Israel vs Hamas escalates

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

...i don't want to sound ungrateful, Q, except that the "israel" referred to there is not the state of israel, but the "children of israel" - the jewish people. and unfortunately there is the small matter of the whole apocalypse thing where we are expected by most american christians of the evangelical persuasion to either get killed or convert, neither of which i am keen on. modern evangelical eschatology does the reality of the middle east no favours whatsoever; there is no hope for peace in it until millions have died and we are no longer jews. nonetheless, i do believe that america should still be involved, if only because there are a lot of americans who do not believe that a christian agenda should be the determinant of US foreign policy.

b'shalom

bananabrain

No worries BB, I personally am referring to the "people" of Israel, of whom I have had the distinct honor of being a guest of for long enough for me to appreciate the land and the hosts thereof...

I don't worry about what others of my "faith" think will or will not happen, to whom.

I am also enamored by many other "middle eastern" people I have grown up with, and find this whole situation untennable.

As far as conversion...well, what would the world be without all of us as we are? "boring"...

However, one must consider that those instigating this war, have motives that do not bode well for the continued existence of others. And that really bothers me.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Q, Are you claiming responsibility for the biological line that you were born into? Are you responsible for what your biological father and mother did, or the generation prior to them? Did you select your parents and your genes upon entry into this world? Are you responsible for the laws that your ancestors made for you to follow, or the country that you were born into?

If so, I don't think it is a teaching from Christ (pbuh).
If not, then what led you to think that someone else is responsible for theirs, or that you are responsible for someone else's genes, etc?

Genesis 12:1-3 refers to those who bless and curse the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim, pbuh). That refers back to those verses that I cited.

Again, you lose point of something God specifically told us in the bible "Unto the third and even the fourth generations, the sins of the fathers are passed down to his children." What that means, I believe, is that the attitudes of the father, can't help but be passed down to the offspring, and a vicious cycle begins, unless the "chain" of bigotry and anger are broken somewhere along the line. So, to answer you main question, yes I am responsible for carrying on the faults of my parents, because the tendancies are in me as well. And to the second question of importance to you, yes, it is a Christian teaching, or at least a Biblical teaching (and a WARNING), to those who follow Christian pathways.

I think we've seen a rather poignant example in the arrest of Mr. Mel Gibson for DUI, during which he expressed anti-semitic thoughts (much like his father has in the past). Only they came out while he was under the influence, and less inhibited than his conscience would normally allow him to be...

As I said, the sins of the father pass on...

v/r

Q

[RebelSnake]

"Unto the third and even the fourth generations, the sins of the fathers are passed down to his children." What that means, I believe, is that the attitudes of the father, can't help but be passed down to the offspring,

Excuse me but how do sins get changed into attitudes here? Talk about changing the meaning. An even more important question though, based on my own interpretation is: Why should the son pay for the crimes of the father?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RebelSnake

Excuse me but how do sins get changed into attitudes here? Talk about changing the meaning. An even more important question though, based on my own interpretation is: Why should the son pay for the crimes of the father?

Well, the "attitude" preceeds the sin (thinking is before action). And if the son continues with the same attitude that the father had on something, and acts on the same, he will answer for his sin, which is the same as his father's.

v/r

Q

[RebelSnake]

Well, the "attitude" preceeds the sin (thinking is before action).

People are not guilty of anything based on their attitude.

And if the son continues with the same attitude that the father had on something, and acts on the same, he will answer for his sin, which is the same as his father's.

The keyword here being "if". And you haven't addressed my question. How can you justify making the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty?

"Unto the third and even the fourth generations, the sins of the fathers are passed down to his children."

Where is the justice and morality in this statement?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RebelSnake

According to Jesus' teaching they are...

I did specifically answer your question. You (apparently) refuse to accept my answer. There is no such thing as innocent, in the adult world. What I percieve your statement to mean is that behavior ends at death. I think, the proof in the pudding is before us quite evident. The "son" often times more than not, continues in the line of the father.


Where is the justice and morality in this statement?

One must STOP what has happened in the past, and do the 50 ways concept.

It didn't work yesterday...what makes us think it will work today?

The morality is in the story. Father for example, is a drunk. Tells his son "Don't become like me". Son thinks, "I am already like you"...but decides to work to change that. THAT is morality. Son succeeds and hence no more trouble of that kind based on drinking, and the world is a bit safer, because the son refused to fall into the trap the father is caught in...THAT is justice at its best. But it usually takes three to four generations within a family to permanently enact that kind of lifestyle change.

Please, don't go giving me the bank robber junk. I'm talking about day to day issues.

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Sidney Blumental on where this all may be headed:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/f.../salon027.html

Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Sidney Blumental on where this all may be headed:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/f.../salon027.html

As you said elsewhere, don't believe everything you read. Nevertheless....

luna

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

As you said elsewhere, don't believe everything you read.

Indeed.

[flowperson]

flow....

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Sidney Blumental on where this all may be headed:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/f.../salon027.html

A very interesting read - on the Christian messageboards at the start of the century there were plenty of pastes of neocon articles, which makes the Blumental reading seem pretty straight.

[I, Brian]

Continues to be ugly - seems like we're back to the 80's again, and hard not to wonder if Israel has forgotten it's previous experience of occupying Lebannon.

Still, was interesting to read a comment by political fool Boris Johnson, which I thought added a little perspective, discussing why he thinks it's utterly hypocritical for the UK to condemn Israel:

http://www.boris-johnson.com/archive...l_israel_i.php

[Israel] is a country responding, however incompetently, to direct aggression against its own people from a neighbouring failed state. It was only three years ago that we, the goody-goody British, invaded a sovereign country thousands of miles away that presented absolutely no direct threat whatever.

We, the smug British, have been responsible for what is now a full-scale civil war, and in case there is still some ass out there (such as Blair) who says this is not a civil war, let me point out that Iraqi civilian deaths are now averaging 800 a week, and the monthly casualties for June approached the levels of the American Civil War, one of the bloodiest in history.

Our strategy - Jack Straw's strategy - for Iraq has proved to be pure carnage, and for him to criticise Israel's strategy is laughable.

[flowperson]

It's very ugly Brian, and now we understand why all those Nobel Prize Winners and the Late Pope all but pleaded with the "Cowboy" and the "Poodle" not to do it. But of course all that went down the "memory hole" soon afterwards as the media got caught uo in the wonderment of "shock and awe".

Let's face it, there are certain political and economic interests in the world that WANT death, suffering, and destruction. It energizes them in perverse ways, not to mention lining their pockets with blood money. Kind of reminds me of the cartoon feature, Monsters Inc. I try not to pay attention to it at all day-to-day, but I listen to the BBC at work in the AM, sooo....

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

It's very ugly Brian, and now we understand why all those Nobel Prize Winners and the Late Pope all but pleaded with the "Cowboy" and the "Poodle" not to do it. But of course all that went down the "memory hole" soon afterwards as the media got caught uo in the wonderment of "shock and awe".

Let's face it, there are certain political and economic interests in the world that WANT death, suffering, and destruction. It energizes them in perverse ways, not to mention lining their pockets with blood money. Kind of reminds me of the cartoon feature, Monsters Inc. I try not to pay attention to it at all day-to-day, but I listen to the BBC at work in the AM, sooo....

flow....

I will point out some commentary from other than America: take it for what you find it worth...

God Bless America
from an editorial by Gordon Sinclair

Snopes.com Urban legend status: True
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

...and from Germany

written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004.

"A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake.

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice."
Urban legend.com - status True as written above.
The "cowboy" and "Poodle" seem to understand what is really at stake here...our way of life. Islam may not want us as dust, but extremists have made it their ultimate mission in life to insure that it is so.
v/r
Q

[cyberpi]

I see two extremes presented, both without faith, both self-serving, both self-righteous, both the cause of many injustices, both blind to people, both the cause of war, both having nothing really to do with Israel or Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any religion... save for the fact that over a century the USA governments and NGO's gave well over $100 billion to Israel in cash and weapons. So either way: give nothing or throw money blindly. Either watch the show or add more war to it. Either way, I see the two extremes are the same thing, and they are sadly placed on this thread, many threads and media around the world. America thy name is self-righteous and there is nothing good whatsoever from that.