Worst betrayal of Israel committed by a President

How can any person of faith support this president? He clearly wants the destruction of Israel.


The Link

 

Wut?

 

What wut?

 

Not this president, the former THIS president.

 

Ohhh, that president. Why dincha say so?

 

Read the guddam link, Roma.

 

Many people ‘of faith’ in this country will support just about any level of incompetence or intellectual deficiency as long as said candidate calls him/herself a Christian. Really, that's about all that's required to get taken seriously in the United States of JesusGuns&RealityTV.

 

I'm not a man of faith, but these fajitas I made are bloody awesome.

 

You're not the boss of me!


I was just playing around, amigo. I browsed the link.

 

This thread has been up for what, 3 hours? I wonder how many of the usual suspects have clicked, read, and have no reponse? My guess is all of them ...

 

chango,
I don't know who you mean the 'usual suspects.' Also, I have no idea what to make of this thread. The OP links a quote about Bush who isn't in power. I really don't care about Bush's thoughts on Israel at this point.
Did I disagree with Bush on Israel when he was in office? Yes. Do I disagree with him now? Probably. Do I disagree with Mr. Obama who is the current US President? Yes.
What is the point of the link? For someone to state they disagree with Bush and Obama?

Here you go then:
1) I disagree with Bush and Obama on federalisation of education.
2) I disagree with Bush and Obama on the federalisation of healthcare
3) I disagree with Bush and Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan
4) I disagree with Bush and Obama on Social Security Insurance
5) I disagree with Bush and Obama on bailouts
6) I disagree with Bush and Obama on taxes and tax rates
7) I disagree with Bush and Obama on Islam
8) I disagree with Bush and Obama on monetary policy

Should I go on? This thread is just a major wtf in my book...

 

That's fine Theu, I don't need your approval for a thread I started, but don't pretend that you don't understand the point of it. In case you really are denser than you generally appear, the point is that most of the horror from the right about Obama's words concerning the pre-1967 armistice line is more about trying to pry jewish voters away from Obama and the Democrats than any true policy difference between Obama and Bush on the issue. Perhaps you always disagreed with American policy on the issue, but the vast majority of Republicans, including Chango's usual suspects, were just fine with stated American policy until it became expedient to characterize it as Obama stabbing Israel in the back. See eg Krauthammer, Mitt Romney The Link Rick SantorumThe Link PalinThe Link ad nauseum.
Theu, you may well have principled disagreement with Obama and Bush, but your principles fly out the window when you pretend that you have no idea what the point of this thread is.

 

If only Yaser Arafat was alive today to see this administration work. Obama is doing a better job at trying to bring down Israel that Arafat ever dreamed of doing.

 

1. He isnt president.

2. You are quoting a religious site on par with the guy who thought the world was going to end last week.

3. Bush contradicted himself constantly on this issue as he never wanted to deal with it.

4. Sharon was a left wing guy with a disengagement plan.

5. Bush was meeting with the palestinians.

 

Whit
As I am still trying to learn more about this issue, which everyone agrees is complex I read your link and then researche mr missler

Missler appears to be the Ed Shultz of religious APPEARING whackos trying to make a buck off il informed bible clinges.

You chose this link to try as it appears to show Bush made some inflammtory edicts regarding Israel.
Where in the actual press conerence did Bush state
( quoting from your link):
All peace negotiations and concessions by Israel in the pursuit of peace with the Muslim nations and Palestinians since 1949 have been rendered null and void.

Where does it state this, "All of Israel's hard-fought, blood-bought gains of the three wars forced upon her, scuttled in this one announcement. "

How is this a contradiction?
"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. " ( from your link)
And
"As I said last April, new realities on the ground make it unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will be achieved only on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities"


Bush has been gonefor over 2 years. Time to let the hate go and perhaps deal with today and the future.
What is productive about an attemped " gotcha" postbased on something a President who has been gone for over 2 years said 6 years ago?

 

Dion,
I don't know that the US should have a stated policy on Islam alone. I do believe that the US should have a stated policy that the US Constitution in the foundational document to any laws in the United States. There should be no appealing 'up' to international law, the TNK, The Bible, or the Quran.
In addition, I think the US should denounce any system of belief that demeans and makes others 'less' than. This doesn't mean the US would outlaw or ban Islam, not at all. I believe that there should be freedom of belief in this country. We need to be sure we uphold the rights of belief, but not the rights to certain actions. We should also be clear about what the ramifications of certain beliefs are.
I would say that individuals have a 'right' legally to be racist. They even have the right to form groups of racists. What they do not have a right to do is to violate the personhood of others based on those beliefs. I would say the same, basically with regardsd to Islam.
Islam is dangerous ONLY in so far as it does not acknowledge as legitimate any law apart from 'sharia.' 'Sharia' is law. There is nothing else. I am typing this off the cuff, about to go to lunch, so I fully know my answer is not as precise and nuanced as it needs to be, but I hope I am making myself clear.

 

Whitman,
I am in fact dense enough to miss your point of this thread. I didn't understand why you were calling into question how any person of faith could support Bush (or Obama for that matter).
It seems that I did in fact miss the sarcasm in your OP based on some oddball writing the link that you referenced. Thank you for clearing up your intent for me.

 

And I apologize, Theu, for my snarkiness in my last post. It is evident from the posts of several people in this thread that my sarcasm was not nearly as obvious as I thought it was. Hpslugga did a much better job of explaining me than I did...I guess I suck at sarcasm.
I particularly cringe when I read where I challenged your "principles." So sorry.

 

THEU,

as someone who grew up occassionally going to mosque for services I can tell you that I never heard any sermon from any Imam that said that Christians and Jews are infidels and must be converted or die, or that any girl who dates a man may be murdered by her father or brother.

"Sharia" law is an interpretation of Islam. If some yahoo wants to come to America and then murder his daughter, the constitution and American law absolutely must be used to throw his *** in prison or the electric chair. Its that simple.

I dont give a crap what the UN says when it comes to what happens on American shores. With international matters, thats another discussion.

 

Whitman,
no problems. I harbour no ill will. I like sarcasm as much as the next guy, but I am terrible at understanding it when in print online. My principles weren't really directed at you anyway, and I don't take your comments on them personally either.
I think that if a person really cares about the US Constitution and the future of our government, then Bush and Obama must necessarily be criticised for much of the same things.

 

2003 TexasGrad,
Sharia law is indeed in many respects up to interpretation. What is not up for interpretation is that sharia is the basis of all law. All other documents or forms in or of governance are subject to the Quran.
Are there MASSIVE disputes on how the Quran calls people to live and act? OH YES!!! I can't emphasise that enough. But in Islam the Quran trumps all civil law. The best summation of this that I can point to that is VERY succinct and not complete is this wikipedia article on the foundations of law in Saudi Arabia. The Link
It is just one example of a national constitution that recognises no higher authourity than the Quran and their interpretation of it as law. You could compare and contrast the Saudi Constitution with that of Iran's as an Islamic Republic, but the overarching belief is still rooted in the Quran. (Again, massive differences in interpretation exist as you rightly point out.)
Any traditional reading of Islam I have ever studied though, has a belief in Quran as foundational to law, and of supremacy over any and all civil laws or constitutions.

 

2003

Are you sure you weren't sitting next to Obama?

If you didn't hear anyone directly in any of the mosques you attended can you also say you haven't heard or read Iman' ,Sheiks or leaders etc say Muslims must kill any non believer including children?
Not all muslim leaders say this of course. However enough do from all over the world including the whacko that said killing jewish children was ok that it is hard to ignore.

 

Religion, as a human institution, is ultimately what people make of it. If people merely identify as Muslims but don't care what it really says, or conveniently re-interpret the Quran to look like it advocates Jeffersonian democracy, I'd be happy.

Christians have gotten over all the horrible laws in the Old Testament, I'm sure Muslims will too with the Quran eventually. Religion has played catch-up to civil society for the last two centuries in the West, with religious authorities realizing the orthodoxy is really unpopular. They conveniently re-interpret religious texts to align with secular ideals of tolerance and democracy. I guess whatever floats their boat and get them to behave in a modern, secular society.

 

This made me laugh
"I'm sure Muslims will too with the Quran eventually. "


I am sure that is comforting to Jews and Israelis not to mention Coptic Christians and Homosexuals
and of course apostates

 

I've met a lot of so-called devout Muslims who are totally cool with Jews, homosexuals, and atheists. I don't know how they square with the Quran but they do and that's good enough for me.

Take a look at the Old Testament and compare its directives with your behavior. You will probably notice a lot of differences, for the better. Even devoutly religious people rarely follow their holy book.

 

THEU and others,

I have read, in English, not Arabic, the Quran from cover to cover, and there is nothing that says it is ok to kill Jews or Christians or to kill your daughter for dating another man.

Like the Bible, you can take verses on their own and use them to justify whatever means you wish, but there are very specific passages of things you should never, ever do, and murder of innocent people is one of them, as is persecuting those that do not believe as you do or agree with you, unless you are being persecuted or harmed by them. This is where the interpretation comes into play.

If people believe that they are being persecuted, then they fight. That is the issue: their perspective, not what the Quran itself says. It doesnt say in the year 2010 in Israel here is what you do and what you dont do. Unfortunately, some people believe that they can kill civilians. I disagree, as do many others. But the Quran doesn't condone such behavior.

Jews are people of God. They follow the teachings of Moses. As a result, they are not infidels. Now, how many people who claim to be Jews actually are, or Muslims that claim to be actually are? That is an entirely different issue.