Link

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Netanyahu set it up so his brother could get killed in the rescue.

If you consider how often England screwed over Israel since '48, this article doesn't surprise me. Just more pro-Muslim crap.

Mossad asset Abu Abbas had no trouble pushing Leon Klinghoffer over the side of the Achille Lauro in order to create bad blood between the US and members of the Arab nationalist movement.

More jew-baiting, you little worm?

I don't hold every Jew responsible for the actions of the state of Israel any more than I hold every German responsible for the actions of the Nazi German regime. Lots of nice German folks and lots of nice Jewish folks. Likewise, lots of nice Arabs and Persians, regardless of the religious tradition within which they were raised. I take individuals for who they are and what they do, not what they are, or which religious tradition they happen to trace their ancestry to.

As for the Talmudic Jewish religion (not to be confused with the religion from whence came our Savior), however, I will state on theological grounds that it's positively evil in origin, right up there with Islam. They were both established in opposition to Christ's Kingdom, and Christ specifically referred to the progenitors of Talmudic Judaism (which religion first came into existence the moment the Sanhedrin began officially to seek a means of executing the Messiah) as having the faith of their father the devil.

Dude, that is sick.

Come on Hawkeye, you are better then this.

No, he isn't.

You probably don't remember his little jewel about American armed Forces members and vets being "Pathological Killers".

There have been a few others, just as offensive, over the years.

.....can't believe that anybody in their right mind would allow him NEAR young people, much less set him up as a "Teacher".

GTC

It was just a report of information that was passed to the British from a "contact"..Not sure how this is related to the UK screwing Isreal?

And what ever the bad blood between the UK and Israel in the years leading up to 1948, by 1956 we had still managed to sign the Protocol of S�vres re the pending joint operations against Egypt.

Brits screw everyone -- especiaolly the little guys. Just like the US and every other country in the world. 'Game of Thrones' stuff but in the histroy isle not fiction.

TRH long ago lost his credibility.

1B

Sorry Steve, the proof is irrefutable....

....a British government file on the incident quotes the unnamed source as telling a British diplomat in Paris that Israel was behind the hijacking.

The claim is not known to be backed up by corroborating evidence, and the file does not make it clear whether the British government took the claim seriously.

Hey, "an unnamed source" has it that Kate Upton has the hots for me, the claim is not known to be backed up by corroborating evidence, so it must be true.....

Birdwatcher

Black September High Jacked an Air France Jet Liner, and then ended up in Entebbe, Uganda aided and abetted by Field Marshal Dr. Idi Amin Dada, President for life of Uganda in this case he was gone by 1979 or a little Latter. Israel flew three C-130's and one Boeing 707 command and Control aircraft to Entebbe Airport. On board were the commandos of Sayeret Matkal- Yonatan "Yoni" Netanyahu, commanding. They assaulted the building where the hostages were and killed all the terrorists at the cost of the mission commanders life, and one of the hostages that was taken to a hospital was murdered latter. He was a fine soldier, one of the IDF's Best, he was 30 years of age and a Lt. Col. He also was born in New York City so that makes him one of our own. And his brother Bibi is not to shabby either. As for the Bad Blood between Israel and Great Britain, that was all settled by Suez 1956. The IDF patterns itself after the British Army, since over a 150000 Jews from that part of the world served with the British Army during World War II. And then there was Orde Winggate and you should look up some of the guys he trained and taught, you might just learn something. And since when is British Tabloid Journalism is taken for gospel?

Anybody else notice that this story was written almost 6 years ago? If there was really something more too it other than an unnamed source then you would think there would be a little more follow up.

Uhh,,,,,no if we concider the OP.


Clyde

Don't confuse him with facts, Pete. He has his little nursery of hates, prejudices, and biases to nurture and you might poison it with the truth.

Ed

Wow! 2007?

Dig up anything from anywhere to crucify Israel.

And don�t forget to call anybody who sides with Israel �bought.�

Just like your buddy�

Originally Posted By: Bristoe
Ted Cruz put his price out there, and was bought.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/ted-cruz-grants-israel-blanket-immunity.html

You clearly have a problem with something I've said there. If you can articulate it, I'll be happy to respond.

THIS Just when we are ready to laugh him out of here as the harmless Court Jester with his flouride, gun-in-the-shower, cocobolo nunchuck, negro in the pickup truck antics we are thankfully reminded of just how [bleep] up and seriously dangerous this guy is.

Seriously? Not only did the Israelis orchestrate that whole Entebbe nightmare but that wasn't enough so they also pushed an invalid over the side? I'm thinking intervention here...

Take it easy on Hawkeye Jorge. He had a relative killed in the holocaust. Fell out of the guard tower at Auscwitz drunk on Russian Vodka.

In my Christian education, I was taught that it was, contrary to popular opinion, an act of charity to speak the unvarnished truth with regard to the falsity of someone else's religion, and that while it's more socially comfortable to walk on eggshells around such subjects, it's actually an act of contempt to pretend that such error doesn't exist.

OK here goes: You're a [bleep] kook...

It's pointless, Jorge.

He's proof against reason and incapable of embarrassment.

I guess you're saying you disagree with some aspect of what I've said, right? Which one? That Jesus referred to the progenitors of Talmudic Judaism as having the faith of their father the devil? I can provide you with chapter and verse, if you like.

I've come to realize it's you, not your classroom kids, who put the "KICK ME" signs on the back of your shirt.

I doubt Hawkeye would have the courage to tell one of his jewish students to his face that his faith is demonically inspired, but we can safely assume that all his kids have him pegged as a looney-tune.

The major point here, Mister Educator, is that JESUS proclaimed that judgement. Not another man. Remember the part of "judge not, lest ye be judged"? Your assumption that you can also make judgements about another man's faith with the same alacrity is arrogance coupled with ignorance stupidity.
Just because you can provide Scriptural references does not give you the right to mimic Jesus and call it good.

Ed

That's an invalid criticism, since my remarks regard only the religion of Talmudic Judaism, not individuals either brought up in that religion or tracing their ancestry to it. Jesus addressed the latter, however, at least with regard to the adherents of that religion who are presumed to know better, i.e., the teachers of it who were presumed to have been masters of the sacred scriptures pointing to Christ.

The lesson of the Gospel, in this regard, is that although they knew who Jesus was, rather than submitting to him, they felt their authority to be threatened by him, and thus set themselves in opposition to his messiahship, which opposition constitutes the origin of what is known today as Talmudic Judaism.

PS "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," was in reference strictly to the Romans, since Jesus quite clearly stated on several occasions that those Jews who had set themselves against him (the progenitors of modern day Talmudic Judaism) knew perfectly well what they were doing, thus his many condemnations of them throughout the Gospels.

The above, of course, is in no way to assert that forgiveness was or is unavailable to those who have denied Christ (Even Peter denied him three times before the cock crowed). It is only to state that, unlike the Romans, those Jews who sought Jesus' death understood the evil of what they were doing.

Your attempt at deflection is laughable.

You're not attacking or judging a people, only an idea. Right.

As if people have no part in that idea, no practice of that idea so, therefore, you cannot be accused of judging anyone.

Nice try, but my eight year old grandson can do better than that.

Ed

Wow! So we're not supposed to distinguish good ideas from bad, good religions from bad, based on the teachings of Christ? That's a pretty revolutionary doctrine you're proposing, there. It's certainly in direct opposition to the revealed word of God.

There you go again, deflecting.

This has nothing to do with discernment and avoiding evil or bad influences, this has to do with YOUR behavior here on the 'Fire.

To use that Scripture to define what you are doing is just your way of trying to avoid being wrong.

Same crap out of you, different day. I guess I should expect no better from you.

I'm done.

Ed

The raid on Entebbe sounds like a bad 70's movie with bad writing and an unbelievable storyline...

...oh wait, it is.

Who's crapping out??

Now THIS is propa....I mean, entertainment!

Just out of curiosity, would your education involve or be associated with the Christian Identity movement?

I appreciate your attempt at humor, but actually it's only relatively modern strains of Christianity that teach folks to walk on eggshells regarding religious error. It's that ecumenism, "interfaith pluralism," influence which has led in many cases to something approaching syncretism.

Oh, I wasn't trying to be funny. Serious question.

There you go again. Try something else.

So that is a "No"?

I have worked with a few CI people in the past, and many of your comments strike a strong similarity with their point of view.

Racism isn't part of the Christian message. With Christ, there's no more Greek or Jew, but only those in the fold, and those out, and that based solely on who you say Jesus is. You're just not accustomed to hearing the unvarnished Christian message without regard for modern and misplaced concern over hurting someone's feelings.

Am I now?

And I never said anything about racism. The Christian Identity guys I have worked with were adamant that they weren't racist either.

So what is your Christian denominational affiliation then?

Based on your association of a simple restatement of Gospel with racism, that would seem to be the case, but certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

Christian.

"Christian Identity is a label applied to a wide variety of loosely affiliated believers and churches with a white supremacist theology. Most promote a racist interpretation of Christianity." Wikipedia

It was a polemical tactic on your part. A cheap shot substitute for an argument.

No, but keep grasping for straws.

Do you believe everything you read on Wiki?

As I stated, the CI guys I have come in contact with and worked along side of, we're quite adamant that they weren't racist.

As I also said, you have a lot of common points with what those guys argued about. I mean, they would totally agree with your HenryFord signature.

Unk Jacob,...gettin' his points.

So, since your a non-affiliated Christian, do you view yourself as a Dispensationalist or a Coventalist?

Just askin' questions, Bristoe. Not trying to argue with the man, just want to make sure I am using the right lens to view his comments and posts.

Haven't really thought about it.

Are you Mizrahi or Ashkenazi?

I'm guessing Ashkenazi.

They're typically the most abrasive towards Christians.

Ol Henry knew what the [bleep] was going on and had the balls to say it.

Lol, Bristol. I am not Ashkenazi, nor Sephardic, nor a Jew of any stripe save that I am grafted in to the Vine as are also all other Gentiles.

But if you want to of "Jacob" as a good Jewish name, go on ahead. Though it would better to use the Yiddish variant, "Yakob", dontcha think?

If he had the balls to say it, why use a nom de plume to write the Dearborn Chronicles?

Okay,....

Maybe,...to save embarrassment,...it would be best if you stopped using terms like "Christian Identity",...and other propaganda terms which were established to slander Christians.

It causes confusion,...and was meant to,...don't be confused.

Compared to the Apostle Paul, I don't think I am close to being abrasive to my fellow Christians.

But I am sure that TRH knows this�
� and that I am only asking questions to clarify his position and views.

I have to admit, however,...your focus on Henry Ford leaves me a bit less than convinced.

Most gentiles associate Henry Ford with the Model T.

We're not particularly interested in his social outlook.

Those who are generally fall under a different heading.

To what purpose?

The Apostle Paul wasn't particularly focusing on Christians when he penned Romans 1.

"Christian Identity" is a self appointed name to a group of People identifying themselves as Christians. So how does that fit into propaganda for vilifying Christians? And TRH is the one claimed that they were racist�

� or do you mean that the CI folks came up their name as a means to use propaganda to vilify Christian folk?

'Cause your comment could be read either way, and lead to confusion.

I hear he also wrote a couple of other letters to.

He didn't, and you got the name wrong.

I don't believe that it was self appointed,...just as I don't believe that Christmas was abbreviated to "X"mas by a Christian.

Things aren't always as they seem.

It pays to be dubious about such matters.

Not when it comes to Jews, he's not. That's why I don't want anything to do with nutcase threads like this one. They speak for themselves on the surface, dig deeper and find deeper insanity.

Yet here you are.

And here you are, defending TRH's honor� how touching.

I was close enough (it's been @20 years since I read the mimeographs). The point being that he wrote/dictated the articles, than claimed he knew nothing about them beyond the headlines. So no, he didn't use a pen name in the traditional sense, but he sure didn't want his name associated with it when the law suit came about. Hence, my point to his lack of balls in an admittedly oblique reference.

Dang Bristoe, it ain't often you expose your core beliefs.

Don't you find that admirable?

Whether I agree with a man, or not, it's refreshing to know that such people still exist.

The implication of your comment is defamatory. It's not anti-Jewish (in the sense of the ethnic group to which that term refers) to identify the origins of the religion of Talmudic Judaism as essentially anti-Christian. Nor is it anti-Jewish (in the same sense as above) to withhold one's support for the criminal actions of the state of Israel. Keep in mind that most states are guilty of similar criminality, as criminality is the nature of the state, regardless of national variety. Thus, given the opportunity, any state will engage in criminality precisely to the extent that it's empowered to do so.

RH to imply there is any moral equivalency between Judiasm and Islam absurd. Although you cloak your argument in theological terms it only serves to support the anti-semites and those who wish to justify terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Although the Talmudic Jews did not believe Jesus was the Mesiah, this does not make them evil. At least no more so then you choosing not to belive Mohammad was the final of Prophet or that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian hieroglyphs from the golden plates. Not subscribing to either of these philosophies is a choice that does not make you Evil any more then the Talmudic Jews choice not to belive in Jesus makes them evil.

Since you represent yourself as a Christian, the faith of Love and forgiveness, yes I would expect a more charitable attitude toward a sister religion from which your shares such common roots.

Evil is your word, as applied to individuals, not mine. Evil was, however, behind the denial of Christ by those who knew better, and Christ was clear that they did indeed know better. It would be difficult to read the New Testament and miss this obvious fact.

As for the rest of your post, it's inappropriate for a Christian to refrain from speaking the Gospel truth due to concerns over temporal consequences that might result due to the "hardness" of said teachings. In other words, there are no legitimate excuses for watering down the Gospel message. Christ didn't come to bring unity or peace. He came to bring the sword of division between the sheep and the goats, the chaff and the wheat, even between the lukewarm and the hot.

Furthermore, your assessment of who the victims are and who are the victimizers is entirely slanted to one side (and therefore ahistorical) when it comes to the discord that has existed in the Middle East since the founding of the state of Israel.

Evil was your word, not mine.



Hmmm does this remind anyone of the perceptions of another religion. Perhaps one's who followers plants bombs as US sporting events and kills little boys.




Oh really?

Can you tell us more about those Evil Jews?

By that statement you've disqualified yourself from rational discussion.

You must realize you're making my point, right?? My statement refers to a religion, not to individuals, as demonstrated by the quote you provide.

If you object to Christ's teachings, don't you think it would be more appropriate for you to bring those objections to him rather than me?

How can proclaim an religion as "positively evil in origin", but that is in no way a reflection upon the practitioners upon the said religion. If the religion is of an evil origin, then practicing the religion must be evil. Therefore, those who practice the religion are committing an evil act. This makes them people who committed evil acts, or evil people.

Sorry RH, you can't have it one way and not the other.

Most 'Jews' are atheists.

They are tribal in nature.

You seem to be acting as his self appoint representative here, and since you are the one who's chosen an interperation that could incite people to violence, I am challenging you to follow the logical thread of your views to their natural end, then ask yourself if you really belive that is the place where Christ is leading you, of if you should re-evaluate your interpertation of this portion of the message, and decide if their is a more Christ like interperation that more consistent with the remainder of the New Testament message before there is any "cleaving and dividing."

I've seen the chapter and verses you post. The objection that many have isn't Christ's teachings, but your distortion of them to suit your world view.

If you were consistent in your Scriptural usage, you'd know that that isn't the only place Satan was referred to as a father. Jesus was consistent. You are not. Satan is known as the father of lies. Jesus was showing a group of individuals to be liars and from whence their lies were born. Surely, Peter wasn't Satan when he spoke an untruth and Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan!" Rather, deception and lies are birthed from the objectives of Satan.

There wasn't even a religion known as Talmudic Judaism in the time of Jesus as the Talmud didn't get it's start until around 200AD and wasn't finalized until 500AD.

Jesus was talking to liars, not Talmudic Jews....

*shrugg*,...they're pretty much garden variety, Protestant, New Testament, as far as religion is concerned.

Of course, those who find the New Testament offensive will put their spin on it and attach all types propaganda to it.

There's pretty much a war against Christianity going on the world.

You can see examples of it on here on a fairly regular basis.

It all gets very familiar after a while.

Well, that's a disappointment.

Objectively so, yes.Yes, indeed.No, that does not follow. The sinfulness of an act depends also on the level of one's knowledge that what he is doing is evil, but even then it's a question of personal sin, not personal evil. One may do evil, in other words, without being evil, and most are likely not committing sin at all by practicing Talmudic Judaism, even though doing so is objectively evil, i.e., most are likely blind to the evil they do.

Haven't you ever studied moral theology?

You're not making sense.

I've correctly identified them as the progenitors of Talmudic Judaism. These were the folks whom Christ condemned for raising the traditions of the elders above Sacred Scripture, which is precisely what Talmudic Jews do today, and they have formalized those very traditions in the form of the Talmud. They are the very same movement within Judaism that Christ condemned in his time for denying him and attempting to lead others into doing likewise.

PS None of what I'm saying is the least bit controversial in light of two-thousand years of Christian teaching. It's only controversial in light of the modern corruptions of Christian teaching, so brainwashed have its representatives become as to make peace between the various religions their highest priority, even above revealed truth.

Your a self taught religious scholar, ain't ya?

No, but he's right.

For smart folks, formal education is only the beginning of their educational journey. Your mileage may vary.

Oh, and but one more question:

Do you regularly attend a church where you are a member and under the authority and discipline of its elders?

I'm just curious�

After posting with you for many years on here under a different name.
You have truly set a new low for even yourself. If I had a picture of you,I would send it into Hustler Magazine for consideration for the upcoming "Azzhole of the Month".

So by your reasoning, practicing Talmudic Judaism is evil, it's just not necessarily a sin. Therefore by extension Dr. Gosnel committed evil, but may not necessarily have sinned.

Not much time at the moment, but investigate the concept of latent vs manifest and you'll have your answer. Manifest evil stings the normal human conscience, but latent evil doesn't necessarily do so, absent investigation and understanding. There is such a thing as a dulled conscience, but the dulling process was engaged in willfully, so sin would have been present already during the dulling process, thus the failure of manifest evil to sting an already dulled conscience (e.g., the abortionist who sleeps well at night) isn't an excuse.