biggest human rights violators on the planet. I said they were by far and away the country with the most UN violations. It's hard for me to take you seriously when you cannot comprehend what a poster actually states.

As for the Christian thing.....I don't think the fundamentalist Evangelicals allow too many Muslim Americans to join their churches either.

*Buzzer* Wrong again. You won't find too many "fundamentalist evangelicals" who would NOT allow a Muslim to attend their church. You even saying this is proof you have no idea how MOST Christian churches operate.

Footwedge;886994 wrote:Let me rephrase...since your comprehensive skills aren't your long suit.....Evangelical Chistians are always looking for new members from all walks of life...and from all religious backgrounds....escept for you Muslims, stfo.

Wrong again, you are really making yourself look retarded. I have attended a number of "fundamental" churches in my time and not a single one of them would turn away someone who was a Muslim.

Footwedge;886898 wrote:So....because there are a lot of Jews in America we should support their bellicose policies? Their himan rights abuses? Their military aggression? Most Jews are staunch liberals here in the states, and they don't too kindly to Bibi.

He asked why the love for Israel. I gave him a few examples as to why. Don't read more into it.

Footwedge;886898 wrote:LOL...as opposed to using the big bombs and killing 3 to 5 times more innocent people than the strappers do. Little bombs...reprehensible. Big bombs....A-OK..

If your big bomb is targetting belligerents hiding in the civilian population and some innocents get killed. Thats understandable. If the strappers take their little bombs and attack a military checkpoint. Thats understandable. If you are going to blow yourself up in a cafe or bus with absolutely now military objective that is reprehesible.

Footwedge;886898 wrote:They get more war because of their Zionist policies of treating people the same way their own people were treated in Germany. They kill, main, and take what they want. They have by far and away the most UN violations...of any nation on the planet.

Zionist? What is the word that describes the policies of Israels enemies that seek to drive them into the sea? The same way they were treated in Germany? Is that a joke? Are they marching the Palestinians off to the gas chambers?

UN violations? Are you talking about the UN peacekeepers violating young girls? The UN is full of ant-semites and world class thugs who violate the human rights of their own citizens. That circus clown outfit has zero credibility.

Footwedge;886922 wrote:Easy question. Real easy in fact. You implement Ron Pail's foreign policy, their would be virtually no terrorism in the world. They don't hate us for our lifestyle...nor our religious views. They hate us for our occupation of their lands and putting pro West puppets in power, governing their own people.

Interesting to know they don't hate us for our Christianity, they don't hate us for our free speech, they don't hate us for our wanton use of alcohol, they don't hate us for our views on homosexuality, they don't hate our women for not wearing burkas and working like men, and they don't hate us for our individual freedoms. It's not like they'd prefer for America to be taken over by Sharia Law or anything like that.

Good to know if we left the Mideast and told Israel to pound salt that they would then sit down with us, hold hands, sing Kumbaya on our prayer rugs, and practice a little stoning of adulterers.

Footwedge;886922 wrote:You implement Ron Pail's foreign policy, their would be virtually no terrorism in the world.

But, alas, we'd still have people who don't know the difference between there, their, and they're.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

BGFalcons82;887563 wrote:Interesting to know they don't hate us for our Christianity, they don't hate us for our free speech, they don't hate us for our wanton use of alcohol, they don't hate us for our views on homosexuality, they don't hate our women for not wearing burkas and working like men, and they don't hate us for our individual freedoms. It's not like they'd prefer for America to be taken over by Sharia Law or anything like that.

Good to know if we left the Mideast and told Israel to pound salt that they would then sit down with us, hold hands, sing Kumbaya on our prayer rugs, and practice a little stoning of adulterers.

The bolded are actually true.

And you act like "they" in your post is any significant population of Muslims.

What makes more sense, they hate us for being free or they hate us for hand picking and propping up their brutal dictators and occupying their lands?

I Wear Pants;889466 wrote:The bolded are actually true.

And you act like "they" in your post is any significant population of Muslims.

Ummm...you used the word, "they", in your post. I just re-used your term and now you're giving me crap about it? Interesting.

BTW, I know those things are true, I was attempting to use a little sarcasm and satire. My bad for not 'splainin it better.

Cleveland Buck;893117 wrote:What makes more sense, they hate us for being free or they hate us for hand picking and propping up their brutal dictators and occupying their lands?

So is the underlying ideology completely without blame when it comes to hatred and attacks against the US and the West?

BGFalcons82;893139 wrote:Ummm...you used the word, "they", in your post. I just re-used your term and now you're giving me crap about it? Interesting.

BTW, I know those things are true, I was attempting to use a little sarcasm and satire. My bad for not 'splainin it better.

Hard to tell sarcasm in text sometimes.

jhay78;893184 wrote:So is the underlying ideology completely without blame when it comes to hatred and attacks against the US and the West?

Of course they are to blame when they attack us. We just need to understand why they attack us. We were right to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, but now the reason they are killing us is that we are still there. Congress should have declared war and we should have sent 300,000 troops in there to swiftly destroy all threats and then come home. When we stay to nation build we just increase their resentment of us.

Iraq never attacked us or even threatened us. Trying to create a friendly nation in that region wouldn't have been a terrible thing, except that it will never happen. The Iraqis hate us more now than before we invaded. And what are we doing in Libya? They aren't a threat and never will be. People get on these news shows and ask what our policy should be on regime change in Syria. Really? We need to pick someone to take power? That will make us safer? Our policy should be to let the Syrian people decide what they want and stay out of it. We give these dictators like Gaddafi and Musharraf billions of dollars to prop up their regimes and wonder why their citizens hate us. How would the Republicans here feel if Europe was sending the Obama administration billions of dollars to use to stay in power, or if they were sending a dictator billions of dollars to stay in power?

Cleveland Buck;893309 wrote:Of course they are to blame when they attack us. We just need to understand why they attack us. We were right to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, but now the reason they are killing us is that we are still there. Congress should have declared war and we should have sent 300,000 troops in there to swiftly destroy all threats and then come home. When we stay to nation build we just increase their resentment of us.

I'm with you there. After WWII, Germany and Japan weren't rebuilt until after they were thoroughly defeated and their will was broken. Nation-building should not come before nation-defeating.

Iraq never attacked us or even threatened us. Trying to create a friendly nation in that region wouldn't have been a terrible thing, except that it will never happen. The Iraqis hate us more now than before we invaded. And what are we doing in Libya? They aren't a threat and never will be. People get on these news shows and ask what our policy should be on regime change in Syria. Really? We need to pick someone to take power? That will make us safer? Our policy should be to let the Syrian people decide what they want and stay out of it. We give these dictators like Gaddafi and Musharraf billions of dollars to prop up their regimes and wonder why their citizens hate us. How would the Republicans here feel if Europe was sending the Obama administration billions of dollars to use to stay in power, or if they were sending a dictator billions of dollars to stay in power

I agree for the most part. However, that's no excuse for targeting innocent civilians as a way to get back at the US for bad policies. That's where I draw the line in the "Blaming America" vs. "Underlying Ideology" argument. Sure, hate us all you want, even feel free to overthrow your own dictatorial governments, but when you decide to strap on a few bombs or hijack a few planes to kill and maim as many innocents as possible then America is not to blame for your actions. Something else is driving such a person to commit these acts.

BGFalcons82;887563 wrote:Interesting to know they don't hate us for our Christianity, they don't hate us for our free speech, they don't hate us for our wanton use of alcohol, they don't hate us for our views on homosexuality, they don't hate our women for not wearing burkas and working like men, and they don't hate us for our individual freedoms. It's not like they'd prefer for America to be taken over by Sharia Law or anything like that.

.

Nice to see that you are catching on. These myths are spewed by the evangelicals. Yet even the most radical Islamist extremist never cite any of these reasons for their actions.

majorspark;887478 wrote:If your big bomb is targetting belligerents hiding in the civilian population and some innocents get killed. Thats understandable. If the strappers take their little bombs and attack a military checkpoint. Thats understandable. If you are going to blow yourself up in a cafe or bus with absolutely now military objective that is reprehesible.

SMFH. You cannot be serious. Terrorism has been used for centuries by people who have been shid on. They don't have a military to fight their battles. So they blow people up. Israelis perfected the practice back when they were getting shafted in the 1920's and 30's. Google "Israeli terrorst groups" and learn.

Zionist? What is the word that describes the policies of Israels enemies that seek to drive them into the sea? The same way they were treated in Germany? Is that a joke? Are they marching the Palestinians off to the gas chambers?

Zionist policy is what it is. I repeat....Jewish people in America and in Israel are sick and tired of the Zionists who apparently do not remember what human rights abuses were like.

UN violations? Are you talking about the UN peacekeepers violating young girls? The UN is full of ant-semites and world class thugs who violate the human rights of their own citizens. That circus clown outfit has zero credibility.

Couldn't refrain from playing the "anti-Semite" card now could you? Your post here is disturbing to say the very least. Every gd time someone posts the atrocities of the Israeli government....out comes the "anti-Semite" card.

Maybe.....just maybe....people that hate the aggressive and bellicose behavior of the Israeli government...simultaneously admire Jewish people on the whole. You simply don't get it.....and you never, ever will.

jhay78;887389 wrote:You forgot this part:

The Israeli number of human rights violations as written up by the UN is not open for debate....or subject to "neutrality" issues. One can google the Israeli UN violations and find hundreds of sources. These numbers are posted for all to see. For you to post this responce shows me that you, like many others, have no clue as to the countless violations of our "best ally" in the middle east.

Maybe it's time for you and others to research what Israel has been found guilty of.

Footwedge;896263 wrote:SMFH. You cannot be serious. Terrorism has been used for centuries by people who have been shid on.

True it has. It has always been considered an immoral and a barbaric practice to solely target civilians. I understand that civilians have some culpability in that they support the military machine. If a people feel they are shid on take the moral high ground and be brave enough to focus attacks on the military machine. They will be seen in a different light. Its understood at times civilians directly or indirectly supporting the military machine may become casualties as well. But only in actions targeting military objectives.

Footwedge;896263 wrote:They don't have a military to fight their battles. So they blow people up.

So not having a military and taking on a world empire justifies targeting civilians first and blowing them up. Is that what you are saying? I addressed this on another thread... We have been in a similar situation. The world empire of the day had troops stationed on our lands against our will. The British empire was the most powerful on earth at the time. We had no navy. No heavy weapons. Little military training. Did we pack commercial naval vessels hauling innocent civilians with gun powder and sail them into the port of London and detonate them? No. We sent the King a letter and told him to GTFO. When he sent his army to come get us large numbers of regular individuals grabbed their personal arms and took on what was at the time the most powerful and professional army of the time.

You appear to justify the cowardly tactics of hitting the weakest targets with no military presence or objective in the case that an oppressed people has no military. I am glad our founders thought otherwise and put their lives, family, and property at risk to take on what on paper would appear to be impossible and directly defied with the force of arms (what little they had) the greatest military power on earth at the time.

Footwedge;896263 wrote:Israelis perfected the practice back when they were getting shafted in the 1920's and 30's. Google "Israeli terrorst groups" and learn.

I don't need to google. I know the history. No nation is without sin including our own. The nation of Israel has since condemned that practice. The Palestinian Authority realizes if they have any hope for a state they must do likewise. The best thing to ever further that cause is Yasser Arafatat croaking.

Footwedge;896263 wrote:Zionist policy is what it is. I repeat....Jewish people in America and in Israel are sick and tired of the Zionists who apparently do not remember what human rights abuses were like.

Is that why in district 9 in NYC they elected a conservative republican who railed against Obamas policy toward Israel. The district of Anthony Wiener and Chuck Schumer? You failed though in answering my question as to the buzz word that describes Israels enemies drive to possess their land and drive them into the sea. Intifada? Jihad? What makes the Indifadists or Jihadists any more noble than the Zionists. Why not rail on them like you do the Zionist? They are all after the same thing.

Footwedge;896263 wrote:Couldn't refrain from playing the "anti-Semite" card now could you? Your post here is disturbing to say the very least. Every gd time someone posts the atrocities of the Israeli government....out comes the "anti-Semite" card.

Maybe.....just maybe....people that hate the aggressive and bellicose behavior of the Israeli government...simultaneously admire Jewish people on the whole. You simply don't get it.....and you never, ever will.

I never once played the "anti-Semite" card in reference to any posters criticism of the state of Israel. Nor do I recall others doing it. You say everytime so go ahead and list them. I'll wait. My comment was not to you or your criticism of Israel but the UN. A body thats members consist of a lot of ruthless dictators that oppress their own people by killing and imprisoning them without a jury of their peers. Yet Israel leads the pack in human rights violations. I smell a rat.

You yourself said that they were not the biggest human rights violators on the planet. Just the ones with the most UN violations. I wonder why????

In 70 AD the nation of Israel ceased to exist and the jews were scattered throughout the nations. The United States of America did not exist and the world was in peace and harmony. In 1776 world peace took a turn for the worse. In 1948 world peace fell off the cliff. Do I have my history about right?

majorspark;896570 wrote:In 70 AD the nation of Israel ceased to exist and the jews were scattered throughout the nations. The United States of America did not exist and the world was in peace and harmony. In 1776 world peace took a turn for the worse. In 1948 world peace fell off the cliff. Do I have my history about right?

Why does it have to be this extreme? There is a middle ground. Don't have to nuthug or completely want to get rid of Israel.