Religionā¦.and thousands of years of belief that violence against people who donāt follow your specific beliefs is justifiable. Hellā¦they hate and kill other Muslims in mass simple because they associate with a difference sect. Given the hate for infidels does trump the hate between sects.
Pray For Israel š®š± š
- Thread starter TulsaFanFromStigler
- Start date
Have you ever stopped to think about whose hatred came first. The jews were hated by the Gazans/peoples of the middle east way before they committed any kinds of acts like the Jewish government recently committed. It was the jews who were provoked first, not the other way around. That's why they have committed acts like these.
Again, you equate Judaism and the state of Israel as synonymous entities. They are heavily related, but they are not the same. Hasidic rabbis in Yonkers aren't carrying Uziās.
The Arab Palestinian conflict that resulted in Israelās takeover of Gaza was largely secular in nature. Nassau, the Egyptian President who was a major belligerent in the 6 Day War was more or less a socialist (propped up by the USSR) who hated the Muslim brotherhood for attempts on his life.
Now, obviously in the many decades since then religion has become more involved, but the initial conflicts in Gaza during the first inifadah of the 80ās seemed to be just as much driven by socio economic strife as it did by religion. There were certainly problems with a lack of real economic prospects for the people of Gaza who were more or less maligned to menial labor tasks in Israel regardless of education or ability. That along with simply the distaste of being militarily occupied was a key driver to the creation of Hamas.
Religion is not the only factor here as much as you want to make it the linchpin issue.
Last edited:
It's the main issue, as much as you want to focus on the other peripheral issues.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. Has been for decades. They are gangsters. With political legitimacy. How did they acquire that? Supposedly by being conferred it by the people they govern through a free and fair election. At least that is what we were told until a few months ago. Everything that is happening in Gaza is happening in Gaza because the people who live there wanted it to happen. And that happened in part through romantic, some would say moronic, Western notions that everyone on Earth secretly desires peaceful Jeffersonian democracy. The reality, if youāve been to these places, is that most people are disinterested in such systems or lack the insight to be incentivized to adopt them.
The situation in the Middle East is measured in millennia. Not centuries. Until you understand that in a basic sort of way. Until it informs your moral stand on the issues, thinking on the area is generally clouded by religion, politics and short term power brokering. People showing up who will be out of power in months or years talking about brokering peace are justifiable objects of derision.
Nixon was successful in laying a foundation in the Middle East that was cemented by Carter primarily because the Americans recognized that reality without making it official state policy. Then it set about implementing that policy, not just through the peace accord press conferences but quiet trade and defense agreements that kept the peace, more or less, for 50 years. The alternative was USA funded direct military action removing those in power. Thanks to inflation, Biden bungling, and Muslim extremism, thatās probably in tatters going forward. The reset could take decades.
The situation in the Middle East is measured in millennia. Not centuries. Until you understand that in a basic sort of way. Until it informs your moral stand on the issues, thinking on the area is generally clouded by religion, politics and short term power brokering. People showing up who will be out of power in months or years talking about brokering peace are justifiable objects of derision.
Nixon was successful in laying a foundation in the Middle East that was cemented by Carter primarily because the Americans recognized that reality without making it official state policy. Then it set about implementing that policy, not just through the peace accord press conferences but quiet trade and defense agreements that kept the peace, more or less, for 50 years. The alternative was USA funded direct military action removing those in power. Thanks to inflation, Biden bungling, and Muslim extremism, thatās probably in tatters going forward. The reset could take decades.
Itās Nasser. FWIW the community of fathers who raise us all, for me, included several men who spent time in his prisons. Another gangster with political legitimacy out for short term gain while his people viewed the issues since the pyramids..
Last edited:
Thank you for admitting that the global inflation driven by Biden policies is a key driver in this conflict. As law and I both predicted on this board in 2021.
This could be one of the great speeches of the 21st Century. Itās delivered without notes or a teleprompter despite it lasting nearly two hours. Heās given it several times in a variety of settings. I doubt many folks notice, but they should. The crowds heās delivered it to have slowly grown. He sold out Madison Square Garden as I understand it.
I disagree with some of the things he says, but overall, itās a historically accurate and balanced view of what people mostly believe, who reside in the region, regardless of their religion, who currently support the State of Israelās claim to a right to exist.
Itās worth a listen as you commute, even if you disagree with everything he says or you wish to believe there is further truth he omits.
Last edited:
To be fair, Aston believes his Hamas boys are nothing but a āhandful of terrorist cellsā. Not sure how much credence I would give to his Middle East analysis
Last edited:
Auto correct. This website has become useable on safari and leads me to need to type everything within 5 minutes or publish and go back and edit.
I would say that in terms of military competency theyāre somewhere between the Iraqi Army in Desert Storm and the Boy Scoutsā¦.
Would you consider him unbiased in his assessment of Israel (the state not the people) and its policies?
I believe that this conflict has been driven by Hamas, and I believe Hamas is being driven by Putinās war chest. Bidenās policy is not responsible for US economic inflation, much less global inflation or the conflict in Gaza.
Not a very good look from a handful of Israelis.... I'm certainly sympathetic to their anger over Hamas' terrorism and the general attitude of the Islamic nations surrounding them, but treating Gaza like the Nazis treated the Warsaw Ghetto is not acceptable behavior.
Last edited:
The problem as I see it, is that Netanyahu Is protecting himself from both a vote of confidence which could dislodge him from power, and a corruption charges that could follow suit. He is doing this stuff for those reasons as much as for what he sees as the benefit of the Israeli people. With those mixed motives, it is impossible for him to act objectively.
That is why he has been delivered this ultimatum by Gantz and the Centrist party, as well as the challenge from the additional voting member of the War Cabinet, Gallant. These challenges will likely bring a vote of confidence if Netanyahu doesn't meet their demands. Netanyahu needs to leave, and turn these decisions over to someone less influenced by threats to his own position. But if he values his own protection, he has been given a third option, the one that he has been avoiding.
That is why he has been delivered this ultimatum by Gantz and the Centrist party, as well as the challenge from the additional voting member of the War Cabinet, Gallant. These challenges will likely bring a vote of confidence if Netanyahu doesn't meet their demands. Netanyahu needs to leave, and turn these decisions over to someone less influenced by threats to his own position. But if he values his own protection, he has been given a third option, the one that he has been avoiding.
how do libs justify supporting groups like, Hamas, . . . that are the equivelent to the Kkk and white surpremests.
Because most libs don't support Hamas, they don't have to justify it. They just see more of a separation between Gazans and Hamas than is reality. (Unless we are talking about Rashida Tlaib, who doesn't feel the need to justify any of her beliefs.)
I just wanna know if there is a white and creamy Diana Ross in the white Supremests?
I'm not rationalizing. I would have to be a democrat or somehow hold this belief before I would ever think about rationalizing it. Very few democrats support Hamas, they are just against the genocide of the Gazans. What they don't realize is at least half that culture(if not more) have at one point or another in their life, wished death and destruction against Israel, and/or the US.
Stop in the name of love, before you break my heart.
how many religions focus on the elimination of all non believers, especially Jews.
Now you are switching from Democrats supporting Hamas to your view of a religion. That doesn't change the fact that not too many Democrats support Hamas. And the Muslim religion and it's bible don't focus on the elimination of all non believers. Only certain groups within the religion focus on certain limited sections in the Quran that talk about non believers and how to deal with them. That's not the same thing. You could talk about war, slavery, misogyny, and multiple references to those things in the Bible, but that doesn't say that the bible focuses on those things. I'm guessing you don't know too many Muslims.
I told yāall when this started not to focus on the politics or religion of this thing but to watch who is making money off of it.
Iām more interested in who is making these decisions and are they being held accountable for failures and massive wastes of money. Half a billion dollars for a pier that never worked ? What about the Palestinian people who arenāt getting these supplies. Regardless of whether they support a terrorist group or Oct 7 there are many women and children who are suffering.
There are women and children suffering in this country and every country.
Itās very difficult to vote no on any type of humanitarian aid, especially in an election year.
Which makes a conflict like this one solid gold for military contractors and materials suppliers.
You can hire the right people to get your contracts through, then roll a portion of the wind fall profits back into soft money funds and down ballot races.
The Israelis have blocked several attempts in the past to re-supply Gaza by the sea, mostly on well founded weapons smuggling concerns. So imagine the glee of all the ex Obama era generals that own and operate this pier building technology when suddenly the U.S., the Israelis, the Qataris and Hamas all sign off on a Cypriot based humanitarian monitoring scheme that will take $1billion to build and no Congressman would ever stop. And now they might build it twice.
Israel wanting to bomb indiscriminately where they want to,(on little notice) probably provided a large impetus to this plan. They want to hit Hamas where intelligence says they are hiding immediately. These quixotic bombing locations which Hamas picks for spots to hide, (because of the closeness to targets one wouldn't normally want to bomb) means they would hide near an aid supply.
The U.S. probably wanted to keep the supply depot not on Gazan soil for the safety of the U.S. soldiers, as well as Israeli soldiers. Israel insisted on going through the aid supplies to inspect for guns. I'm sure they wanted the aid supplies, the Israeli inspectors, and our troops kept safe. I imagine they figured Hamas wouldn't be able to hide near a pier with security all around it, and the barrier of the ocean and beach protecting from hiding underground, which would have provided a bombing target.
You would think they would find it more logical not to put all the supplies in one place and to pull back far enough from Gazan soil into Israel(and even Egyptian soil) for everyone's safety. But Israel may not have been ready to open up some or all of the 5 crossings they closed down. Might have been the U.S. trying to go around an uncooperative Israel who wouldn't open up some of those crossings. I'm sure they need one of the crossings in the middle of the Gaza strip open to more easily reach some of those needing the most aid.
All these reasons exclude the greed factor. I'm sure that was inevitably and quite heavily involved. I imagine all these reasons were semi-logical, but also justifications for the greed. The only thing that could pull this out of the hamper of complete greedy justifications, is how recalcitrant Israel was to open up the closed crossings. But then you ask why they didn't use the north and/or south crossings into Israel and Egypt as well as the pier. Did they even install a temporary aid station at the north or south crossing while they built the pier? If they did, I didn't hear about it.
The U.S. probably wanted to keep the supply depot not on Gazan soil for the safety of the U.S. soldiers, as well as Israeli soldiers. Israel insisted on going through the aid supplies to inspect for guns. I'm sure they wanted the aid supplies, the Israeli inspectors, and our troops kept safe. I imagine they figured Hamas wouldn't be able to hide near a pier with security all around it, and the barrier of the ocean and beach protecting from hiding underground, which would have provided a bombing target.
You would think they would find it more logical not to put all the supplies in one place and to pull back far enough from Gazan soil into Israel(and even Egyptian soil) for everyone's safety. But Israel may not have been ready to open up some or all of the 5 crossings they closed down. Might have been the U.S. trying to go around an uncooperative Israel who wouldn't open up some of those crossings. I'm sure they need one of the crossings in the middle of the Gaza strip open to more easily reach some of those needing the most aid.
All these reasons exclude the greed factor. I'm sure that was inevitably and quite heavily involved. I imagine all these reasons were semi-logical, but also justifications for the greed. The only thing that could pull this out of the hamper of complete greedy justifications, is how recalcitrant Israel was to open up the closed crossings. But then you ask why they didn't use the north and/or south crossings into Israel and Egypt as well as the pier. Did they even install a temporary aid station at the north or south crossing while they built the pier? If they did, I didn't hear about it.
Republicans do the greed thing too, Huffy. All the black ops organizations in Iraq for Bush, was funneling money. And I'm positive there were things going on in Afghanistan under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump that were funneling money.
Cuz then they wouldn't be able to put in some of those very important items for a stable pier into the rebuild budget.
Yes. But the point is itās a bipartisan culture. And not just in the humanitarian/military sector.
Damaged in high seas. Should be up and running in a day or two. Biggest issue is that it green lighted in March and it took until late May to open.
The pier was built, as you can see, right on the sea and not in a sheltered area. The sea is a powerful thing.
For perspective, upon landing of DDay they did the same thingā¦. The piers they built off the coast of France to offload troops, munitions, and heavy equipment was destroyed by a storm within 3 daysā¦.
I suspect that this was a way to circumvent the Israeliās authority / permission to grant aid.
Last edited:
Doesnāt make much sense since Israel provided security for its construction.
