Posted on 10/11/2001 7:08:53 PM PDT by gohabsgo
In what way?
Is the Northern Alliance "co-opting"? Pakistan? Iran? Russia? I just heard the President tell us that Syria is helping in the war against terrorism. Everyone is selfless but the Zionists?
Wake up before it's too late
What are you trying to say and what is your proof? Without any evidence beyond your silly pronouncements, I'd rather go back to sleep.
The words are Old Whigs. I was replying to him. Since everyone seemed out to dinner I was playing a sort of mind game based on his what-if scenario. It was pretty silly as I said several times.
Do you always think that people who disagree with you are paranoid, unhealthy and unable to see clearly?
Skip the lecture on "irony," back in the day?
A question was posited. I answered it.
I agree...to a point. I have read various arguements for and against the Pre-trib rapture idea. It is unfortunately one of those areas where I can see and understand both sides. I pray for a Pre-trib rapture but hopefully prepare for a post-trib rapture.
The biggest problem with Pre-trib - People so convinved that it is going to happen that they overlook other things. If the Government (ours, UN, whatever)comes wanting to put a mark on me, I won't deny what is happening, thinking "this can't be the Mark of the Beast as the rapture hasn't happened yet".
On the other hand, the problem with the post-trib view is that it leaves people thinking they have plenty of time until they have to make a decision.
Just like Burger King, eh? Your way. Your way is wrong. In a court of law, that is hearsay. It is what someone else said he said. He was a Rabbi, and there is no way he would have made such a statement. In those days, the Hebrew tradition of dual paternity was well known and G-d was every human being's father in heaven. The belief is that there can be no conception without the presence of the *father* in heaven and the *father* on earth. In other words, each child is a miracle. Without that, there can be no children.
So you must take the New Testament in context of the time period, which you haven't, and most people who preach incessantly don't. Jesus, according to the NT, was a very devout Hebrew who tried without much success to stop the influx of Hellenism into the Judaic culture. There was as much political intrigue then as there is now, and a devout Jew, a rebel Rabbi, would never have walked away from his roots. Not until Paul did the convolutions begin, and Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died. Paul CHANGED the traditions Jesus fought to restore. Read it for yourself. Both Peter AND Paul can't be right. Jesus handpicked Peter, not Paul. So who messed it all up for the rest of time?
Oh, hell. What's the use...
You can thank my Jewish ex-mother-in-law, Shirley, for that. She was the most racist woman I’ve ever known. She hated me because I am a Gentile and because I married into her family. One of her sons was secretly dating a Gentile girl, and the girl was not allowed into Shirley’s house. Her other son was dating a Chinese girl, and she wasn’t allowed into Shirley’s house. My wife and I had to sneak around to double-date with her brothers. I think the only reason I was allowed into Shirley’s house was because I arranged for my marriage to be a Jewish ceremony, performed by a Rabbi in a Synagogue, under a canopy. The whole works. Ha, little did I know back in those naive days of mine that my wife’s family were racist Zionists who hated everyone but Jews.
I don’t mind if people support Israel, like I might support England because I think most of my ancestors might have come from England. But I sure as hell don’t support England over the United States. So I’m mainly angry at strong Zionist because: 1) they are among the most racist people on earth; 2) they don’t give a damn about the United States except for how they can use us and get money from us; 3) they would kill every Arab on earth if they could get away with it; and 4) they will sure as hell bomb the United States if they ever felt that would help them to survive.
I don’t dislike Jews at all, except maybe for Shirley. My best friend is Jewish, but he’s not a Zionist. We’ve been pals for more than 30 years. I would much prefer to have friends who are American (non-Zionist) Jews than American right-wing redneck hillbilly Anglo-Saxon Neanderthals of my own race.
One big problem I see with the Israelis is that they keep creeping into Palestinian territory. They steal more land every week. They were basically given half of Palestine back in 1948, but they won’t stop their killing and their aggression until they steal all of Palestine. They use the rebel uprisings as an excuse to steal more land. I don’t care if the Palestinians are a bunch of primitive goat herders, they deserve the right to not have their land stolen and their houses blown up by a bunch of greedy people who claim that “G-d” gives them permission to kill kids and steal people’s property. This is extreme blasphemy, and you can bet commercial secular greedy Israel will be punished for it.
the Arab states occupy 99.9% of the land
So what? What does that have to do with anything? If the Israelis steal Arab land, right in the middle of millions of square miles of Arab territory, that is just plain stupid. The Israelis would be in trouble if they stole Russian land, Chinese land, Brazilian land, Texas land. If you try to steal my land, I’d be mad too.
and every last one of them is either a military dictatorship or a decidedly undemocratic theocracy.
What does that have to do with the World Trade Center bombing? If you want to reform all the Arab nations, then go ahead and try, but keep the United States out of it.
So, my question stands......why would you deny the only civilized people of the region - the Israeli Jews - a right to that one, tiny slice of land?
One “tiny slice of land” is not the issue. Go back to the 1948 partition borders. Stop stealing more and more land. Stop blowing up people’s houses, stop killing kids, and stop trying to talk America into killing all the Arabs of all the world, just for the sake of the Zionists.
In my opinion, official representatives of Israel should have said to us from the beginning, starting right after the disaster in New York, “President Bush, we’ll support you in any way we can. Just let us know how we can help you.” But NO! They demanded that we support them after our people got blown up! That is the epitome of egotism and selfishness! They don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves.
This phase of the Israeli-Arab conflict, like the military campaign against the terror networks, is likely to take a long time, and go through different phases. Tactical propaganda victories will be short- lived, and the outcome will be determined by the implementation of an effective and consistent strategy.
In the first round, as the US State Department organized the coalition following the September 11 attacks, the Arabs jumped to a quick advantage. Following the script from the 1991 war against Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia demanded payment in the form of pressure on Israel in exchange for lukewarm support.
As a result, the Bush administration, which initially avoided repeating president Bill Clinton´s failures and embrace of Arafat, returned to the old formulas. Despite the fiasco of the Peres-Arafat meeting, President George W. Bush endorsed a Palestinian State, there are plans for a meeting with Arafat and the declaration of yet another grandiose peace plan.
In addition, while declaring war on global terror, Washington failed to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah on the list of terror groups. From Jerusalem, it seemed that Arafat had gained the upper hand in Washington.
Throughout this period, concern in Israel grew, and Sharon was pressed to issue a strong response. The "Czechoslovakia" speech departed from diplomatic protocol, and like all historical analogies was not entirely appropriate, but the concerns were very real.
In order to avoid more ruffled feathers in Washington, Sharon did not raise the bitter lessons of the 1990/1 coalition (of which Secretary of State Colin Powell was a major architect, and the then commander of the US military). In that round, Israel paid the price for holding the coalition together by acting with restraint in the face of Palestinian terror and Iraqi Scud missile attacks. American promises were not or could not be fulfilled, including the pledge to destroy Iraqi President Saddam Hussein´s regime and his ability to threaten Israel.
Later, Israel was forced into the Madrid Peace Conference, which led to the failed Oslo "peace process." Now, a decade later, Sharon´s message is that Israel is not prepared to be the punching bag again for Arab coalition members.
While this speech was "unacceptable" to the White House spokesman, a brief "cloudburst" by Powell, and an awkward situation for some American Jewish leaders (concerned that Bush would mistakenly take the criticism personally), it got their attention. After a number of attacks and murders, the Israeli military moved against Palestinian positions in Hebron and Gaza, demonstrating that Sharon was serious about fighting terror
As a result, Powell and the European Union greatly increased pressure on the Palestinians, and for the first time in five years, Arafat´s forces acted to prevent terror attacks. Palestinian militias also killed a number of Palestinians demonstrating in Gaza in favor of bin Laden, and even asked for Israeli tear-gas and other materials to deal with these riots. This violent response was triggered by the perception that these demonstrations, like the apparently unauthorized terror attack on the Elei Sinai settlement on the edge of Gaza, were unacceptable challenges to Arafat´s leadership.
The strategy of confrontation, while earning quick praise from Washington and Europe, will only succeed if Arafat and the Palestinian Authority can keep the lid on terror attacks. Pressures generated by protests against the American attacks in Afghanistan and against Arafat´s own policies will make this increasingly difficult.
After a long period of incitement and support for anti-American and anti-Israeli terror, the sudden shift may lead to more civil conflict. Arafat´s position was already quite precarious following a year of violence with no tangible results, as well as a legacy of corruption and authoritarianism.
At the same time, the old Arab myths and propaganda focusing on "the crimes of Israeli occupation," and attempts to justify terrorism in the name of Palestinian "liberation" do not sell well in the US. In addition, despite the initial flirtation, key Arab states, including Syria, Iran, and Iraq will come under increasing pressure for their own role in terrorism.
In the list of 22 most-wanted terrorists, the US included three prominent members of Hizbullah, which is supported and trained by Iran and Syria
In contrast, the importance of Israel´s tangible assets and contributions to the war against terror will increase as the war intensifies. The similarities between the Israeli and American situations - democracies facing threats and attacks from radical Islamic groups - are too strong to be covered up by political expediency.
In developing policies to respond to suicide bombers, airline hijacking, chemical and biological weapons, and other forms of terror, Israel has many years of valuable experience. Israeli intelligence has been following the activities of Islamic terror groups and their supporters for years, and this information is vital to the US-led effort.
As a result, while Arafat and his Arab allies may win a few tactical victories in Washington, these are likely to be short-lived. Israel remains the strongest and only reliable ally in the region, and during a long anti-terror campaign, the level of cooperation, and the close bonds linking the two countries, will grow. Despite the occasional cloudburst, the relationship remains secure.
(© 1995-2001, The Jerusalem Post 10/12/01)
No, I don't know. But I have never heard him say anything that would cause me to suspect that he does.
He seems to think highly of Billy Graham;and I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that Billy Graham does not put forth that view...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.