Anti-Christian Bigots

A Jews Point of View.

Published on October 21, 2005 By Moderateman In Religion

It's about time for the new annual game here in America, finish off destroying Christianity, this time they will continue the assault on Christmas, this has been building for years now and will continue to build till all mention of Christ is eliminated.

There are places where children are being suspended from school for having the nerve to say grace over a a meal.

Bibles are being removed from school libraries.

Florida is putting a stop to bible studies by using a little known zoning law.

An 11 year old in Alabama was ORDERED to remove the cross she was wearing from plain view and told to hide it under her neckline or be suspended.

Americans for the separation of church and state is suing to have "in God we trust" removed from our money, and trying to stop congress from opening sessions with a prayer. They are also trying to remove Christmas as a national holiday, completely remove all chaplin's from the military..remove all religious symbols from our national cemeteries.

On face the nation, Bob Schieffer made the following statement :"we have noticed a link between religion and crime."

The Washington post describes Christians as "largely poor and easily led .

Sharon Cohen has written a article {she is an A.P. reporter} saying Christians are prone to rioting and are terrorist. She also compares christian leaders with the Ayatollahs of Iran, {this woman is nuts!}

The IRS is targeting churches aiming to take away there tax exempt status. {this is against the first amendment}

I believe that we must fight this crap going on, the same way we fight racism and anti-semitism!!

http://accounting.smartpros.com/x45700.xml . This is the IRS link.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=X&oi=scholart&q=articles+by+Sharon+Cohen,+a.p.+reporter . This is a link to ms Cohen's articles.

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=239. This is the story about the 11 year old in Alabama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml. This is a link to Bob Schieffer.

http://www.au.org/. this link takes you to separation of church and state homepage. read it and weep.

When will we the heart and soul of America stop letting these animals use the courts to get there way?

How much further will we allow the removal of Christianity from America, once it's gone can the Jewish faith be far behind?

Wow no sleep let me write all night to keep my mind occupied.

MM not a christian, but I do love GOD.
"

Comments (Page 8)

106

sunwukong

on Oct 27, 2005

I will take you at your word.. MM

Thank you.

107

Moderateman

on Oct 27, 2005

This is becoming tiresome -- if you truly believe that I am an anti-semitic spreader of hate and misinformation, then I have clearly violated the terms of use for JU. If you really believe this, then you'll call the admins down on me and have me banned.

just so you know I do not do "yo admin" ban this or that person, I still got enough street in me from old days to not give someone up.

108

bakerstreet

on Oct 27, 2005

"Alright, what about the Palestinians that don't support Hamas? Most likely they still have bomb factories in their neighbourhoods and can do little except inform.

Strange, when Israelis decide to build in the occupied territories, they need the Israeli military to protect them. Not from Hamas, mind you, but from the general population who don't want them there. I think your point is a tad facetitious.

If the Palestinian people rejected Hamas, Hamas couldn't work among millions of unapproving people. On the contrary, Palestinians elect Hamas members, openly support them, and if there are any that don't, they don't do much about it.

So the rule is you can't strike out at a military enemy as long as there is the possibility of one person near the target not ideologically agreeing with the target? So, if, say, we were attacked by China, we couldn't attack China because they have dissent in their population.

Interesting perspective, and one I'm sure Hamas and other antagonistic elements would be very, very happy if we accepted.

109

Moderateman

on Oct 27, 2005

#110 by BakerStreet
Thursday, October 27, 2005

"Alright, what about the Palestinians that don't support Hamas? Most likely they still have bomb factories in their neighbourhoods and can do little except inform.

Strange, when Israelis decide to build in the occupied territories, they need the Israeli military to protect them. Not from Hamas, mind you, but from the general population who don't want them there. I think your point is a tad facetitious.

If the Palestinian people rejected Hamas, Hamas couldn't work among millions of unapproving people. On the contrary, Palestinians elect Hamas members, openly support them, and if there are any that don't, they don't do much about it.

So the rule is you can't strike out at a military enemy as long as there is the possibility of one person near the target not ideologically agreeing with the target? So, if, say, we were attacked by China, we couldn't attack China because they have dissent in their population.

Interesting perspective, and one I'm sure Hamas and other antagonistic elements would be very, very happy if we accepted.

damn it baker!!! how many times I told you to not make sense here? now ya done gone and blew up his entire premise. sheeeesh not yer cut is lowered to 80/20 heh

110

sunwukong

on Oct 27, 2005

just so you know I do not do "yo admin" ban this or that person, I still got enough street in me from old days to not give someone up.

I suspected that -- but the challenge wasn't to you anyways.

111

sunwukong

on Oct 27, 2005

I think your point is a tad facetitious.

Hardly -- that an occupier's force requires protection and that a home-grown, popular resistance force doesn't isn't surprising. The point remains: those that oppose Hamas among the general Palestinian population aren't numerous or powerful enough to eject Hamas activity from their neighbourhoods.

So the rule is you can't strike out at a military enemy as long as there is the possibility of one person near the target not ideologically agreeing with the target?

Not at all -- and that wasn't the implication either.

What I am objecting to is the false distinction of "innocence" during wartime. I believe its no more than propaganda that any side engaged in open warfare particularly cares about the welfare of so-called "innocents". Given how much damage a single determined individual can do with even homemade devices, I doubt military planners regard potential targets not actively fighting for them to be anything other than targets of low priority at best. Rules of engagement are thrown out the window all the time whenever the greater cause of strategic interest demands it.

112

bakerstreet

on Oct 28, 2005

"The point remains: those that oppose Hamas among the general Palestinian population aren't numerous or powerful enough to eject Hamas activity from their neighbourhoods.

So you could also say that support for Hamas is so homogeneous that you couldn't possibly consider Palestine to be "occupied" by Hamas against their will. That was kind of what I was saying. When Israel attacks a neighborhood containing a bomb factory, it's a tad facetious to say they are killing "innocents" when the neighbors get hit. They need at the very least to stop voting for Hamas, if nothing else.

"What I am objecting to is the false distinction of "innocence" during wartime. I believe its no more than propaganda that any side engaged in open warfare particularly cares about the welfare of so-called "innocents". Given how much damage a single determined individual can do with even homemade devices, I doubt military planners regard potential targets not actively fighting for them to be anything other than targets of low priority at best. Rules of engagement are thrown out the window all the time whenever the greater cause of strategic interest demands it."

There is a sincere difference here, though, in that Hamas seeks out the softest targets possible, whereas Israel only targets those who are responsible for attacks on them. If Hamas was hitting military targets and accidently catching civilians I might see your equation, but I'm not seeing it.

I agree that there were Israelis early in their history that behaved in a terroristic way. I don't agree with that. If I had been around when Israel was formed I wouldn't have agreed with its formation. The problem is, the do exist, and the "mistakes" that were made aren't being repeated.

That's one reason I like to bring up the Grand Mufti. If Israel is going to be hoisted on the pitard of those few who acted wrongly, what can we say about an entire movement whose foundations are firmly planted in Nazi collaboration and intense anti-Semitism? Arafat was claiming the Grand Mufti was a Palestinian hero publicly just before his death.

I don't think it serves any purpose to taint the modern Israel with the few wrongs it has committed generations ago. It, at least, has rejected these practices. Palestinians obviously embrace them with zeal.

113

sunwukong

on Oct 28, 2005

It's certainly true that Hamas is seeking targets in line with both their military capability (slight) and their overall strategy (terror).

I wouldn't be so quick to say Israel is only targeting Hamas directly because direct, military strikes are not the only weapons in its arsenal. Appropriation of land, bulldozing of homes of the relatives of suspected Hamas members and other forms of collective punishment serves two purposes: the strategic interests of occupying territory and the punishment of the insurgency in its (alleged) support base.

A few points I should make clear right now:
1. I don't agree with the reasons for creating the state of Israel nor with the way it was done.
2. I agree that now Israel has every right to exist.

I don't think it serves any purpose to taint the modern Israel with the few wrongs it has committed generations ago. It, at least, has rejected these practices. Palestinians obviously embrace them with zeal.

But, you see, I look at it as open warfare -- both sides are using the military tools at their disposal to his the targets that give them a reasonable chance to achieve their strategic goals.

Fighting a militarily superior foe "head-on" is ridiculous -- terrorism (or anti-symmetric warfare which seems to be the polite term) is the ideal and expected response. As well, you're going to pick up allies of dubious character strictly for the support they can bring you.

Likewise, occupying hostile territory when surrounded by enemy states and under pressure for religious/historical reasons to pacify and settle that territory leads to actions like assassinating insurgent leaders, purging nests of resistence, partitioning of land in full favour of the occupation, etc. There's also the problems of keeping your society/culture from being too brutalized by the occupation and, as the only nation state involved, keeping that minimum level of international support (or, at least, among your foreign friends).

None of these actions I consider particularly shocking as none of them are particularly surprising in face of full, open warfare between two sides with these characteristics. They're both fighting for survival -- I don't attribute limits in a conflict like that.

What does bother me is when anyone attributes moral superiority in a fight like this -- I consider actions of mercy, grace or honour in these conflicts to be an abberation, a strategic mistake or a propaganda event.

The eventual survivors/winners will write the history pages about who was right to do what.

114

Moderateman

on Oct 28, 2005

wow reading the two of you {baker and sunwukong} makes me see how poorly I do expressing myself with the written word.

It's a pleasure to read two people with diametrically opposed views express themselves so well and not resort to flaming, thanks to you both.

115

Moderateman

on Oct 28, 2005

Reply By: sunwukongPosted: Friday, October 28, 2005

The eventual survivors/winners will write the history pages about who was right to do what.

that is how history is always written by the winners.

116

bakerstreet

on Oct 28, 2005

"But, you see, I look at it as open warfare -- both sides are using the military tools at their disposal to his the targets that give them a reasonable chance to achieve their strategic goals."

I find that perspective really, really disturbing, sunwukong , no offense intended. Can you possibly imagine what the world would be like if it were openly acceptable to make war on civilians as long as you aren't powerful enough to fight a nation's military?

If it just applied to the little guy that would be horrible enough, but it wouldn't. If we went to war against Iran, can you imagine th death toll if we decided it was too costly to fight their military and just decided to focus on civilian targets?

How can you take that attitude and not excuse, say, the Oklahoma City bombing? Would militias that have no ability to make real military-on-military war in the US be justified just to start killing civilians? I think it is necessary to make a distinction, else you turn terrorists into "soldiers."

117

Moderateman

on Oct 29, 2005

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, October 28, 2005"But, you see, I look at it as open warfare -- both sides are using the military tools at their disposal to his the targets that give them a reasonable chance to achieve their strategic goals."I find that perspective really, really disturbing, sunwukong , no offense intended. Can you possibly imagine what the world would be like if it were openly acceptable to make war on civilians as long as you aren't powerful enough to fight a nation's military?If it just applied to the little guy that would be horrible enough, but it wouldn't. If we went to war against Iran, can you imagine th death toll if we decided it was too costly to fight their military and just decided to focus on civilian targets? How can you take that attitude and not excuse, say, the Oklahoma City bombing? Would militias that have no ability to make real military-on-military war in the US be justified just to start killing civilians? I think it is necessary to make a distinction, else you turn terrorists into "soldiers."

As you pointed out baker, there is a difference between killing civilians by accident while targeting terrorist, and targeting civilians on purpose. No civilized people make war on innocents only animals do that.

118

Dr Guy

on Oct 29, 2005

If it just applied to the little guy that would be horrible enough, but it wouldn't. If we went to war against Iran, can you imagine th death toll if we decided it was too costly to fight their military and just decided to focus on civilian targets?

I think you put the wrong straw dog up. What if we thought it was too costly to fight their military, and just made them a sheet of glass? Same end. Now what does sunwukong say.

119

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2005

I find that perspective really, really disturbing, sunwukong , no offense intended.

None taken and I agree.

I view warfare similar to how I view economics: both involve human beings at a population scale acting in their own self interests to produce large scale network effects. In the case of economics, I tend towards the fiscally conservative side as most of the accepted laws will bite you in the ass regardless of your political leanings or intentions.

Can you possibly imagine what the world would be like if it were openly acceptable to make war on civilians as long as you aren't powerful enough to fight a nation's military?

Except that it happens all of the time -- rebel factions are always targeting civilians when fighting against their respective governments. More often than not governments fighting strong insurgencies target civilians in rebel support areas. The "acceptable" part is the stumbling block -- besides the military power being asymmetric, the moral codes under which the conflict is supposedly waged don't match either.

Warfare is fundamentally about survival. A much weaker side that actually wants to win won't engage a much stronger enemy on the same terms as their enemy's strengths -- they'll get wiped out and they won't be any closer to achieving their goals. Likewise, a strong enemy will be constantly weighing the costs of different actions -- among the prices to be paid might be moral/ethical ones that wouldn't even be contemplated in peacetime.

If we went to war against Iran, can you imagine th death toll if we decided it was too costly to fight their military and just decided to focus on civilian targets?

As the stakes are now, the moral/PR cost probably wouldn't be worth the risk.

BUT what if Iran develops a true nuclear warhead and has upgraded old Soviet ICBMs for accurate and effective strikes against targets as far as the USA? If production was centered in, say, Tehran, in facilities throughout the city and the Iranians were about to put together a fully mobile deployment system, how then would you cost this scenario?

If I was a military planner, I would be weighing factors like:
- Iran's nuclear capability without Tehran
- anti-US Middle Eastern nuclear capability without Tehran
- US ability to locate and neutralize weapons prior to launch
- US ability to neutralize a launched weapon
- US ability to contain aftermath of "surgically removing" Tehran

If the Iranians were confronted with the revealed intelligence and still remained determined and belligerent, what odds do you have that Tehran would remain standing?

What about the price the US would have to pay for this? Internally, as long as quick aid was offered to Iran after its surrender, a few careers might get ruined but I doubt the public would stand for any true punishment being doled out. Internationally, economic and military allies will likely remain as such -- history books and a few generations might waggle fingers but I doubt the long term effects will be other than "let's get on with our lives." Of course, enemies sympathetic to Iran will become energized but they'll also probably be convinced that a nuclear weapons program isn't worth the cost.

How about a smaller example: against all reason the senior leadership of Al Qaeda decides to secretly meet in a remote village in Afghanistan. Given its location, the terrain and the fact that Muhajadeen elements are everywhere, a ground based attack is ruled out. Likewise, intel on the ground is too sparse to precisely locate the meeting place(s). If it's your decision, what's the fate of that village?

How can you take that attitude and not excuse, say, the Oklahoma City bombing?

It's not that I excuse (or pardon) such an act, but I do acknowledge it for what it was -- an open declaration of war waged by a force unable to directly confront their enemy. On a purely emotional/humanitarian level it was horrifying but the strategic message was simple and clear.

Would militias that have no ability to make real military-on-military war in the US be justified just to start killing civilians?

I'm not offering justification or pardons for any action in a war -- just understanding of what it means and why it was chosen in the context of a struggle for survival.

I think it is necessary to make a distinction, else you turn terrorists into "soldiers."

Which can easily happen if the "terrorists" win.

Part of the ongoing costs of waging a war by codes of honour or conduct is the restriction it places on your choice of actions. If the enemy was a much closer match in terms of resources (e.g., manpower, money, etc.), and you were sustaining losses matching every victory with no end in sight, I believe people naturally choose basic survival over whatever moral/ethical codes or justifications they had entering the conflict. After they've won, then the peace they build/broker will hopefully reflect the renewed moral position.

120

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2005

there is a difference between killing civilians by accident while targeting terrorist, and targeting civilians on purpose. No civilized people make war on innocents only animals do that.

Innocence and war are anthropomorphisms.

Dresden is a good example of civilians targeted strictly for strategic purposes -- and not even for the war at hand but for the Cold War afterwards.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!