Re: Question for Stephanie and other anti-Zionists:

by **Stephanie** Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:35 pm

News reports, apparently. Here's a sample.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92084/violence-in-gaza-enters-third-week--new-yorkers-react/Default.aspx

.....Meanwhile, yesterday thousands of New Yorkers gathered near the Israeli Consulate to show their support for Israel.

Many demonstrators wore red hats, symbolizing the red alerts issued for impending rocket attacks.........

by Keli Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:34 pm

Stephanie wrote:News reports, apparently. Here's a sample.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92084/violence-in-gaza-enters-third-week--new-yorkers-react/Default.aspx

.....Meanwhile, yesterday thousands of New Yorkers gathered near the Israeli Consulate to show their support for Israel.

Many demonstrators wore red hats, symbolizing the red alerts issued for impending rocket attacks.........

Having been the target of rockets and mortars in my life, I wouldn't wear a red hat...I would recommend that they wear brown pants.

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:32 pm

Keli wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Keli wrote:And, IMHO, the only good Islamo-fascist is a dead one.

I read and studied the bible somewhat years ago before the church ran me off so I know I have no where the knowledge you do on biblical matters.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory and give the book where you find Jesus teaching that line of thought.

They that live by the sword shall die by the sword? For our Solstice celebrators (pagans, agnostics and atheists), perhaps it is karma. (Pardon me for letting my dogma chase your karma, Solsticysts.)

Did Jesus say that in Matthew or Mark?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:34 pm

Aaron wrote:
Keli wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Keli wrote:And, IMHO, the only good Islamo-fascist is a dead one.

I read and studied the bible somewhat years ago before the church ran me off so I know I have no where the knowledge you do on biblical matters.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory and give the book where you find Jesus teaching that line of thought.

They that live by the sword shall die by the sword? For our Solstice celebrators (pagans, agnostics and atheists), perhaps it is karma. (Pardon me for letting my dogma chase your karma, Solsticysts.)

Did Jesus say that in Matthew or Mark?

Yes...

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:35 pm

Chapter and verse please?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:42 pm

Aaron wrote:Chapter and verse please?

John 3:16

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:13 pm

John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Seems that your mistaken TH.

I’ve ask you a couple of time and you ignore me so I’ll try again. Why is it that you hate Muslims as you do? You’ve acknowledged that they are your brother, the children of Abraham as is Jesus.

So I'm curious, as a man of God who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, why is it that you hate the way you do.

I’m sure you’re a good man so that one aspect of your post really confuses me.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:23 pm

Aaron wrote:
John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Seems that your mistaken TH.

I’ve ask you a couple of time and you ignore me so I’ll try again. Why is it that you hate Muslims as you do? You’ve acknowledged that they are your brother, the children of Abraham as is Jesus.

So I'm curious, as a man of God who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, why is it that you hate the way you do.

I’m sure you’re a good man so that one aspect of your post really confuses me.

Matthew 26 I didn't participate in the killing of VC and NVA soldiers because I hated them; rather, it was because they were the enemy. I believe that Islamo-fascist terrorists are the enemy and support their arrest or destruction. If you could have killed the 19 terrorists on 9/11, would you have--I would.

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:32 pm

You'll have to explain what you mean by Matthew 26. Is that in response to hating Muslims or The Gospel of Judas?

As for killing when you were a soldier in war, that does not explain your hate for all Muslims because not all Muslims are Islamo-fascist terrorists, no matter what you think.

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:32 pm

I didn't participate in the killing of VC and NVA soldiers because I hated them; rather, it was because they were the enemy.

How did you determine that they were your enemies?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:34 pm

Aaron wrote:You'll have to explain what you mean by Matthew 26. Is that in response to hating Muslims or The Gospel of Judas?

As for killing when you were a soldier in war, that does not explain your hate for all Muslims because not all Muslims are Islamo-fascist terrorists, no matter what you think.

I do not hate all Muslims--I just want the Islamo-fascist terrorists to go to their paradise and their 72 virgins. Is that so bad? (Read Matthew 26 in the New Testament for the "sword" reference.)

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:37 pm

ziggy wrote:
I didn't participate in the killing of VC and NVA soldiers because I hated them; rather, it was because they were the enemy.

How did you determine that they were your enemies?

They were shooting at me and my fellow soldiers. How would you have interpreted their actions, Z?

by **Stephanie** Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 pm

The hundreds of children the Israeli Army has murdered weren't firing rockets at anyone.

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:20 pm

Armon Ayers wrote:
ziggy wrote:
I didn't participate in the killing of VC and NVA soldiers because I hated them; rather, it was because they were the enemy.

How did you determine that they were your enemies?

They were shooting at me and my fellow soldiers. How would you have interpreted their actions, Z?

You were there seeking them out. So you obviously thought of them as your enemy before they were shooting at you. Otherwise why would you have been there, in their part of the world, anyway?

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:54 pm

It's part of something you don't understand Ziggy.

It's called service to your country.

Some even consider it an honor.

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:04 pm

So how did he determine that the VC were his enemy? Or did he just take someone else's word for it that they were?

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:11 pm

Why is capitalism an enemy of communism?

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:24 pm

So how did he determine that the VC were his enemy? Or did he just take someone else's word for it that they were?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:33 pm

Stephanie wrote:The hundreds of children the Israeli Army has murdered weren't firing rockets at anyone.

Stephanie, a man has been taking pot shots at pedestrians and motorists as they pass by his house. Police respond and he kills two officers as they exit their police car. More police respond. A SWAT team responds. After arduous negotiations, the gunman responds by killing another officer. The police return fire. The man is killed. Unfortunately, so is his wife and five children. Whose fault is it?

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:48 pm

Here's a good place to start. If you want to go more indepth, I owuld suggest by starting with communism. Perhaps you could shed some light on why they were so aggressive after WW2.

The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of a wider strategy called containment. Military advisors arrived beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s and combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. Involvement peaked in 1968 at the time of the Tet Offensive. Under a policy called Vietnamization, U.S. forces withdrew as South Vietnamese troops were trained and armed. Despite a peace treaty signed by all parties in January 1973, fighting continued. In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention. In April 1975, North Vietnam captured Saigon. North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

by shermangeneral Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:00 pm

Do you suppose that was Nixon and Kissinger's secret plan to win the war,?

He never did say I dont think.

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:02 pm

What secret plan Sherman?

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:33 pm

Aaron wrote:Here's a good place to start. If you want to go more indepth, I owuld suggest by starting with communism. Perhaps you could shed some light on why they were so aggressive after WW2.

The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of a wider strategy called containment. Military advisors arrived beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s and combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. Involvement peaked in 1968 at the time of the Tet Offensive. Under a policy called Vietnamization, U.S. forces withdrew as South Vietnamese troops were trained and armed. Despite a peace treaty signed by all parties in January 1973, fighting continued. In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention. In April 1975, North Vietnam captured Saigon. North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

But none of that tells us how he determined that the VC were his enemy. Obvioulsy he just took someone else's word for it. And you seem to be doing the same thing.

by Aaron Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:39 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:Here's a good place to start. If you want to go more indepth, I owuld suggest by starting with communism. Perhaps you could shed some light on why they were so aggressive after WW2.

The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of a wider strategy called containment. Military advisors arrived beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s and combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. Involvement peaked in 1968 at the time of the Tet Offensive. Under a policy called Vietnamization, U.S. forces withdrew as South Vietnamese troops were trained and armed. Despite a peace treaty signed by all parties in January 1973, fighting continued. In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention. In April 1975, North Vietnam captured Saigon. North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

But none of that tells us how he determined that the VC were his enemy. Obvioulsy he just took someone else's word for it. And you seem to be doing the same thing.

Why doesn't it?

by ziggy Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:41 pm

Because of this:

Armon Ayers wrote:
ziggy wrote:
I didn't participate in the killing of VC and NVA soldiers because I hated them; rather, it was because they were the enemy.

How did you determine that they were your enemies?

They were shooting at me and my fellow soldiers. How would you have interpreted their actions, Z?

by Sponsored content