Kerry's Israeli/Palestinian peace talks

[BruceVC]

Give it up Rostere, an open mind is sometimes required for people to move out of their comfort zone (interesting information though)

 

I agree, Ros I can appreciate all the effort you put into your posts disputing what Oby says but I don't believe he even bothers to read or properly understand what people say. I realised this a long time ago so nowadays I don't spend more than 5 minutes responding to him

[ShadySands]

I think a few of us maybe learned something new though, I know I did.

 

This is what I meant when I said before in this or some other thread that even though he posts a lot of racist, bigoted, and ignorant stuff it sometimes leads to interesting and educational posts by non troll posters trying to correct and/or educate him

[BruceVC]

I think a few of us maybe learned something new though, I know I did.

 

This is what I meant when I said before in this or some other thread that even though he posts a lot of racist, bigoted, and ignorant stuff it sometimes leads to interesting and educational posts by non troll posters trying to correct and/or educate him

 

Good point, other people read the responses to Oby and these responses are relevant and interesting. I overlooked that one and its true

[obyknven]

I think a few of us maybe learned something new though, I know I did.

 

This is what I meant when I said before in this or some other thread that even though he posts a lot of racist, bigoted, and ignorant stuff it sometimes leads to interesting and educational posts by non troll posters trying to correct and/or educate him

Personally for me it's funny watch how local forum members constantly make smart apperance and  post nonsensens.

For example many people here talk avout "racism" but don't understand what this word mean.

 

For example this is racism:

Segregation

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/23/the-banality-of-racism-in-israel-s-most-liberal-city.html#url=/articles/2013/08/23/the-banality-of-racism-in-israel-s-most-liberal-city.html

 

DNA-tests as proof for belonging to Master race

http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/

 

Forced sterilization of Non-Master race.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/

 

 

Now not racism.

Blaming Israel and Zionists because crimes against humanity - it's not Racism. Actually Jews do this constantly.

 

If someone blaming ( or beaten ) you for your behavior - it's not racism too. Some people never encounter real racism in life, but they want feel yourself as victims of racism, it's just their pattern of behavior. These people constantly try find a surrogate of racism, imaginary racism. IRL generation of such posers is real shame for ancestors of really suffered from racism people.

[Walsingham]

I disagree. That's like saying "i don't mind that this incontinent vagrant crapped on my coffee table, because at least I got to give the living room a good clean."

[BruceVC]

I disagree. That's like saying "i don't mind that this incontinent vagrant crapped on my coffee table, because at least I got to give the living room a good clean."

 

I don't think they are similar at all and the main reason being this is just a forum and you can choose who you want to respond to and what you want to learn, its a mental space we operate in. But its not the same thing as someone actually defecating in your personal space which is more of a physical problem ..isn't it

[Walsingham]

If someone breaks wind loudly and repeatedly during a concert performance I can ignore its impact on my senses.

 

But I shouldn't have to.

 

The offender should be hurled into the street and run down by a passing horse.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Walsingham

[Rostere]

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

[Walsingham]

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

 

President.

 

Not presidents.

[Rostere]

 

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

 

President.

 

Not presidents.

 

 

My apologies, as a non-native English speaker what I write occasionally does not come across as intended.

 

The point however was that a person of such importance (hence the emphasis) could be such a looney. When I wrote "presidents" I think the point was to adress the general case and not point out anyone in particular, asking more something like "How did such a person become President?" rather than "How could George W. Bush become President?".

[BruceVC]

 

 

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

 

President.

 

Not presidents.

 

 

My apologies, as a non-native English speaker what I write occasionally does not come across as intended.

 

The point however was that a person of such importance (hence the emphasis) could be such a looney. When I wrote "presidents" I think the point was to adress the general case and not point out anyone in particular, asking more something like "How did such a person become President?" rather than "How could George W. Bush become President?".

 

 

I think your English and grammar is excellent. In fact it often surprises me just how eloquent many people on these forums are. And English isn't even there first language

[Walsingham]

 

 

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

 

President.

 

Not presidents.

 

 

My apologies, as a non-native English speaker what I write occasionally does not come across as intended.

 

The point however was that a person of such importance (hence the emphasis) could be such a looney. When I wrote "presidents" I think the point was to adress the general case and not point out anyone in particular, asking more something like "How did such a person become President?" rather than "How could George W. Bush become President?".

 

 

Sorry Ros. Your first spelling was perfectly coherent, just not (as it turns out) what you actually meant.

[Hurlshort]

I imagine they are paying Bush well, so it might be more about that than him being an actual loon.

[Rostere]

I imagine they are paying Bush well, so it might be more about that than him being an actual loon.

 

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility he's getting paid. But what could he possibly contribute in a talk if he does not share some of their views?

[Walsingham]

 

I imagine they are paying Bush well, so it might be more about that than him being an actual loon.

 

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility he's getting paid. But what could he possibly contribute in a talk if he does not share some of their views?

 

 

He is a professional politician.

[Zoraptor]

GWB is a born again Christian, I'd have no problem at all with the prospect that he'd go to such a meeting and just say what he really does believe. There are plenty of Christians who want to bring on the Rapture so they'll get to go to Heavan (and, of course, all those nasty sinners, heretics and heathens would get their oh so deserved comeuppance). Conversely, they'll also strongly support Israel due to Revelations, as well as supporting conversion efforts. Such is the lot of those who believe that Revelations is literal rather than metaphorical.

[Walsingham]

I honestly can't justify the exclusion of convicts from voting, while people who take religious texts completely literally are not.

 

I'm not saying someone else couldn't. Just saying I can't.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

It is indeed outrageous that a Christian would go speak to a Christian organization, especially as converting non-Christians is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. I also didn't see where the article said the fund raiser was specifically for converting Jews. However, if you're going to call yourself Jews, at least try to keep Kosher, Jesus did after all.

At last year's event, members of the MJBI's board of directors explained the organization's mission of converting Jews to an audience of hundreds who were seated on a professional football field, wearing formal clothes, and eating pork barbecue.

[TrashMan]

GWB is a born again Christian, I'd have no problem at all with the prospect that he'd go to such a meeting and just say what he really does believe. There are plenty of Christians who want to bring on the Rapture so they'll get to go to Heavan (and, of course, all those nasty sinners, heretics and heathens would get their oh so deserved comeuppance). Conversely, they'll also strongly support Israel due to Revelations, as well as supporting conversion efforts. Such is the lot of those who believe that Revelations is literal rather than metaphorical.

 

I hear people say that.

I've yet to meet one myself. Must be more of an american thing.

[Rostere]

 

Reporting once again from the bizarro universe of American-Israeli relations: right-wing Israeli lobby organizations denounce George W. Bush as he is set to make a speech to MJBI at a fundraiser meant to raise money to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

Now why the heck would they care about converting Jews before other people? Well, apparently, in the Book of Revelation in the Bible we are told that before the Second Coming of Christ, among other things, the Jews will return to Jerusalem, half will be killed, and the remainder will convert to Christianity. So in their opinion, they are helping to fulfil this prophecy.

 

For me it's really beyond the bizarre that American PRESIDENTS are vested in these types of looney organizations.

It is indeed outrageous that a Christian would go speak to a Christian organization, especially as converting non-Christians is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. I also didn't see where the article said the fund raiser was specifically for converting Jews. However, if you're going to call yourself Jews, at least try to keep Kosher, Jesus did after all.

At last year's event, members of the MJBI's board of directors explained the organization's mission of converting Jews to an audience of hundreds who were seated on a professional football field, wearing formal clothes, and eating pork barbecue.

 

 

Not just the fundraiser, but the entire organization's purpose is just about converting Jews. If you doubt me, visit their web page.

 

"However, if you're going to call yourself Jews, at least try to keep Kosher, Jesus did after all."

 

I can't make any sense out of this statement. They're supposed to be Christians, not Jews. They don't call themselves Jews. They call themselves Messianic Jews, which means "a Jew who has converted to Christianity".

 

At least to me it's obvious that converting people of a specific race to fulfil a prophecy in the Book of Revelation is completely nuts.

 

 

 

@Rostere, Al Qaeda started partly due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and partly due to US presence in Saudi Arabia to defend it and Kuwait from Iraq, nothing to do with Israel. In fact AQ is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is much older than Israel.

 

I know the history of Al-Qaeda perfectly well. Of course their initial formation would still have happened, but after the resolution of the war in Afghanistan they would have played out their role. Do you even know why Osama attacked the US in the first place? Because the US supports the Israeli Zionists and also because they have military bases in Saudi Arabia (yes, apparently that was a reason). AQ has EVERYTHING to do with Israel/Palestine, just look at 9/11, which was largely a byproduct of the Israel/Palestine situation. (Nowadays I sincerely think they get more recruits from the PR they must have gained from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

 

 

They say it's because of Israel to gain more popular support amongst Arabs and other Muslims, but Jihad is a lot older than modern Israel, and their goal is to carry out global Jihad to establish a global caliphate, to overthrow current Arab regimes and replace them with revolutionary Islamist ones. US used to be an obstacle to those goals, so we got attacked on 9/11.

 

This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. Let me state a few more truisms for you:

 

Communists fight to spread Communism over the entire world.

Democratic governments fight to bring Democracy to the entire world.

Nationalists fight to establish the primacy of their people in what is perceived as "their" nation.

 

Of course those statements are true in a sense, but they're truisms, tautologies. It's a statement that contains no meaningful information.

 

Now if we look at reasons why Communists exist, they draw their support from people who feel that the proletariat are abused by the capitalists. So in places where those people are very few, they don't get a lot of support.

 

If you look at the reasons why Democracy exists, it's because people felt that autocratic leaders constantly went against the will of the people, and that the source of power should be legitimated by the will of a majority of the people.

 

Nationalism exists because people with a subconscious inferiority complex blame other nations or peoples for the failings of their own country. (blame the Mexicans, Jews, Palestinians, et.c.)

 

Now in prosperous countries with great social equality (or at least a decent standard of living for the poorest people), Communism is very unlikely to take root. In places where authoritarian leaders constantly make their countrymen happy and are perceived as legitimate leaders, democratic movements are unlikely to start. In old, ethnically homogeneous countries which have not been humiliated in any way, Nationalism is not very popular. Do you see where I'm heading? We are talking about the real, actual, psychological reasons of why they actually fight.

 

Now militant Islamism is obviously a nationalist ideology (although with the basis in religion rather than in nationality). It's also a socially conservative one.

 

The traditionally Islamic countries have been the punching bag of the world for about 100 years now, with the decline in power of the Ottoman Empire. They have contributed almost zero to scientific advancement since about the same time. This is the PERFECT breeding ground for a nationalist, socially conservative ideology. And just like the first-generation leaders of the Communists were members of the bourgeoisie who sympathized with the exploited workers of the 19th century, many jihadists have actually lived in Western countries (probably further feeding their inferiority complex).

 

Now what are our best tools for fighting jihadism/militant Islamism?

1. Educate the populace in the Islamic countries in order to eliminate social conservatism and the inferiority complex toward modern societies.
2. Stop colonialist behaviour and encourage independent, modern states in the areas dominated by Islam.

As long as these two goals are not met, I'm sad to say the Islamists will not stop existing.

 

You're just like a 20th century wannabe politician who says "No, the Communists are not fighting because of inequality, they're fighting to ESTABLISH WORLD COMMUNISM". Well, duh. Guess how many followers they would have if there was no inequality. By your logic, people would be fighting all the time without any psychological reason, to establish the global reign of the Giant Spaghetti Monster and whatnot.

[Walsingham]

Sounds a wee bit simplistic to me, Ros. Hate to say. I don't think it's to do with national issues at all.

 

Very many British citizens, subject to none of the points you make, become militant islamists. But how many people of any nation become terrorists without being either bonkers or brainwashed?

 

I don't believe you can macro-engineer away the threat of islamism, any more than you can macro-engineer out the desire to take drugs. The only sensible approach is high-end weeding.

[Zoraptor]

British and other western jihadis are subject to different pressures than those in Yemen or Afghanistan, certainly, but most jihadis come from muslim countries and that is clearly what Rostere is addressing there- Britain is hardly the subject of colonialism, except in Daily Mail headlines. There may be a few hundred British jihadis but it's fewer than went off to the Spanish Civil War in the 30s as a comparison, and a tiny insignificant (except to fellow Brits) proportion of the jihadi movement as a whole.

 

Western citizens become jihadis primarily for the same reasons people adopt any radical ideology would be my guess. A feeling of disconnection from their country and society.

[Walsingham]

I don't deny it has some connection to thinsg like alienation.

 

What I am trying to say, perhaps poorly, is that I think it is misleading and dangerous to say that if we change our foreign policy then radicals will stop appearing. I don't think they will.

 

It's important to understand that you don't need very many terrorists to run the kind of campaign that will wreck whole cities. The IRA at the height of its bombing campaign numbered barely over 100!

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

"However, if you're going to call yourself Jews, at least try to keep Kosher, Jesus did after all."

 

I can't make any sense out of this statement. They're supposed to be Christians, not Jews. They don't call themselves Jews. They call themselves Messianic Jews, which means "a Jew who has converted to Christianity".

 

This response perfectly illustrates the lack of logic that your whole post possesses. An African American is still an American, no? I didn't say they were Jews, I said they call themselves Jews, which they obviously do, speaking of tautologies. Their argument is that you can be a Jew (i.e. follow Judaism) and still believe in Jesus as the Messiah. This is technically true, as most Jews believe in the coming of the Messiah and it's not specified who the Messiah is, except his name is supposed to be Joshua I think. There've been many candidates for the Messiah through the ages. Lubavitcher Jews for example believed that their chief Rabbi was the Messiah. But once you start saying that Jesus was God or son of God, then you have theological conflict with Judaism. Edited December 7, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rostere]

Sounds a wee bit simplistic to me, Ros. Hate to say. I don't think it's to do with national issues at all.

 

Very many British citizens, subject to none of the points you make, become militant islamists. But how many people of any nation become terrorists without being either bonkers or brainwashed?

 

I don't believe you can macro-engineer away the threat of islamism, any more than you can macro-engineer out the desire to take drugs. The only sensible approach is high-end weeding.

 

 

I don't deny it has some connection to thinsg like alienation.

 

What I am trying to say, perhaps poorly, is that I think it is misleading and dangerous to say that if we change our foreign policy then radicals will stop appearing. I don't think they will.

 

It's important to understand that you don't need very many terrorists to run the kind of campaign that will wreck whole cities. The IRA at the height of its bombing campaign numbered barely over 100!

 

Think of it like this: terrorists are the tip of an iceberg. That is true about everyone from Breivik to the Tsarnaevs. The 100 active IRA members did not exist in a vacuum. More likely the opposite was true: they were surrounded by sympathizers. Those who later become terrorists do not form their opinions in a vacuum (even if it can appear so today, now that we're all connected through the Internet). These IRA members have likely participated in family dinners where the stories of "freedom fighters" among their relatives were told again and again, went to pubs where people would talk (jokingly and seriously) about how much they wanted to shoot a British soldier, and so on and so forth. So how many people do you think passively supported the IRA (seriously enough to come across as supportive to an IRA member)? Probably a lot, maybe something like 100000 rather than 100. Now the large majority of these "supporters" were probably (at least in 1969) people who wanted to address real, actual problems. So the more problems you have, the more you will grow the bottom of the iceberg consisting of "ordinary people" who motivate their support with legitimate concerns about actual problems in society.

 

The actual dangerous terrorists of any type, the "tip of the iceberg" probably all have one form of psychological disorder or another. In extreme and bizarre cases, there isn't even needed a proper cheer-leading group of passive sympathizers, take Charles Manson and his "family" for example. However the Internet has made making connections alarmingly simple. Breivik, who was clearly susceptible to far-right ideology 10 years before his massacre, would probably not have went to such extremes if he hadn't been able to bathe in support and sympathy on the Internet from like-minded people in all of Europe. An increasingly connected world has made such interactions easier - if you were a prospect jihadi with knowledge of Arabic you could be reading AQ propaganda and talking with like-minded extremists on a whim. If this was the 1930s, it would have been impossible to just go to an Al-Qaeda meeting and hook up.

 

If you have read anything that Breivik has written or anything much about him, the psychological background becomes abundantly clear. Most terrorists have backgrounds which very much explain their inclinations.

 

The Tsarnaevs came from a multi-ethnic family which was pretty much shunned by every other society they ever lived in - both brothers had also failed in their studies, and the older brother's boxing career had been cut short when he at one point could not participate in a championship, as he was not an American citizen. They had a mother who spoke positively about being willing to "die for Islam". The brothers must have felt a need to belong to a group, and then to prove their worth, in the eyes of that group and for themselves. Especially the older brother seems just the kind of outsider to become a terrorist. The militant Islamic scene on the Internet is pretty huge as I understand it. My guess is that once Tamerlan got sucked in, there was little to do to prevent him from becoming a terrorist other than putting him in jail.

 

Breivik also had a very traumatic childhood, from Wikipedia:

 

 

When Breivik was four, two reports were filed expressing concern about his mental health, concluding that Anders ought to be removed from parental care. One psychologist in one of the reports made a note of the boy's peculiar smile, suggesting it was not anchored in his emotions but was rather a deliberate response to his environment. In another report by psychologists from Norway's centre for child and youth psychiatry (SSBU) concerns were raised about how his mother treated him: "She 'sexualised' the young Breivik, hit him, and frequently told him that she wished that he were dead." In the report Wenche Behring is described as "a woman with an extremely difficult upbringing, borderline personality structure and an all-encompassing if only partially visible depression" who "projects her primitive aggressive and sexual fantasies onto him [breivik]".

 

and had after some failures in real life he isolated himself playing WoW, writing a long Mein Kampf-type rant, while interacting only with similar extremist people on far-right blogs and forums on the Internet. He is an obvious narcissist, is a member of several "secret organizations" (which might exist only in his head), and has undergone extensive facial plastic surgery. Every account of him describes him as a loner, which is probably how he could become increasingly "pickled" in extremism, sitting alone reading far-right opinions on the web.

 

Now let's talk about how you can possible "macro-engineer" away these circumstances which create terrorists. It's obviously very hard to macro-engineer away the circumstances which forms the personal psychological background of terrorists. But it still puts into perspective how much the small good deeds you can do actually matters. What if Dylan Klebold had not been bullied at school? What if Tamerlan had been admitted to University of Massachusetts in 2006 and had become an engineer instead of a terrorist? What if Breivik had been removed from his mother and placed in a foster family? What if Adolf Hitler (sorry Godwin, just had to mention him even though it's slightly unrelated) had passed the entry test to art school in 1907 (or even better, had the merits required to study architecture)? Obviously every single one of these occurrences changed the world, but that must have been impossible to predict at the time. So I would say that it's technically possible to macro-engineer away some terrorists by constructing a welfare state, which aims to shield its citizens from mistreatment, and empower people to pursue constructive careers instead of just sitting unemployed and becoming radicalized in their opinions. That can seem hard, but it's not undoable in principle. People might be born psychopaths, but they can just as well end up successful CEOs as they can become murderers.

 

Then we have the other part, the passive supporters. In my opinion I think this portion of people is generally very easy to "macro-engineer" away. George Orwell would have found it very funny that most of the actual efforts directed at "macro-engineering" away the current terrorist threat - the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq - have increased it. Even today we have drone pilots flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan, shooting people semi-randomly, slowly but steadily building international support for Al Qaeda's struggle. Now, most of the people which are targets there are not even "terrorists" in any meaningful sense, but enemy combatants aligned with the Talibans. We can safely do the approximation that zero terrorists who have attacked the US on its own soil have come from Afghanistan. However, "native" jihadis form hardcore groups, which Western jihadis will try to visit to acquire training and motivation. So from a Western perspective, the "bottom of the iceberg", the real encouraging factor for Western jihadis, basically consists of people in the Middle East, armed and unarmed, who are angry with the US for a lot of legitimate and semi-legitimate reasons: most regional AQ sympathizers probably support AQ because they're angry with the US over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other prime reasons are US support for Israel, US military bases in the Middle East, US political interference and US-backed sanctions against Iraq during the nineties. But it's a truly a pity we don't have any Arabic-speaking members here (I think?). Those people could check out typically anti-American forums and see for themselves what they are complaining about Or maybe, we just read what Osama said himself.

 

As far as I know, it has been every terrorist group's final undoing when the support of a large passive group went away, making it impossible to find new recruits. This always happens as the result of a new political reality. The crux here is that we afterwards don't tend to identify former terrorist groups as such, take the ANC for example. The Taliban have indeed achieved a lot of negative attention recently, but I bet that if the entire conflict there ended they would just be another overly conservative backwards people living in the ass-end of nowhere. We have no shortage of those, if we had to fight every single one we'd engulf the entire world in war. Yet the strategy of the US seems to be to fight them one at a time, while simultaneously giving arms to all the other lunatics. It seems an endless game of global pop-a-mole, only the score is measured in human lives wasted. Well, at least we can be happy this guy is not the current leader of the US.

 

 

 

"However, if you're going to call yourself Jews, at least try to keep Kosher, Jesus did after all."

 

I can't make any sense out of this statement. They're supposed to be Christians, not Jews. They don't call themselves Jews. They call themselves Messianic Jews, which means "a Jew who has converted to Christianity".

 

This response perfectly illustrates the lack of logic that your whole post possesses. An African American is still an American, no? I didn't say they were Jews, I said they call themselves Jews, which they obviously do, speaking of tautologies. Their argument is that you can be a Jew (i.e. follow Judaism) and still believe in Jesus as the Messiah. This is technically true, as most Jews believe in the coming of the Messiah and it's not specified who the Messiah is, except his name is supposed to be Joshua I think. There've been many candidates for the Messiah through the ages. Lubavitcher Jews for example believed that their chief Rabbi was the Messiah. But once you start saying that Jesus was God or son of God, then you have theological conflict with Judaism.

 

 

But there are lots of Messianic Jewish sources on the net who says that it's OK to eat pork. Just Google "messianic jew pork" yourself. I can't believe you proceeded in this discussion without doing that.

 

Of course there are those who do follow kosher rules for cultural reasons, it's just no requirement for being a Messianic Jew.

 

Nevertheless, I don't really care about this detail, since it has nothing to do with my initial statements and arguments.