Who knew?
Apparently anti-Zionist, ultra-conservative Jews come in two varieties: those who support groups like Hamas and those who don’t. What they have in common is a belief that, “God had promised to return the Jewish people to the land of Israel by means of the actions of the Jewish Messiah who would be sent by God, and that any activity on behalf of the Jews themselves to create or instigate this redemption would be punished.”
related articles
- Medved Handles Hitchens (July 16th, 2007)
- Churchill on Islam (July 2nd, 2007)
- Constantly Directing? (June 23rd, 2007)
- Huckabee’s Conversion (June 19th, 2007)
- Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop (June 18th, 2007)
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Funny, how our Government has helped establish physical Israel and now seeks to help physical Israel remain — at whatever cost.
In the middle east, the U.S. is just one terrorist among terrorists. If our leaers involved would ever figure that out, then maybe we would quit this rock throwing contest that yields no victory but only more chaos. And then maybe the other side might learn that their sowing seeds of violence too will produce no worthwhile fruit.
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Rex, support that statement or withdraw it. If you cannot cite evidence that the U.S. intentionally targets civillians to terrorize the general populations of the Middle East, then your statement is an outragous lie.
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
Gee -
And I was only going to ask him why it is funny that we helped establish Israel and want it to remain…
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
Regardless of how much connection Sadam Hussein controlled Iraq had with Al Quieda, are pre-emptive strike on Iraq defies any of the standard criterion of just was which must me met. Therefore, the U.S. has acted unjustly by attacking Iraq.
Furthermore, regardless of the U.S. intentions, from the middleeastern point of view, we have no right to use our military (or the threat of military presence) to force them to comply with certain standards. Iraq, Iran, etc… are all sovereign countries (regardless of what we might think of them). Who are we to tell them whether they can manufacture uranium? So from there point of view, we are simply big bullies.
Bottom line, while we think of ourselves as bringing justice in the world. They think of us as agents of terror in their back yard. While we think of them as terrorist, they think of themselves as simply people defending their way of life. So whose point of view is correct?
How about God’s viewpoint for a change? While one political group (Al Quieda) has certainly delievered its share of offensive strikes, another political group (the U.S.) has been guilty of its own offensive strikes as well. And we, the U.S. have even supported Israel physical occupation of land that was not there’s since WWII because of a seriously misguided reading of scripture (which is interesting given the fact that we supposedly separate the church and state).
So here is the verdict. All parties ivolved are guilty of bloodshed in the name of their own political agenda — i.e., each party is fighting for dying kingdoms that will be crushed when Jesus Christ returns. BUT GOD HAS CALLED THE WORLD THROUGH CHRIST TO THE NEW KINGDOM! So who is wrong from GOd’s viewpoint. Al Quieda is! Iraq is! Iran is! The U.S. is!
We all are simply agents of terror in a cruel and violent world.
God help us to figure out one day that in Christ, death holds no mastery over us and therefore we can live without the fear of death and can live without using violence to protect ourselves!
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
So, you have no evidence then.
Rex, I love that you read and comment here. I would like to make two requests:
Please try to limit the length each comment to about the length of the original post. I recognize it may not always be possible, but please make an effort.
Please try to be responsive.
I think these two things would make our exchanges more worthwhile.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
One additional comment:
What do we call a planned military attack on Iraq? We call it justifiable justice but many Islamic people would call it terror.
What do many Islamic people call suicide bombing your enemy? They call it justifiable justice but we call it terror.
The difference is simple which point of view you choose to referee from?
But I know it helps us sleep easier at night by labeling our war making ventures as justifiable justice while labeling their war ventures as acts of terror.
This is the point I am trying to make: The question of who is guilty of terrorism simply depends on what side of the fence you choose to sit on when you make the decision. But if you attempt to make your judgment from the Kingdom of God perspective, then maybe you might need to conclude that both sides are guilty of terrorism — no more, no less.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
You can remove the first comment if you would like. It was made in a reactionary fashion and, I admitt, it could have been said in less words which is what I tried to do with the second post.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
It’s my understanding from the Scripture that the land was given to the Isrealites for as long as they were faithful and kept God’s decrees. I am not a “Zionist” in that I do not think the Bible is referring to a political nation of Israel. However, having said that, now that that country is a soverign nation and is recognized by the United Nations and other world powers, I do not think it should be abolished by force. My two cents…
Rex, I’ve read enough of your posts to believe that you would not support ANY use of force (meaning military or police action) for ANY reason. Is that correct or have I mis-characterized your viewpoint?
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 pm
No we are not. There are distinctions to be made. Terrorism has a meaning. The fact that we are all sinners does not mean we are all terrorists. A terrorist intentionally kills non-combatants. There is no evidence I am aware of that the U.S. military does that, excuses it, or condones it. If there is some evidence to the contrary, then show me. Otherwise, stop saying it.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
A bit to the left:
I still describe myself as “not 100% sure about pacifism” but I am deeply inclined to lean towards non-violence. The only event in life in which I struggle is the Holocaust, perhaps because I am human too.
Having said that, I think violence is too often to easy of a means to work out differences. Just because we have a big stick in our hand does not mean we need to use it. Jesus could have marshalled an entire army in his defense but instead he chose nails and a wooden cross.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Extremist said: “A terrorist intentionally kills non-combatants. There is no evidence I am aware of that the U.S. military does that, excuses it, or condones it.”
What did we do in Iraq a few years ago? Did we not throw the first stone?
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I am neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist. If I had been around in 1948, I suspect would have been an anti-Zionist. However, now that a generation or two have passed, I think people need to get over it and recognize that Israel is a legitimate nation state, with the right to exist and the right of self-defense.
Pre-9/11, I was closer to the Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Robert Novak camp. I thought that Israel’s interests were frequently not consistent with ours.
9/11 changed everything.
It is clear that we cannot avoid the conflict. Like it or not, we are on Israel’s side.
And if you have to be on one side or the other, it’s better to be on the side that rejects the intentional slaughter of innocents rather than the side that embraces it.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Rex: You seem to be under the impression that the during the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military targeted civillian populations for terror bombing. If I thought that were true, I would also have opposed it.
However, that simply did not happen. Why do you think that it did?
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I am simply saying that our strike on Iraq goes beyond the standard criterion for “just war.” Thus it becomes an “injust strike” and another phrase for “injust strike” could easily be “act of terror” but if we were to use that phrase it would be more difficult trying to sleep at night.
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
My mental legs aren’t strong enough to make it across the giant chasms over which your logic is leaping.
Labeling something terrorism has to do with how a war is fought — not why. Even if you were right that the Iraq war was unjust in its purpose, that does not mean it was unjust in its methods.
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Rex,
If Canada invaded the US because we weren’t drinking enough Crown Royal, the war would be unjust.
However, would it be terrorism?
The answer to that question lies in the methods Canada used to wage war. Suppose the Canadian military invaded through New York, making it’s way down US 15 through Pennsylvania, eventually ending up in D.C. Futher, suppose their military only engaged American forces resisting their invasion. Futher still, suppose their military purposefully chose US 15 rather than I-95, because they knew that by using US 15, they would encounter fewer civilians. Still futher yet, suppose their military made every effort to avoid civilian casualties.
Is the war unjust?
Is it terrorism?
I know where I stand. How about you?
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Extremist,
If theft is wrong does it make a difference whether I used coersive tatics or manipulative tactics in war? Does stealing only from the rich and not the poor make me any less of a theif?
If military force is unjustified, then it does not make a difference who receives the military force (intended or non-intended tagets). In the end, unjustified military force is still unjustified and wrong. Therefore another phrase for “unjustified war making” is simply “committing acts of terror.” Such n act of terror can be intended for civilian or military personel, but it still is an act of terror.
But as I said earlier, it helps us sleep easier by labeling our unjustified war attacks as “justice” while labeling other people group’s unjustified war attacks as “terrorism.”
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:55 pm
It doesn’t help me sleep. It helps me think.
All terrorism is wrong, but not all that is wrong is terrorism. This is a straightforward logical distinction that you seem to want to ignore because it doesn’t support your ultimate position on the Iraq war.
What you seem to fail to see is that it doesn’t undercut your position either. It is simply a different topic — almost entirely unrelated to my post but brought on by your silly and baseless charge that “the U.S. is just one terrorist among terrorists.” That is a factual assertion that you should support with evidence.
What you mean to say, I think, is that we are not morally superior to terrorists because we launched an unjust war against Iraq. As distinct from a factual claim, this would be a matter of moral judgement.
If you said that, it would be subject to discussion and debate. I would still disagree, but I wouldn’t insist you disavow it as a lie or a misrepresentation of the facts.
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
(Mp) Terrorism is an unjust act of war + (mp)the U.S. has committed an unjust act of war against Iraq = Therefore the U.S. has committed an act of terror on Iraq.
We could go round and round with logical syllogisms but the only thing syllogism prove is the persons means of logic.
What nobody gets is that it does not matter one iota whether we consider ourselves terrorist or not — our enemy does. And we consider our enemy terrorist but our enemy simply consider themselves to be defenders of their way of living.
It all is a matter of semantics, the bottom line is that this war is not going to solve anything (as if war ever has). It will only prove who weilds the bigger stick. In the end, both sides staunchly justify their war making effort while denouncing their enemies as terrorist — and who suffers? The one living in both lands who never wanted a war in the first place.
I rest my case.
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Yeah - war has never solved anything…
Except American slavery and the holocaust, to name just two…
Rex, why don’t you ease up on the rhetoric. Your outlandish statements can’t be supported, and it really is beginning to damage your credibility. For the most part, I enjoy reading what you bring to a discussion, and it often causes me to stop and reflect on my own position. However, your logic on this one is not doing you any favors.
I could change the definition of the phrase “couch” to mean anything capable of being sat upon. That would not change the fact that a stool is not a couch.
I think it was Lincoln who once remarked about calling a tail a leg. He posed the question (or something very similar), if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? When someone answered, “five,” Lincoln said, “No. It is still only four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
The point is, calling what the US did “terrorism” doesn’t make it terrorism. And you insistence that it does is bordering on silliness…
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Out of the mainstream,
I will not ease my rhetoric, because I believe that our government is guilty of a great miscarriage of justice.
Read your history books and you will see that the Civil war was not about slavery, it was about certain segments of society believing they could defacto from the U.S. (an aside, history should warn those fundamentalist in South Carolina dreaming of defacting from the U.S. to form a ‘conservative’ nation).
WWII was not about the Holocaust for the U.S. We stood by with our hands folded from the mid 1930’s until 1941 while we fully knew of the gross war crimes being committed by Germany and Japan. We only decided to get into the war once we realized that our own interests were in danger.
Those two World Wars which were supposed to end all wars… Well it failed.
And for kickers, let me remind us of how our history was developed by graciously offering to care after the Idians while we supplied them with blankets containing small pox (terrorism?). We ended WWII by showing who could weild the biggest stick — we dropped two Atomic Bombs, with full knowledge that many innocent civillians would die.
And like all history, we will only know years down the road the full scope of our military’s doings in this war in Iraq. But if our history tells us anything, it certainly tell us that even the U.S. is willing to hit below the belt. Why? Because we operate on the ethic which says “The end justifies the means.”
April 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Rex said:
Actually, it makes you and Democrat (and no less a thief).
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Rex,
I didn’t say that those two wars were fought for those two singular purposes; I said they ended the evils mentioned. In other words, the Civil War ended slavery and WWII ended the holocaust. You can’t possibly argue they didn’t.
As for your other points, the fact that the Westphalian order is in systematic crisis does nothing to change my opinion that its principles are superior to the alternatives. And remember, it wasn’t people like me (those who believe in the Westphalian system of state sovreignity) who are responsible for the current state of the world.
In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. It was those who believed that free governments had a responsibility to ensure and enforce the human rights of those in countries without such principles.
I believe I have heard you support US action in Africa to stem genocide. That is the kind of action that brought the end of the Westphalian system.
Simply put, it was people like you (those who advocated US intervention in humanitarian missions) who brought about the current state of affairs… and it’s people like you who are complaining about it.
Oh, the irony.
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
You have never heard me support any military action. You have only heard me question why are government is selective in where it offers it “justice for the world” with the military.
Ex: Stealing from the rich but not the poor… My in laws call such behavior as democrat. Their die hard republicans.
My Father, who was a staunch democrat used to say the opposite about the republicans… stealing from the poor to feed the rich.
Semantics…
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
Rex,
I apologize for mischaracterizing your position in Africa. As for your position that the Republicans steal from the poor to feed the rich, you are absolutely and utterly disregarding every fact known to man when you say that.
The fact is that the poor don’t pay taxes. The bottom fifty percent of wage earners in America pay almost zero taxes. By contrast, the top 1 percent of wage earners earn 17 percent of the income in America and pay 35 percent of the taxes.
I am astounded that as a future “man of the cloth” you are so cavalier with the truth. It really reflects poorly on you.
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Out of the mainstream,
Relax! Take a chill! When I made the comment about Republicans stealing from the poor for the bennefit of the rich, I was only joking… Gee! It was simply a joking response to Extremist who made a joking response about Democrats being guilty of stealing from the rich for the poor.