Israel

[mdmost 43004]

I've already seen MAGA try to liken what Biden is doing by withholding weapons to Israel to what Trump was impeached for by withholding aid to Ukraine. They claim Biden is doing this to sway the election. Their brains just no longer work. 

[South Austin 52515]

11 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Their brains just no longer work. 

They used to work?

[HenryJames 66080]

Just Israel’s Minister of National Security. Not enough blood for these zealots.

[mdmost 43004]

Fuck him in his goat ass. Guess what fuckface, you do what we say or you get no more bombs. You suckle at our teet. Not the other way around. 

['stache 21817]

I guess all 600,000 kids in Rafah are Hamas. Dialogue in this fucking world is broken.

[bolverk 29683]

While the delivery of some bombs has been delayed, the administration fought for months to secure $15 billion in military funding. This is one of the things that's so fucking frustrating. You can be an Israel supporter, but once you level any criticism, you're either antisemitic or pro-terrorist.

[wildcat09 29355]

At this point I wouldn't be opposed to air dropping some precision guided munitions to Netanyahu and his Likud buddies.

[HenryJames 66080]

[safe sex 11735]

OOF

[TwiceHorn 31488]

On 5/6/2024 at 9:53 PM, Rex Kramer said:

I never said I hadn’t heard of it and never denied its existence.  I am literally never around it and I’m around people of faith all day every day. 

I don’t confuse the two, but it was never clarified. Methodism is ‘evangelical’ in doctrine. If Ana’s poll is correct there is a massive difference and I really would like to know how they differentiate. I’m UMC. I go to HPUMC. I presume a church like Watermark would be considered ‘evangelical’. Let me know if that is the case. 

The United Methodist Church, although emphasizing evangelism through mission work is not what is considered an "evangelical" denomination.

Evangelicals are generally congregational (have no real church hierarchy and choose their own clergy without regard for qualification or education) and, as a result, have screwy theology, like this eschatology thing.  The actual word is "fundamentalist," but that has a negative connotation these days thanks to fundamentalist Islam.  The parallels are striking, though.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The United Methodist Church, although emphasizing evangelism through mission work is not what is considered an "evangelical" denomination.

Evangelicals are generally congregational (have no real church hierarchy and choose their own clergy without regard for qualification or education) and, as a result, have screwy theology, like this eschatology thing.  The actual word is "fundamentalist," but that has a negative connotation these days thanks to fundamentalist Islam.  The parallels are striking, though.

Fundamentalists aren’t the same as evangelicals though they’re similar. Regardless, they comprise only 14% of Americans. Mainline Protestants comprise 31% and Catholics are 22%. I just don’t see the impact, near the impact, y’all think they have with respect to leading American Christianity’s view of Israel. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The United Methodist Church, although emphasizing evangelism through mission work is not what is considered an "evangelical" denomination.

Evangelicals are generally congregational (have no real church hierarchy and choose their own clergy without regard for qualification or education) and, as a result, have screwy theology, like this eschatology thing.  The actual word is "fundamentalist," but that has a negative connotation these days thanks to fundamentalist Islam.  The parallels are striking, though.

Sorry, @TwiceHorn, this is a bit of a mishmash and it’s mostly because of the development of “Evangelical” into a near epithet. 
 

Evangelical is a theological definition and historic tradition that is defined by the centrality of evangelism (preaching and sharing the Gospel message), a belief in a personal conversion experience, and the authority of the Bible.  By any stretch almost all Methodism falls into this category, and John Wesley is universally recognized as a leading, foundational evangelical thinker.  There are conservative, liberal, and even progressive strains within evangelicalism. Independent congregetional church governance is  not core to evangelical theology in tradition or practice and plenty of more organized denominations fall into the broad evangelical tent.

Congregational church governance is organizational although it may have some theological groundings.  Most churches organized on these lines happen to fall within the evangelical big tent, but it’s not synonymous. Some groups like the churches of Christ will dispute that they are evangelical at all due to more sacramental understandings of baptism and communion although they developed in the general evangelical intellectual ferment.

Fundamentalism is a specific view of the Bible, with the “fundamental” being that the Bible is inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Most fundamentalist churches happen to be both evangelical and congregational but not all of them, there exist more formally organized fundamentalist groups as well as fundamentalist groups that co-exist within larger conservative but non-fundamentalist bodies.  Almost all the “let’s speed up the end times” folks DO fall into the “fundamentalist evangelical” group but the big evangelical tent is much, much broader. 

Edited May 9 by 956 Worldwide

[Brisketexan 105152]

Fundamentalists aren’t the same as evangelicals though they’re similar. Regardless, they comprise only 14% of Americans. Mainline Protestants comprise 31% and Catholics are 22%. I just don’t see the impact, near the impact, y’all think they have with respect to leading American Christianity’s view of Israel. 

Look at the percentages of Americans who believe in the Rapture, the cornerstone fundagelical eschatological belief. It’s around 40%. It’s nuts.

[TwiceHorn 31488]

56 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Sorry, @TwiceHorn, this is a bit of a mishmash and it’s mostly because of the development of “Evangelical” into a near epithet. 
 

Evangelical is a theological definition and historic tradition that is defined by the centrality of evangelism (preaching and sharing the Gospel message), a belief in a personal conversion experience, and the authority of the Bible.  By any stretch almost all Methodism falls into this category, and John Wesley is universally recognized as a leading, foundational evangelical thinker.  There are conservative, liberal, and even progressive strains within evangelicalism. Independent congregetional church governance is  not core to evangelical theology in tradition or practice and plenty of more organized denominations fall into the broad evangelical tent.

Congregational church governance is organizational although it may have some theological groundings.  Most churches organized on these lines happen to fall within the evangelical big tent, but it’s not synonymous. Some groups like the churches of Christ will dispute that they are evangelical at all due to more sacramental understandings of baptism and communion although they developed in the general evangelical intellectual ferment.

Fundamentalism is a specific view of the Bible, with the “fundamental” being that the Bible is inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Most fundamentalist churches happen to be both evangelical and congregational but not all of them, there exist more formally organized fundamentalist groups as well as fundamentalist groups that co-exist within larger conservative but non-fundamentalist bodies.  Almost all the “let’s speed up the end times” folks DO fall into the “fundamentalist evangelical” group but the big evangelical tent is much, much broader. 

Yeah it is, but so is the colloquial meaning of "evangelical" versus the theological meaning, as your post amply demonstrates.

Evangelical is really the wrong term to describe what we're talking about, but it's what the media has saddled us with.

Similarly, to brisket's post, we tend to know what people mean when they refer to "the Rapture," but I'm not sure that has a real uniform meaning, either, bearing varying relations to a second coming and weirder eschatological beliefs.

 

Edited May 9 by TwiceHorn

[Rex Kramer 1338]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Look at the percentages of Americans who believe in the Rapture, the cornerstone fundagelical eschatological belief. It’s around 40%. It’s nuts.

I don’t believe it’s that high a percentage. I could be wrong that sounds way high. The whole idea is a tad too close to Mormonism to me. 

[TwiceHorn 31488]

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t believe it’s that high a percentage. I could be wrong that sounds way high. The whole idea is a tad too close to Mormonism to me. 

You know there are a lot of Mormons, right?  There are actually more Mormons than United Methodists.

[statsman 5471]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

This is the most overtly racist thing I have ever seen on this message board. The caption implies they’re commenting on Zionists (because it’s always the “Zionists” they’re combating, never Jews, of course), but the image is a caricature of an Orthodox Jew. 
 
At least his mouth isn’t open to show the sharpened teeth he uses to devour Gentile babies. 

Edited May 9 by statsman

[statsman 5471]

Note- I’m not saying the poster is racist; I’m just a little shocked by the image, and the idea of Jews as puppet masters has an ugly history. 

Edited May 10 by statsman

[mdmost 43004]

I would think any reference to "the Jews are running _____" is bad. But Libertarians are morons. 

[bolverk 29683]

22 minutes ago, statsman said:

Note- I’m not saying the poster is racist; I’m just a little shocked by the image, and the idea of Jews as puppet masters has an ugly history. 

Indeed it does:

We continue to see fundraising emails from the Trump campaign that feature language & imagery of George Soros controlling puppet strings and secret globalist cabals. This isn’t just disturbing, it’s indisputably dangerous and reprehensible. Let’s be clear, these are antisemitic tropes about Jewish power and are a gateway into hardcore antisemitic conspiracy theories.

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

8 hours ago, bolverk said:

While the delivery of some bombs has been delayed, the administration fought for months to secure $15 billion in military funding. This is one of the things that's so fucking frustrating. You can be an Israel supporter, but once you level any criticism, you're either antisemitic or pro-terrorist.

Stalin once said “Кадры решают всё,” the cadres/personnel decide everything.

To that I would add: personnel, procurement, and provision IS policy. The types of bombs you provide or procure matter and demonstrate what your policy is. Or what your policy can ever be. 

Cue Anastasis to explain why understanding bombs is ghoulish. 

[Anastasis 23474]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Cue Anastasis to explain why understanding bombs is ghoulish. 

I sleep well knowing that I oppose sending weapons to Israel that will end up being used to execute an ethnic cleansing operation. 

I understand that ymmv. 

 

Edited May 10 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23474]

6 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Should have just made the caricature Netanyahu and the puppets matt miller and blinken. 

 

[Rex Kramer 1338]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You know there are a lot of Mormons, right?  There are actually more Mormons than United Methodists.

I’m not sure you understood, at all, what I said. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not sure you understood, at all, what I said. 

The Mormons don’t believe in the pre-Trib rapture anyway. But they do believe in the Second Coming and that we are in the end times. The devil is in the details on what the term means. Same problem when you ask Muslims about the Sharia. 

[TwiceHorn 31488]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not sure you understood, at all, what I said. 

You implied, I think, that Mormons are some small, fringey cult like you seem to maintain that the fundagelicals are some small, fringey cult with their "Jesus ain't comin without Israel" schtick.

They may be fringey, they may be a cult, but they ain't small, either LDS or fundagelicals that support Israel because it's a prerequisite to the second coming, whether they are explicitly aware of that belief or just told they should by their pastors.

 

[Hank_Hill 18831]

5 hours ago, statsman said:

This is the most overtly racist thing I have ever seen on this message board. 

Oh buddy, you ain’t looking hard enough then 

[Rex Kramer 1338]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The Mormons don’t believe in the pre-Trib rapture anyway. But they do believe in the Second Coming and that we are in the end times. The devil is in the details on what the term means. Same problem when you ask Muslims about the Sharia. 

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You implied, I think, that Mormons are some small, fringey cult like you seem to maintain that the fundagelicals are some small, fringey cult with their "Jesus ain't comin without Israel" schtick.

They may be fringey, they may be a cult, but they ain't small, either LDS or fundagelicals that support Israel because it's a prerequisite to the second coming, whether they are explicitly aware of that belief or just told they should by their pastors.

 

The rapture is an 1800s doctrine dreamed up by American fundamentalists. In my mind it’s not quite as fantastical as Joe Smith’s fantasies, but it’s close. That’s what I meant. 

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

8 hours ago, statsman said:

Note- I’m not saying the poster is racist; I’m just a little shocked by the image, and the idea of Jews as puppet masters has an ugly history. 

Like the Brits deciding to give them their own state in Palestine. 

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

8 hours ago, bolverk said:

Indeed it does:

We continue to see fundraising emails from the Trump campaign that feature language & imagery of George Soros controlling puppet strings and secret globalist cabals. This isn’t just disturbing, it’s indisputably dangerous and reprehensible. Let’s be clear, these are antisemitic tropes about Jewish power and are a gateway into hardcore antisemitic conspiracy theories.

 

Probably learned that from Orban. 

[Captainant 27679]

21 hours ago, mdmost said:

I've already seen MAGA try to liken what Biden is doing by withholding weapons to Israel to what Trump was impeached for by withholding aid to Ukraine. They claim Biden is doing this to sway the election. Their brains just no longer work. 

Accusing their opposition of their own crimes is CLASSIC fascism

[Captainant 27679]

12 hours ago, statsman said:

Note- I’m not saying the poster is racist; I’m just a little shocked by the image, and the idea of Jews as puppet masters has an ugly history. 

There's a bunch of angry racists in the DT Houston thread complaining about the "George Soros funded DA office letting criminals out on bond to terrorize cities", completely unaware of the antisemitic origin of that conspiracy theory

[hookemATL 11739]

9 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

 

The rapture is an 1800s doctrine dreamed up by American fundamentalists. In my mind it’s not quite as fantastical as Joe Smith’s fantasies, but it’s close. That’s what I meant. 

Raptures are dinosaurs with sharp teeth and claws, you clod. 

[wildcat09 29355]

20 hours ago, HenryJames said:

I'm surprised Bern hadn't already posted this.

[bernorange 8362]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm surprised Bern hadn't already posted this.

This is a new low in casting shade.  I'd say you are better than this, but it's been a few years since there was any evidence of that.

[wildcat09 29355]

Hey, I'm not the one who posted a clearly anti-Semitic libertarian tweet by Ron Paul and then pretended not to understand how it was anti-Semitic. 

[bolverk 29683]

Two thoughts:

1. The US remains committed to a full-state resolution, as it has for the last few decades, but we still voted against this resolution for UN recognition as a full-member state. I kind of get that because they aren't a state, yet, but we're out here almost all alone on that branch.
2. The Israeli Ambassador to the UN says the vote rewards Hamas. I kind of get that because of the timing, but this should've happened a long time ago, like, before Hamas ever came to power.

 

Quote

 

The U.N. General Assembly adopts a resolution in support of Palestinian statehood.

The United Nations General Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly adopted a resolution declaring that Palestinians qualify for full-members status at the United Nations, a highly symbolic move that reflects growing global solidarity with Palestinians and is a rebuke to Israel and the United States.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 143 to 9 with 25 nations abstaining. The Assembly broke into a big applause after the vote.

But the resolution does not mean a Palestinian state will be recognized and admitted to the United Nations as a full member anytime soon.  The Assembly can only grant full membership with the approval of the Security Council, and if history is a guide, the United States would almost inevitably wield its veto power to kill such a measure, as it did in April.

Even though a majority in the General Assembly have long supported Palestinian statehood, the resolution was the first time the body had voted on the issue of full membership. The resolution declares that “the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations” under its charter rules and recommends that the Security Council reconsider the matter with a favorable outcome.

The resolution was prepared by the United Arab Emirates, the current chair of the U.N. Arab Group and sponsored by 70 countries. The United States voted no, along with Hungary, Argentina, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia and Nauru.

Though largely symbolic, the resolution does provide new diplomatic privileges to Palestinians. Palestinians can now sit among member states in alphabetical order; they can speak at General Assembly meetings on any topic instead of being limited to Palestinian affairs; they can submit proposals and amendments; and they can participate at U.N. conferences and international meetings organized by the Assembly and other United Nations entities.

The 193-member General Assembly took up the issue of Palestinian membership after the United States in April vetoed a resolution before the Security Council that would have recognized full membership for a Palestinian state. While a majority of council members supported the move, the United States said recognition of Palestinian statehood should be achieved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Frustration with the United States has been brewing for months among many senior U.N. officials and diplomats, including from allies such as France, because the Washington has repeatedly blocked cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council and has staunchly supported Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza, even as civilian suffering has mounted.

“The U.S. is resigned to having another bad day at the U.N.,” said Richard Gowan, an expert on the U.N. for the International Crisis Group, a conflict prevention organization. But he added that the resolution “gives the Palestinians a boost without creating a breakdown over whether they are or are not now U.N. members.”

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the U.N., told the Assembly ahead of the vote that Palestinians’ right to full membership at the U.N. and statehood “are not up for negotiations, they are our inherent rights as Palestinians.” He added that a vote against Palestinian statehood was a vote against the two-state solution.

Israel’s ambassador to the U.N. Gilad Erdan, a sharp critic of the U.N., said voting for a Palestinian state would be inviting “a state of terror” in its midst and rewarding “terrorists” who killed Jewish civilians with privileges and called member states endorsing it “Jew haters.”

Robert A. Wood, a U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that while the U.S. supported a two-state solution as the only means for sustainable peace, “It remains the U.S. view that unilateral measures at the U.N. and on the ground will not advance this goal.”

Mr. Wood said that if the Assembly refers the issue back to the Council, it would veto have the same outcome again with the U.S. blocking the move.

The Palestinians are currently recognized by the U.N. as a nonmember observer state, a status granted to them in 2012 by the General Assembly. They do not have the right to vote on General Assembly resolutions or nominate any candidates to U.N. agencies.

France, a close U.S. ally and one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, has supported Palestinian’s bid for statehood breaking away from U.S.’s stance at the U.N. both at the Council and the Assembly vote. “The time has come for the United Nations to take action with a view to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the basis of the two-state solution,” said Nicolas de Rivière France’s ambassador to the U.N. in his address on Friday.

The Assembly session, which was expected to flow over to Monday because of the long list of speakers, was not without moments of performative drama.

Mr. Gilad. Israel’s ambassador, held up the picture of Hamas’s military leader Yahya Sinwar, considered the architect of the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, with the word ‘President,” and then a transparent shredder, inserting a piece of paper inside it, and said the member sates were “shredding the U.N. charter.”

Mr. Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador, at the end of his speech raised his fist in the air, visibly chocking back tears, and said “Free Palestine.” The Assembly broke into applause.

 

 

[mdmost 43004]

Feels like anything not done to please Israel 100% is considering rewarding Hamas. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

15 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Feels like anything not done to please Israel 100% is considering rewarding Hamas. 

yup. the world is asking them to stop slaughtering children and their response is "antisemite!" stupid sky daddies fucking things up for the rest of us

[956 Worldwide 34715]

There is a congressional mandate, statutory law, that requires the United States to immediately pull all funding from the UN if Palestine is admitted as a member. We are, of course, the single largest donor. There a lot more here than meets the eye and the president can’t do as much as you want him to.

[Foosters 17858]

18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Feels like anything not done to please Israel 100% is considering rewarding Hamas. 

My fav was the tweet Prong Horn posted in the DT thread that described the professors demanding that the university students be released from jail as "Pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic"

But not his fault. He says he's too stupid to understand the words that he posts, so no foul.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a congressional mandate, statutory law, that requires the United States to immediately pull all funding from the UN if Palestine is admitted as a member. We are, of course, the single largest donor. There a lot more here than meets the eye and the president can’t do as much as you want him to.

Why was that law made?  

[956 Worldwide 34715]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why was that law made?  

It was passed back in 1990 because Congress voted for it. They don’t want the PLO (so, not actually Palestine) to be recognized.  The PLO remains the official de jure government of Palestine. 

[DixonHur 11317]

Yikes, I hadn't stopped by this thread in a minute...I had no idea posting something that like 40% of the population says out loud would be so controversial to that 40%.

Sorry Rex, go back to putting your head in the sand...I didn't mean to upset you by pointing out the obvious.

[DixonHur 11317]

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It was passed back in 1990 because Congress voted for it. They don’t want the PLO (so, not actually Palestine) to be recognized.  The PLO remains the official de jure government of Palestine. 

That's regarded.  Palestine needs to be recognized and its borders recognized and secured.  

[bolverk 29683]

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why was that law made?  

 

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It was passed back in 1990 because Congress voted for it. They don’t want the PLO (so, not actually Palestine) to be recognized.  The PLO remains the official de jure government of Palestine. 

 

Biff: I'm obviously no expert, and it feels fairly obscure and certainly outdated. When the law was passed, the First Intifadah was still going on, and the Reagan/Bush administrations considered the PLO a terrorist organization at the time.

I just looked up the list of whom we consider as Foreign Terrorist Organizations to see when they were delisted because I was pretty damn sure they're not considered one now. The listing provided on the State Department website doesn't even show them ever being listed. Still, it also doesn't show anyone listed before 1997, so the designation process may have been different in the 1980s/early 1990s.

So, the rationale for why that law was made in the first place doesn't even apply anymore. That doesn't mean the law won't still be enforced (which is awfully convenient for those domestic groups who continue to oppose the establishment of the State of Palestine). Not only that, it's also created an awfully big hammer to bully the organization to whom Israel ultimately owes its existence: the UN.

Edit: I included 956 in my response so he can correct anything I might have wrong.

Edited May 10 by bolverk

[huge 3793]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

There's a bunch of angry racists in the DT Houston thread complaining about the "George Soros funded DA office letting criminals out on bond to terrorize cities", completely unaware of the antisemitic origin of that conspiracy theory

This isnt exactly what happened.  One guy posted that.  And he's not so much a racist as he is a dumbass.

 

[BrazilHorn 6611]

For some reason this clip from “Generation Kill” comes to mind. 
 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hX3Dm0kG7uY

[wildcat09 29355]

32 minutes ago, huge said:

This isnt exactly what happened.  One guy posted that.  And he's not so much a racist as he is a dumbass.

 

That's Icono, he's pretty racist.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

 

Biff: I'm obviously no expert, and it feels fairly obscure and certainly outdated. When the law was passed, the First Intifadah was still going on, and the Reagan/Bush administrations considered the PLO a terrorist organization at the time.

I just looked up the list of whom we consider as Foreign Terrorist Organizations to see when they were delisted because I was pretty damn sure they're not considered one now. The listing provided on the State Department website doesn't even show them ever being listed. Still, it also doesn't show anyone listed before 1997, so the designation process may have been different in the 1980s/early 1990s.

So, the rationale for why that law was made in the first place doesn't even apply anymore. That doesn't mean the law won't still be enforced (which is awfully convenient for those domestic groups who continue to oppose the establishment of the State of Palestine). Not only that, it's also created an awfully big hammer to bully the organization to whom Israel ultimately owes its existence: the UN.

Edit: I included 956 in my response so he can correct anything I might have wrong.

The PLF, which was active within the PLO executive committee, hasn’t been delisted even as its activities have dwindled to almost nothing. It’s still been considered a small faction within the PLO.

It may be time to rewrite or repeal the law.  I am curious why an enterprising squad member hasn’t made the attempt to at least start the debate (maybe one has but I missed it.)