Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Politics => Vox Populi => Topic started by: michaelintp on March 20, 2008, 09:51:16 pm

Title: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 20, 2008, 09:51:16 pm
Someone just forwarded this article to me.  Notwithstanding what I said about Sen. Obama’s speech, I find this highly disturbing.  For me, the line has been crossed.

Obama church published
Hamas terror manifesto

Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59456

Promoting the Hamas terrorist agenda on the “Pastor’s Page” of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter goes way beyond any justification or explanation of church positions offered by Senator Obama in his recent speech. 

Before you dismiss this as a fabrication by the right-wing World Net Daily – here is a link to the actual Pastor’s Page:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/TUCChamasColumn072207.jpg

Also, before you dismiss this with the observation that the same article was published in the Los Angeles Times Op Ed section (which expresses a wide variety of opinions on the Middle East), keep in mind that the publication of this article on the Pastor’s Page constitutes a tacit (if not express) endorsement of Hamas by Pastor Write. This is confirmed by the fact that the Pastor changed the name of the article to a more sympathetic title: the original piece was titled, "Hamas' stand" but was re-titled "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle" in the church newsletter. 

Hamas is responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, including the “suicide-bombing” murder of our friends’ only child (a young woman who was pregnant with their first grandchild).  She was a tourist in Israel visiting the Sbarro pizza shop in Jerusalem.   Yes, compliments of Hamas, our friends received a “fresh view” of their daughter and her unborn child, soaked in blood.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.  In truth, Hamas is one of the most vicious anti-Semitic terrorist organizations on the face of the planet. 

For me, and perhaps for many others, enough is enough.  I feel both enraged and sick to my stomach over this.  Nothing Obama can say, no excuses, offered by him or his apologists, will justify his affiliation with this so-called “church.”

The promotion of this Hamas screed fits a demonstrable pattern of public statements by Rev. Write and figures honored by the Trinity United Church of Christ. 

For Obama to turn a blind eye to this is sickening.  If that's what he did.  Maybe he really does agree.

It is a shame that the first African-American presidential candidate of a major political party who really has a strong shot at the nomination has ties of the sort that are being revealed.

If this is what constitutes “change” – I want none of it. 



Update Added Later Same Day:

With the new revelation that Obama's church endorsed Hamas, Barak Obama has issued yet another condemnation. 

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107643.html

As far as I am concerned, it is too little too late.  It is impossible to believe that Sen. Obama did not know what his church and pastor were up to.  Barak Obama is not a stupid man.  A member of the Trinity United Church of Christ would have to be comatose not to know what was going on.  Write's "perspective" was expressed with sufficient frequency that only fool would not understand where the man is coming from.

Obama's condemnation of the church position now, on the eve of the holiday of Purim, is nothing but pure politics.  Aimed at placating the largely liberal American Jews -- an important segment of the Democratic Party.

This whole thing is so disgusting.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 20, 2008, 10:08:44 pm
Mike, you're reacting too quickly.

I'm not going to say that you don't have a right to feel the way you do about Hamas or of Minister Farrakhan. Considering past atrocities by the former and statements by the latter, I'd probably have a similar gut reaction... however...

You also have to recognize that from Pastor Wright's viewpoint, we're only ever getting one side of the story - the Israeli side which is reaffirmed by our government. Considering that our government has systematically turned a blind eye to atrocities committed on American soil (slavery... lynchings... Jim Crow laws... Tuskegee experiments... etc.), I can see how Wright might believe the U.S. government might be similarly turning a blind eye to the conditions affecting - in particular - darker people. (You know... such as arming both sides of the Iraq/Iran conflict...)

Am I saying that it's right? No. But I do not equate republishing an Op. Ed piece - which provides a different picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - as somehow being an endorsement of the radical Islam "kill all Jews" mandate. If anything else, I see it as an attempt to show a side different than what you are most likely to see in the U.S. media.

THAT SAID...

Rev. Wright is one man. You are making a judgment about his entire character based on a snapshot of what he has said and done... and projecting that same judgment on 8000 other people (one of whom has the "misfortune" of running for president). The people that attend that church know more about the man than you do.

You keep on saying that anyone who sits in his pews week after week for year after year must somehow agree with or support everything he says or does. You are completely wrong.

Go to a Black church. Hell... Go to several Black churches. See how you are treated when you walk in the door. Ask people what they thought of the sermon. Ask them if they always agree with the pastor. Ask if the pastor ever said anything that was outright wrong or if it pissed them off. If the answer is yes, ask why they think he said it.

Hell... if I could afford it, I'd say let's organize a HEF trip to Trinity United Church of Christ so we can go speak with the congregation ourselves and get to the root of this matter.

Before you do so, keep in mind that one of the basic tenets of Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner. All people have faults. If you decide you want to string Rev. Wright up by his balls, then that's your right to believe that way. Projecting that same rage on Obama and the other 8000 parishioners is no more right than it would be to declare all of Israel adulterers and murderers because David sent a man into the front lines of battle specifically so he could take the man's wife. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 20, 2008, 11:23:14 pm
No Lion, I am not reacting too quickly.  My reaction is completely appropriate and completely justified.  Yes, I hold accountable every competant adult member of that congregation responsible for allowing the Church and its pastor to do what they've done, to promote what they've promoted.  Yes, there is collective responsibility.  Without his congregation, Write would just be one lone antisemite spewing his venom. 

Honestly, there is no excuse.  This matter is now beyond debate, and beyond negotiation, as far as I am concerned.

This talk of a "Black Church" is getting over the top.  Like that is some kind of excuse.  A church is a church.  A synagogue is a synagogue.  A mosque is a mosque.  People are people

I'm not saying every parishioner of every house of worship agrees with everything the minister/priest/rabbi/imam says.  Of course not.  But that is NOT what we are talking about here.  One has to draw the line somewhere.  There has to be some point were a decent person of principle will say, "Enough is enough. This is morally obscene. I will not tolerate this.  Even though I like him personally, I will not support this pastor and his institution with my charitable donations or with my physical presence."  A mature adult should be held responsible for the organizations they belong to and the people they support -- particularly those with a strong agenda, like the Trinity United Church of Christ and Pastor Write.

I don't care if the Trinity United Church of Christ also provides aid to the homeless or the poor or whatever the hell else they do. Thousands of churches nationwide (and I'm sure dozens of churches in Chicago) do the same.  Obama could have found another one, another "Black Church" on the South Side, that does not promote this vile hatred.  I don't care if Jeremiah Write acted like a father to Barak 20 years ago.  You don't think there are vile bigots and racists who are kind to children and to young people? 

I'm reluctant to draw comparisons to Nazis or the KKK or whatever ... because usually extreme comparisons like that are unjustified.  But really, that is the level of offense we are talking about here.  If not to the "Black congregation" of the Trinity United Church of Christ, then certainly to large numbers of American Jews who have lost family and friends to tyrants in the past and to vicious antisemitic bigots in the present. 

Perhaps Barak Obama's sensitivity needed to be raised.  Perhaps it has been raised now.  But it is too late.  You see, I hold him in too high regard to believe he could be so clueless in the past.  His claims of ignorance are beyond lame.  It is so transparent that now he is engaged in damage control to not lose the "Jewish vote."  He clearly didn't care too strongly at the time Write was ranting what he was ranting or printing what he was printing.  Maybe because ... it was "Just the Jews" ... we've heard that before.  How stupid does Barak Obama think the American Jewish Community is?  Sure, there will be some die-hard liberals and progressives who will vote for him no matter what.  But there are also plenty of discerning people who will take this into account ... and rightly do so ... when they cast their vote.

In light of this revelation ... I simply cannot trust Barak Obama.  Too much is at stake here.

Finally ... I don't know if you really comprehend how obscene, how upsetting, this situation is to me.  When I say I am feeling sick from it, I'm not exaggerating.  Because emotionally a part of me did find Obama appealing (even though I was concerned about some of his proposed policies).  You saw the way I reacted to his speech.  sh*t.  I was fawning all over it.

That is over. Now.
Title: The 50 Year Israeli War
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 21, 2008, 12:14:14 am
No, no Black I know supports the endless (and claimed successful) Israeli war on terrorists. Of course their opinion doesn't matter, we'll be in this Israeli war for another 50 years.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If America knew how to deal with the ghetto (Or dealt with the ghetto first) America would have a better idea how to deal Baghdad.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 21, 2008, 01:07:26 am
This talk of a "Black Church" is getting over the top.  Like that is some kind of excuse.  A church is a church.  A synagogue is a synagogue.  A mosque is a mosque.  People are people

People are people... and Black Americans, Jewish Americans, and Muslim Americans have different cultures and different relationships with their respective places of worship. Put simply, not everyone fits in the same shoe spiritually, logistically, or emotionally.

If you are going to condemn wholesale the entire congregation of a church, the least you can do is attempt to understand the cultural values at hand. Right now, you are judging the relationship between the black congregation and the church based on the relationship you have with the synagogue, and I'm telling you that these are two different creatures. They are both houses of worship, but the cultural and historical realities of the congregations are different.

It is the height of irresponsibility to paint everyone with the same brush.

Until 1978, the Church of Latter Day Saints preached that descendants of Africans were ineligible for salvation because we were supposed to be descendants of Cain. Are you telling me that we were supposed to declare Mitt Romney a racist because he practiced a religion that had this in their teachings? Do we have the right to demand Mitt Romney give up his religion and switch to something more palatable to the African-American community? Or completely disavow it? Even though the practices have been in place LONG before he was even born?

The Church for much of African-American history was a PLACE to get away from the prying eyes of slavemasters. It was a place where slaves - who were systematically separated from their blood-families - got together and formed a different "church family." It was a place where their opinions on the conditions and the racial conditions that followed slavery could be voiced without fear of reprisal. Put simply, with respect to African-Americans, the church has historically not only been a house of worship, but an extension of family and a refuge from the injustices that were being perpetrated against us. Although the system of slavery is gone and institutional racism has evolved into something different, the socialcultural ties of Black people to Black churches still remain. The church is a refuge and the congregation is an extension of family. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what is said in the pulpit, that congregation is your family. 150 years ago, it would have been the only family you had.

I'm not going to be stupid enough to say Jewish people were never mistreated. The Old Testament, the history books, and my racist anti-Semite Uncle who liberated a concentration camp tell me differently. It was a different type of suffering under different conditions and I imagine the re-creation of Israel and the incredible esteem the country enjoys in the eyes of Jewish-American communities is an outgrowth of that tragedy. Do Black Americans have ties on that level? No. Our ties are different. Our social triggers are different. Why? Different cultural histories. Different cultural values.

I love you Mike and I respect you, but you're wrong.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 21, 2008, 02:54:02 am
I agree with Lion Mike you appear to hold Obama to such a high moral standard pertaining to EVERY negative thing Pastor Wright may or may not have said over the past twenty years. Oprah also attended that church did she know about this? does she secretly condone Trinitys' ALLEGED endorsement? This is a slippery slope that you have embarked on Michael it could be seen as Anti-African American. I want to give you some food for thought, several years ago, in MD there was a horrific murder committed by two teenagers against a third who was supposedly their friend, the victim was lured to an empty house, killed then dismembered the body placed in plastic bags. The two murderers were identified, one was in custody ( he subsecquently hung himself) and the other was on the run, his father was an ATTORNEY who in a moment of MORAL clarity fled the country with his sociopathic son to whrer else?....Israel! you see they were Jewish and if I'm not mistaken ( I know you would know this) Israel has a policy that a jew could gain immediate asylum or citizen status if the need it. Anyway tthese US citizens made the choice to denounce the US, it's laws and customs, people etc. and Israel in it's own lapse of moral high ground provided sanctuary to these criminals ( German war criminals were/are hunted with a purpose bordering fanaticism) There were attempts made by the prosecutors office to get Israel to extradite these individuals back to the US to face justice However, Israel refused. Where was the justice for the murdered boy or his family?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 21, 2008, 03:06:57 am
How hypocritical is it of jews to cry injustice at the mention of the Holocaust and the raping/pillaging of Family wealth (which they have had the most success of ANY victims in recovering) when the Govt of Israel denied the SAME justice to it's staunchest ally the US? US policies give Israel unwavering support/money how should that be reciprocated? In the interest of parity I call on you Mike and ANY jewish american on this board to denouce Israels' actions, and Judaism as well! pick another religion. Do you see where this is going? where does it end? Don't know the answer to that, but I do know where it begins; with the realization that people are people no one is chosen above anyone else, no one is better than anyone else, and certainly no one on this planet is above atrocity given the right circumstances! 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 21, 2008, 03:20:22 am
Foregiveness/Understanding is the key!
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 21, 2008, 06:01:37 am
In the 1940s before he became Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin formed and was a member of an organization called the Igrun. The aim of this group was to drive British military forces and the Palestinians out of what was then called Palestine. The method used by the Igrun to effect this end were very similar to those used by Hamas and the PLO. Begin was labeled a terrorist even before his Igrun bombed the King David Hotel. The British labeled the Igrun a terrorist organization and Begin a terrorist to be arrested on sight. However, for those Jewish refugees from Europe entering Palestine illegally at that time, and perhaps others,  Begin was seen as a freedom fighter and a liberator.

Soon after his release from decades of imprisonment in South African jails, the world learned that Nelson Mandela, a leader of the African National Congress - also defined by white South Africans and the U.S. as a terrorist organization - announced his solidarity and support for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mandela recognized the PLO as a comrade in arms. Like the ANC and the PLO, Menachem Begin's Igrun organization fought for what it perceived as the freedom of it's nation and the right of self-determination for their people.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Announcing yet another run for the Presidency on NBC's Meet The Press, Ralph Nader mentioned that Barack Obama has shown sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people but that support has seem tempered. I hope I correctly characterized his statement. It could be and I am personally convinced of this, that Obama while possibly believing the Palestinians should have a homeland of their own does not agree with the only military option open to them to gain this homeland. When a smaller military force attempts to battle an established military force recognized by the world and whose power dwarfs their own, that smaller force engages in activities that "terrorize" the sensibilities of people looking on from a distance.

I didn't read the link enclosed in this thread. It appears that Obama's foes are sifting through every aspect of the church he belongs to attempting to link him to everything SOME members of church have supported and has said. Wright's church may support Hamas. This does not follow that Barack Obama himself agrees with Wright and the church. Where are the highly offensive words of the Harlem, NY minister and Hillary Clinton supporter Rev james d manning (his name typed in lowercase to indicate my disdain for him). Where are the links to his sermon in which he called Obama a "macdaddy, a long-legged pimp who pimps white women and black women"? Where are the links to his sermon in which he essentially called Obama's father a whoremonger from Africa and Obama's mother, white trash from Kansas? Where are the links to his sermon in which manning said it was impossible to trash Obama because as he was born of white trash, he was born trash? Where are the links to manning's sermon declaring that all black males who support Obama are homosexuals, or men who impregnate black women only to abandon those women and the children they've born?

I won't post the link to that trash preached by that nutcase in Harlem, NY, but I will let you all know it's out there.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on March 21, 2008, 07:02:55 am
What you call an endorsement Mike, others would call seeing the other guy's side.

The same news media that paints Hamas as terrorist thugs, often paints us Black Americans as lacking and unworthy.

If we've as Black folk have learned anything its not to take the media's interpretations or reality at face value. Where else could Black folk even have these ideas disseminated BUT the church? Neither the Media nor the schools ain't gonna tell you their side.  Or OURS. 

11:00 is the most segregated hour in American life and Obama's now has to be resposible for his church lack of orthodoxy of thought. Which is part of the point of the enterprise, if you hadn't noticed. I find it weirdly disingenuous that folk are suddenly shocked, shocked to find that some Black Americans who have come from a past and present of oppression could empathise with peoples who seem similarly oppressed. 

Mike, would you similarly accuse the L.A. paper where the Hamas Manifesto was originally printed of being Anti-Israel?

Had Obama horsewhipped Rev. Wright on National Television you STILL would not have voted for him, Mike. So where are we going with this?   
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 21, 2008, 07:17:42 am
It appears that the Rev Wright not only endorsed HAMAS, he also endorsed Bill Clinton, supporting him in the aftermath of his lying about the affair he had with Monica Lewinsky:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/bill-clinton-and-jeremiah_n_92670.html
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 21, 2008, 07:24:32 am
I love you guys on this board. You all are smart, up front and just all around great guys. Let me give the good ol fashioned simple down south angle. Obama is not being targeted for something HE did. He is being targeted by the actions of some one else. If Obama said what Wright did or publish doctrines supporting Hamas then we can talk. Mike I get the felling that you are fishing. Fishing for anything to support a gut feeling that you have had. See when you first came to the board we had to work to assure you that Reg and the other members of the board were open and were good folks with a diffrent view points. Now I don't even want to attempt to get you to see the Rev. Wright the same way. But at least give Obama the benifit of the doubt. The man told you out of his own mouth his thoughts. That should be enough, untill proven other wise. The ultimate irony will be the day the first Jewish American takes a serious run to the white house. How political the Jewish community is do you wan't to see how that goes? Let each man stand on their own actions not on some one elses.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 21, 2008, 07:47:49 am
The Church for much of African-American history was a PLACE to get away from the prying eyes of slavemasters. It was a place where slaves - who were systematically separated from their blood-families - got together and formed a different "church family." It was a place where their opinions on the conditions and the racial conditions that followed slavery could be voiced without fear of reprisal. Put simply, with respect to African-Americans, the church has historically not only been a house of worship, but an extension of family and a refuge from the injustices that were being perpetrated against us.

Lion, if the Trinity United Church of Christ were the only Black Church on the South Side, I might sympathize with your viewpoint here. Because then Obama would not have a choice.  But we all know it is not.  I am not asking Obama to disavow Christianity, for goodness sake.  Once he saw what was going on, he should have moved to another Black Church on the South Side of Chicago.

Mike, would you similarly accuse the L.A. paper where the Hamas Manifesto was originally printed of being Anti-Israel?

The Los Angeles Times?  You bet. There are myriad examples of the paper distorting facts ... which at times in the past they've had to retract.  But at least the L.A. Times prints a diversity of viewpoints on its op ed pages.  What the Trinity United Church of Christ did was effectively endorse Hamas here.  The Pastor was not just expressing diverse viewpoints.  It was, in the Pastor's words, a "fresh view."  

This is a slippery slope that you have embarked on Michael it could be seen as Anti-African American.

Not so.  I've never viewed African-Americans as antisemites.  Frankly, I've never viewed "African-Americans" as anything specific. Each person is his or her own person, and I judge each person as an individual.  I think, from our conversations on this site for years now, you know that.  

But I have zero tolerance for antisemitism and even less tolerance for groups and advocate the genocidal extermination of Jews (which if you study the ideology of Hamas and like-minded organizations and political leaders, you will learn they do).  I have even less tolerance for those that blow to bits my friends' children ... who would love to do the same to my children, to my relatives, to my wife's relatives. Anyone who views them as "freedom fighters" is my enemy.  In a very real and very concrete sense. I also have zero tolerance for those who endorse such organizations.  I could care less if they are Black, White, Brown or [you name it].

If you are suggesting a broader issue ... that some segments of the African-American Community find Jew-hatred to be acceptable ... then those segments should be actively repudiated by the rest of the community.  And of course there are members of the community who have actively repudiated it.  I mean, Obama is doing so now ... but in his case I find it to be too little too late as it just looks way to politically expedient.

All I ask is that you put the shoe on the other foot, and imagine how you would feel if you were now in my position.  I just can't trust the guy.  I would be a fool to.  Maybe he was just totally clueless ... but I think there may be a lot of Jewish voters now who will not be willing to take that chance. 

Had Obama horsewhipped Rev. Wright on National Television you STILL would not have voted for him, Mike. So where are we going with this?  

You can respect a man, you can respect a politician, even if you vote for his opponent.  My reservations regarding Obama were on certain very specific policy grounds.  But I respected the man.  Now my reservations are much broader.  If Obama had repudiated the Hamas endorsement at the time it happened, I would have been singing his praises.  But that is not what he did.  Maybe some of you are right and he really was totally clueless ... though in light of Write's statements etc ... that is very hard to believe. I'm not willing to take that chance.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on March 21, 2008, 07:53:54 am
These are very passionate arguments.  But I see it like Bluezulu does...Obama's being attacked like he's the one who made the statements or like he's the one that reprinted the article in the church bulletin.  Now if there's some video or audio of Obama himself saying these things or sending a check to Hamas, then we'd have a problem.  These things come from a different person altogether and Lord knows we always are in full agreement with what pastors/priests/rabbis say.  How many kids have grown up with parents saying racist, hateful things, but decide to take a different path and make their own decisions about people?  Would anyone make them guilty by association or would you judge them for who they are?  Most of the people who seized on this Rev. Wright nonsense are the same people who weren't going to vote for the man anyway. 

Yes, 11:00 am Sunday is the "Most Segregated Hour In America", yes there is a such thing as the Black Church...but even though some people may want to think to the contrary...the black church is not monolithic.  It doesn't speak for every member of it's congregation.  It amazes me that folks have the audacity to assume that black people can't think for themselves in this day and age.  This whole Obama/Wright mess surely has those overtones.  Oh, Obama's in the church so he can't have his own opinion that contradicts the reverend.  Oh, Obama's getting all the black vote because he's black, never mind the fact most black folks agree with his positions on the war, healthcare, the economy, etc.    There is not a single voice that speaks for black america or individual black americans...not in the church...not on the radio...not in politics.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on March 21, 2008, 08:23:08 am
Back when I went to Catholic high school for a time (long story), I had a Religion teacher who was real big on liberation theology. He was pro-Sandenista, anti Regan among other things. He spoke about this sort of thing at length in class.

I had another teacher that was rabidly anti-abortion and endlessly spoke on THAT, so there was some balance.

Dude held Anti-American views, so I guess my political career is finished.

Not that it ever STARTED... but you get the point. I should have disavowed him, reported him to the archdiocese or the Pope or something.  ;)

Most of my classmates at the them could give a rat's ass about the Sandenista's at the time. Before and after Brother Wossisname's(I'm having a senior moment :o) speeches. But that's what he wanted to talk about. On the South Side of Chicago I doubt Hamas' agenda and its rightness or wrongness enters into Rev. Wright's thought much if at all. But its what their Pastor felt like taking about that day.

The Sandenista's were my teacher's bugaboo, not his students or mine for that matter.

Hamas may well be Rev. Wright's Bugaboo, but it hardly means that it was his congregations. Or Obama's  

    
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on March 21, 2008, 08:25:39 am
There is not a single voice that speaks for black america or individual black americans...not in the church...not on the radio...not in politics.


I totally agree.  My goodness, that is evident on the HEF.  So if one specific Black Church does not represent your perspective on critically important issues, on issues of bigotry and antisemitism, you find another one.  If those issues are important to you.


OK..I've looked around the internet...even conservative blogs.  I can't find a single instance of what I would describe as anti-semitism or racist statements attributed to Jeremiah Wright.  Even the ADL states that it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Wright.  Now, I've heard the "Chickens Home to Roost" quote and the infamous (and out of context) "God Damn America" quote, but maybe I've missed something somewhere and I apologize if I did miss it.  Someone post a racist or anti-semitic quote attributed to Rev. Wright.  I'd like to see them for myself.  I did, however run across this article...Here (http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12553) that breaks down the quotes that media sharks have had a feeding frenzy with.  I'm not a church/pastor/priest/rabbi apologist, I just would like to get to the heart of the matter of these things without being blinded by emotion or righteous anger.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 21, 2008, 08:25:44 am
There is not a single voice that speaks for black america or individual black americans...not in the church...not on the radio...not in politics.

I totally agree.  My goodness, that is evident on the HEF.  So if one specific Black Church does not represent your perspective on critically important issues, on issues of bigotry and antisemitism, you find another one.  If those issues are important to you.

For example, Sinjection refers to the Harlem church of Rev James D. Manning.  How many of you would feel comfortable being a member of his congregation?  How many of you would choose his congregation when there were other Black Churches available?  Would you join that church and just hold "personal differences of opinion" with the Pastor?  If not, it is because you view his positions as so offensive that you would not wish to affiliate yourself with his church.  For those of you who would not join his church, it is because on those issues, you care.  

[Catch 22, I'm referring to "you" in the general sense, not you personally ... this comment goes beyond your post].
[Also sorry, I reposted this to add the additional paragraph and our posts crossed ... I guess it is best just to modify and leave it]
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 21, 2008, 08:31:09 am
Obama is human. Obama is a lot of things and I think we can all say that a junior Senator who want to be President is ambitious. Let me say this. A black church with 8k members in Columbus Ga and in Chicago Ill. is huge. Make that Frigin huge. I read a blurb in the paper that stated all politicians visit the 8k member black church once a year, Obama joined that is the difference. I lol when I read that because in a way it is true, but my bigger point now that we know that the Clintons are not ignorant of Rev. Wright is that all politicians make a lot of decisions based on there political merit.

You are a politician who at the time wanted to represent Chicago what Church do you join? We are not politicians, if we ask them I bet most would say the 8k member one. I do believe that Obama was personally impacted by the man. I can relate to Obama in this issue as I have learned over the years that in order to fully see the whole picture of a man you have to judge him by his FULL measure. Not just bits and pieces and say that is him. You have to take a man at his full.

While Bush would openly throw support towards Israel a lot of his actions have placed them in a lot less favorable position before this "war on terror"

Does any one actually feel that Obama would take a position any diffrent then standard American policy towards Israel? Come on.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 21, 2008, 08:32:35 am
There is not a single voice that speaks for black america or individual black americans...not in the church...not on the radio...not in politics.

I totally agree.  My goodness, that is evident on the HEF.  So if one specific Black Church does not represent your perspective on critically important issues, on issues of bigotry and antisemitism, you find another one.  If those issues are important to you.

No... That's what you would do.

Yes, on Sunday morning, I could walk into a different Black Church and be enthusiastically welcomed with open arms. However that wouldn't replace or substitute for the family connection in my current church.

It's like packing up your sh*t and moving out because your brother said something stupid... and then marching across the street, knocking on the door, and asking to be let in. You may be let in. You may not. That's beside the point. Your family - which still includes your dumbass brother - is across the street.

And seeing that it was his wife's family church as well, I can't blame the man for not picking up and moving out just because the pastor continually says/does stupid stuff. More than likely, the only way someone leaves a particular church is: 1.) get married to someone of another church, 2.) move out, or 3.) internal politics get personal.

The "cultural rules" are different. You don't have to agree with them, but you have to understand them in order to make a judgment on it. Context is everything.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 21, 2008, 08:38:45 am
There is not a single voice that speaks for black america or individual black americans...not in the church...not on the radio...not in politics.

I totally agree.  My goodness, that is evident on the HEF.  So if one specific Black Church does not represent your perspective on critically important issues, on issues of bigotry and antisemitism, you find another one.  If those issues are important to you.

For example, Sinjection refers to the Harlem church of Rev James D. Manning.  How many of you would feel comfortable being a member of his congregation?  How many of you would choose his congregation when there were other Black Churches available?  Would you join that church and just hold "personal differences of opinion" with the Pastor?  If not, it is because you view his positions as so offensive that you would not wish to affiliate yourself with his church.  For those of you who would not join his church, it is because on those issues, you care.  

[Catch 22, I'm NOT referring to "you" in the general sense, not you personally ... this comment goes beyond your post].

The difference here is that Manning's attacks are directed against Obama and supporters. Remember where I said "internal politics get personal"? An attendee to Manning's pews probably would have a HUGE problem with being called homosexual. There's a difference between your crazy uncle accusing your neighbor down the street of being homosexual and your crazy uncle accusing you of being homosexual.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 21, 2008, 08:42:11 am
When Rev. Wright made the God Damn America it was during the time when the politicians after every statement during 9/11 would say God bless America. I was a member of a big church that the pastor said something similar to Rev. Wright. She did not say God Damn America but she did state "God Bless America?" "That is the problem with America and why we are in this situation. America stands too much with it's hand out wanting to reap the blessings with out doing what it needs to do to be worthy of the blessings" She then went on to explain prayer and the act of getting on ones knees to pray. That humility of kneeling and bending is symbolic of showing worthiness of the blessings. In another way she stated you don't get your behind spanked and immediately ask for a blessing. You have to figure out why you got spanked, repent and then hope that you are deemed worthy of the blessings.

Look at America since 9/11. Do we look like we are being blessed right now?  Don't yall go there with your boy now. I may not be where I need to be spiritually right now, but I can go there with you on that bible.

Rev. Wright was right. We will be lucky if we can get someone in the white house who can take a message of reconciliation. Reconciling with the world who we are indebted to. If the economy keeps on like it is that debt will be literal and not just figuratively.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 21, 2008, 08:42:32 am
Lion, your points are interesting ... and you are right I've never thought of "house of worship" membership in the way you describe.

Still, from where I'm coming from, can you understand why I believe it prudent that American Jews have reservations regarding Obama?  If the shoe were on the other foot, I would think that plenty of Black Americans would have reservations about a political candidate.  I mean, I've heard such reservations expressed here in the past about politicians and their bedfellows.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 21, 2008, 08:49:58 am
Lion, your points are interesting ... and you are right I've never thought of "house of worship" membership in the way you describe.

Still, from where I'm coming from, can you understand why I believe it prudent that American Jews have reservations regarding Obama?  If the shoe were on the other foot, I would think that plenty of Black Americans would have reservations about a political candidate.  I mean, I've heard such reservations expressed here in the past about politicians and their bedfellows.
-----------------------
Reservations. Lol. Man black folks who choose to get involved in politics choose the worst of all options. Every now and then we will get someone who generally has our best interests in mind. Most of the time we get politiotions who pander to us.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 21, 2008, 08:53:53 am
Back when I went to Catholic high school for a time (long story), I had a Religion teacher who was real big on liberation theology. He was pro-Sandenista, anti Regan among other things. He spoke about this sort of thing at length in class.

I had another teacher that was rabidly anti-abortion and endlessly spoke on THAT, so there was some balance.

Dude held Anti-American views, so I guess my political career is finished.

Not that it ever STARTED... but you get the point. I should have disavowed him, reported him to the archdiocese or the Pope or something.  ;)

Most of my classmates at the them could give a rat's ass about the Sandenista's at the time. Before and after Brother Wossisname's(I'm having a senior moment :o) speeches. But that's what he wanted to talk about. On the South Side of Chicago I doubt Hamas' agenda and its rightness or wrongness enters into Rev. Wright's thought much if at all. But its what their Pastor felt like taking about that day.

The Sandenista's were my teacher's bugaboo, not his students or mine for that matter.

Hamas may well be Rev. Wright's Bugaboo, but it hardly means that it was his congregations. Or Obama's  

    

In this nation's Declaration of Independence, thomas jefferson says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He went on to say that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men and these governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed."

Everyday, U.S. soldiers are awakening in Baghdad and risking life and limb for the Declaration of Independence and the nation it represents. These U.S. forces are as in the case of Vietnam, disproportionately represented by Black American soldiers. When jefferson penned that famous quote, about all men being created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." he wasn't talking about black men and he wouldn't extend that quote to embrace those brave black soldiers fighting, dying and becoming maimed in this unjust war in Iraq. jefferson was one of the most vile white racists in history.

thomas jefferson would have called Nat Turner and his band of rebels terrorists. Every insult and attack that black Americans have had to endure in this still very racist nation has NOT and will NEVER turn us against the nation of our birth. Black Americans have like all Americans, the right to free speech. Rev Wright exercised this right, a right that he helped defend when he himself was a U.S. Marine. Obama's detractors, seeing that Clinton is still running behind Obama and will not catch him by the time the Convention rolls around will continue to nibble around the edges of this "race issue" trusting in the media, the right-wing talk shows and the GOP, as well as surrogates and supporters of the Clinton campaign to keep Obama embroiled in this controversy. Does every U.S. President who has sworn to defend the Constitution of the U.S. and the Declaration of Independence agree with jefferson when he says blacks are ugly and beastial and suggested that it would be better to deport all blacks to Africa because the combination of white hatred and disdain for blacks coupled with the resentment many blacks would harbor against whites for having enslaved and ill-used them would create a very volatile racial climate in this country?

William Jefferson Clinton hasn't been tainted by the words and attitudes of thomas jefferson. The U.S. continues to support the state of Israel even while knowing of Menachem Begin's and Israel's "terrorist past". Obama should not have to walk this "tightrope" some say he has to traverse. It isn't Obama's responsibility to solve America's centuries-long race problem, still there are some who believe that somehow it is. Obama attended a church whose pastor has said some controversial things. Some of us have attended churches whose pastor was a womanizer. The pastor's womanizing didn't make every male member of his congregation a womanizer, nor did it make them sympathetic to his womanizing activities. Jesse Jackson still enjoys strong support from many within the black community despite the hypocrisy he showed in fathering a child out of wedlock with a woman not his wife. Are all friends and followers of Jackson now to be scrutinized in the way Obama is being scrutinized because of his long association with Rev Wright?

This is in reality a NON ISSUE trumped up by the rightwing media and supported by many in the Clinton campaign. Obama has explained and expressed his views sufficiently and now should be allowed to return to the truly important issues facing the nation that his campaign needs to speak to.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 21, 2008, 09:03:21 am
Actually Sinjection, I think Obama does have to walk the tight rope. What would be diffrent from any other minority in this country. That is our burden and it builds character. Look he has to be the president of not just you and me but all of America so he has to assure all America that he will represent us all. That being said it should be fair across the board. He should not have to pass test that other candidates don't. You think that America would be more sophisticated then judging folks by their name or race.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 21, 2008, 09:18:06 am
Lion, your points are interesting ... and you are right I've never thought of "house of worship" membership in the way you describe.

Still, from where I'm coming from, can you understand why I believe it prudent that American Jews have reservations regarding Obama?  If the shoe were on the other foot, I would think that plenty of Black Americans would have reservations about a political candidate.  I mean, I've heard such reservations expressed here in the past about politicians and their bedfellows.

Yes, I can understand. It's the only reason I feel comfortable arguing with you. There are other people I would not even TRY to have this discussion with. At the same time I'm asking you to consider it in these terms, I'm also trying to look at it from your shoes as well.

If you think think back to Obama's speech, it kind of ties in to what he said about everyone (black anger/white resentment) having reasons to feel the way they do... and that meaningful dialogue can only come about when we understand those reasons. In retrospect, I wish he had tried to frame it in cultural rather than racial terms, but I think the point remains the same.

You see Rev. Wright making statements and having associations (with Farrakhan, for example) that are not in the best interests of Jewish-Americans or Israel. You see birds of a feather flocking together and question how much a part of that particular flock (Wright/Farrakhan... as opposed to the church) Obama may be. I can't blame you. Especially with what Farrakhan has said and what Hamas has done... in particular to your friend's daughter. It's very personal and I can respect that.

I just think you do yourself an disservice with the guilt-by-association and assigning potential incendiary motives to Obama and his wife when Obama himself has never expressed anything but support for Israel and a desire to bridge the Jewish/Black divide... or passing that judgment to anyone else at the church. I just don't think you have enough information to judge anyone but maybe Rev. Wright himself. (Absent of context of the sermons, I don't know if we have enough information that, either.)

One thing about "guilt by association" and why it is a sore spot for Black Americans.

One of the first things I was told in ninth grade (the 9th grade was then separated from 10-12 grades) by the principal was "Don't you dare lie to me. Your brother lied to me all the time." Mind you, I had gone to the principal because I was being racially harassed. I was one of four black kids in the school at the time. And the first thing I hear had nothing to do with my complaint... It was that I was guilty, not because of anything I've done, but because of something my brother who wasn't even at the school allegedly done... (BTW, my brother didn't lie, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.)

"Guilt by association" is especially worse when it appears the same rule doesn't apply to everyone in the game. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Jenn on March 21, 2008, 09:32:39 am
All of this basically boils down to one thing: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH OBAMA'S PASTOR DOESN'T LIKE WHITE PEOPLE ENOUGH. This isn't about what he said about AIDS or what he said about America, it's about the fear that Obama...is black. Like all those other black people they don't like. (http://itsthejoint.net/Exclusive:_Interview_w/Reginald_Hudlin) And now they can't deny it. DAMMIT, OBAMA! YOU LIED TO ME!!!!!!

 ::)

Anybody who doesn't see this exactly for what it is, I can't even take seriously. Oh, boo-hoo, some preacher isn't too fond of white people. White folks would pass out if they could figure out that Rev. Wright isn't exactly the exception as much as he is the norm.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 21, 2008, 09:35:31 am
Because of our unique and singular history in this nation, it has been said of Black Americans that we are "the conscience of the nation." Years ago, the public television station operating in the market in which I live used to air services from Mosque Maryam in Chicago, the home mosque of the Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan and national headquarters of the Nation of Islam. Before his services were aired however, there was a program sponsored by the Baha'i faith.

One evening as I tuned in to the station to watch Farrakhan, I caught the tail end of this Baha'i program and watched it. As I have a very close friend who is now a Minister in the Nation, I also have a very dear friend who was in a period of religious exploration. At that time, he happened to be into the Baha'i faith. As the show was nearing its end, the multi-racial panel sitting in a very relaxed and peaceful environment came to the conclusion that the world is watching for a reconcilliation between America's black and white citizens and that this reconcilliation would be the inspiration to people throughout the world to do the same. I asked myself, "Why?" Why is it seemingly incumbent upon black Americans to lead the nation and the world to peace?

Obama was running an excellent and noble campaign. He was above dirty politics. When Joe Biden called him a "clean" black candidate, Obama simply shrugged it off and didn't make Biden squirm. It was this and other attributes Obama has shown while on the campaign trail that has attracted so many white voter's support. Obama was an agent for positive change in the state of race relations in this nation without having to say he was that. His opponents, Clinton and the GOP worried about Obama's ability to appeal to the minds and concerns of the white voter and to link those concerns to those of Americans of all races, convincing ALL of us regardless of race, that working together as Americans, we could overcome the hard times that threaten us. Clinton NEEDED Obama to be a BLACK candidate, not simply a candidate who HAPPENS  to be black. In this way, she could begin to polarize the Democratic electorate and show them that she - being white - is the more electable candidate. Gov Rendell has already said it. Many whites aren't ready to vote for a black candidate. Lynn Swann, former Pittsburgh Steeler and Hall of Famer, beloved by many in PA was still a black man running for Gov against Rendell. Rendell credits racial politics as a big part of the reasons for his victory.

I disagree that racial reconcilliation in the U.S. is the burden of the black American. We've had brilliant leaders who have taken up that burden, from Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, to Medgar Evers and Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. The latter two champions were relieved of their "burden" compliments of a bullet from a white assassin's rifle. Obama is already a man of fine character, as is his lovely wife Michelle. He is prepared to be the President not only of Black America, but of all America. There are problems confronting this nation that transcend race. So respectfully I say this: Obama doesn't need to waste his time entertaining the rush limbaugh crowd with his high-wire tightrope act when there are more important things that need his attention.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Jenn on March 21, 2008, 09:40:21 am
White folks have had over 500 years to even BEGIN racial healing in the United States. If they don't give a damn, I don't see why I should.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on March 21, 2008, 09:41:29 am
All of this basically boils down to one thing: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH OBAMA'S PASTOR DOESN'T LIKE WHITE PEOPLE ENOUGH. This isn't about what he said about AIDS or what he said about America, it's about the fear that Obama...is black. Like all those other black people they don't like. ([url]http://itsthejoint.net/Exclusive:_Interview_w/Reginald_Hudlin[/url]) And now they can't deny it. DAMMIT, OBAMA! YOU LIED TO ME!!!!!!

 ::)

Anybody who doesn't see this exactly for what it is, I can't even take seriously. Oh, boo-hoo, some preacher isn't too fond of white people. White folks would pass out if they could figure out that Rev. Wright isn't exactly the exception as much as he is the norm.


That's just it. I think they do suspect he is the norm.  And he's just the one who says it out loud. And Obama's attendance means...he's black!  He hangs out and listens to black people.  And there's the heart of the betrayal.  He's not that "different" as whites like to call who they see as "exceptional" negroes, he's one of them.  
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on March 21, 2008, 10:07:21 am
Since much of the loudest screams of betrayal are coming from Neo-cons that weren't ever going to vote for Obama ANYWAY, I'm maintaining this is a dodge.

I'm speaking of the punditry here and not you, Mike. 

Obama has been an exeplemary candidate who has run on the issues. He is opposed to our continued Iraq conflict just as the majority of the American people are.

Instead of speaking on exactly why we should continue with the ruinous foriegn and economic policies of the current admistration, the punditry now gets to be offended that "Barack hangs around Black folks and doesn't correct them when they say stuff in private that White Folks don't like!" instead.

So now they have a justifiction for what they were going to do all along. NOT vote for Obama.

Its completely irrelevent.

The only thing of interest here is the bizzare doublethink involved in this: "Why didn't Obama throw his Pastor under the bus to earn my respect? Not that I'd of voted for him if he had done so, but he shoulda done it, he shoulda!!!"   

WHY SHOULD HE HAVE? IT WOULD NOT HAVE GAINED HIM ANYTHING!

It says something for some Whites' need to see Black self-abasement.

     

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 21, 2008, 10:16:07 am
Still, from where I'm coming from, can you understand why I believe it prudent that American Jews have reservations regarding Obama?  If the shoe were on the other foot, I would think that plenty of Black Americans would have reservations about a political candidate.  I mean, I've heard such reservations expressed here in the past about politicians and their bedfellows.

I am one who can see, understand and appreciate any reservations some American Jews might have regarding Obama and his relationship with Rev Wright. Who can forget one of Jesse Jackson's lowest moments when he remarked that he was "going to hymietown to see the hymies"? Jesse Jackson was a critic of Israel's arm sales to the then white-controlled apartheid nation of South Africa. No racial or ethnic group in this nation can claim to have clean hands where unsavory attitudes harbored against people who are different are expressed in word and deed.

Still, it was Jesse Jackson who was one of the "black leaders" who met with George Wallace and shook his hand when Wallace took the opportunity to apologize to and attempt to make amends with the black American community who was harmed by his words and deeds. When American nazis planned a march through Skokie, IL in 1977 (I believe), the suggestion that Jesse Jackson would organize a counter-protest gave the nazis cause to pause. The Minister Farrakhan has been making peaceful overtures to the Jewish American community for years beginning well before his historic Million Man March. Farrakhan was criticized in some circles, even among members of the Nation, for meeting in discussions with Jewish leaders. When in 1993, Farrakhan - a highly accomplished violinist - performed with an orchestra conducted by Felix Mendelssohn, a Jewish composer, black people, white people, Jewish people and members of his own Nation Of Islam were asking themselves, "What's going on?"

Farrakhan is not a person who hates anyone's humanity. That's what was going on. Rev Wright is the same. Wright doesn't hate the humanity of those different from himself. However, when they speak out - sometimes in heated anger - about those things black Americans have had to suffer at the hands of their fellow Americans who happen to be white, some Jewish, it's easy to ascribe to them a hateful label that does not fit the person. Race in America is a complex issue. It's been half a millennia in the making. It's not to be easily solved as often, it isn't easily understood.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 21, 2008, 10:43:14 am
OK guys.  Just had to get this off my chest.

I'm off to observe the Purim Holiday with my family.  Have a great weekend.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 21, 2008, 11:10:36 am
Hey man. You have a good holiday.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 21, 2008, 06:19:34 pm
Just back for a few minutes.  Just want to say thanks for the input on this.  When I do have time to come here and share thoughts with you all, more often than not I learn something.  This whole cultural notion of absolute loyalty to a church and pastor is something I would have never imagined ... it is so outside of my experience.  Yet it does seem to explain the "communication breakdown" between those who understand why Obama could strongly disagree with his pastor yet remain a member of the church, and those who assume he must have agreed or not cared enough about the issues to find another church.  I don't believe this necessarily has anything to do with racism.  Perhaps more a matter of cultural misunderstanding.

What is so strange about this is that (if one were inclined to conspiracy theories) one would almost believe that Pastor Write were a plant for the extreme right, intentionally sabotaging Obama's future prospects.  I'm not inclined to conspiracy theories, however.

I do wish this new revelation had never happened (both the revelation and the underlying event).  I'm not one of those partisan hacks who rubs his hands together in glee every time the opposing candidate is nailed.  I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of folks like that ... on all sides of the political spectrum. 

I personally find this whole business very upsetting.  I just don't know what to think.  Obama has made some public statements condemning Hamas, for example, and supporting not negotiating with Hamas.  Some of his advisers seem to take a different view.  I just don't know.  On a topic as important as this is to me, this is a very disturbing place to be. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 21, 2008, 09:42:45 pm
Just back for a few minutes.  Just want to say thanks for the input on this.  When I do have time to come here and share thoughts with you all, more often than not I learn something.  This whole cultural notion of absolute loyalty to a church and pastor is something I would have never imagined ... it is so outside of my experience.  Yet it does seem to explain the "communication breakdown" between those who understand why Obama could strongly disagree with his pastor yet remain a member of the church, and those who assume he must have agreed or not cared enough about the issues to find another church.  I don't believe this necessarily has anything to do with racism.  Perhaps more a matter of cultural misunderstanding.

What is so strange about this is that (if one were inclined to conspiracy theories) one would almost believe that Pastor Write were a plant for the extreme right, intentionally sabotaging Obama's future prospects.  I'm not inclined to conspiracy theories, however.

I do wish this new revelation had never happened (both the revelation and the underlying event).  I'm not one of those partisan hacks who rubs his hands together in glee every time the opposing candidate is nailed.  I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of folks like that ... on all sides of the political spectrum. 

I personally find this whole business very upsetting.  I just don't know what to think.  Obama has made some public statements condemning Hamas, for example, and supporting not negotiating with Hamas.  Some of his advisers seem to take a different view.  I just don't know.  On a topic as important as this is to me, this is a very disturbing place to be. 

When Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, the Pope spoke out against it.  The Pope is considered to be the highest official in the Catholic Church.  So in your opinion, should every member of the Catholic Church who supported the invasion have left the Church?

The Catholic Church opposes abortion.  Yet there are practicing Catholics who are pro-choice.  Should they leave too?

Some people that read the Bible don't agree with every single thing it says.  Should they stop reading?

If I changed churches everytime the church's Pastor said something I didn't agree with, by now I would've attended half the churches in the city.

If your fake outrage hard-on lasts more than four hours, see a doctor.
Title: Re: The 50 Year Israeli War
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 22, 2008, 02:33:48 am
No, no Black I know supports the endless (and claimed successful) Israeli war on terrorists. Of course their opinion doesn't matter, we'll be in this Israeli war for another 50 years.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If America knew how to deal with the ghetto (Or dealt with the ghetto first) America would have a better idea how to deal Baghdad.


An interesting article from yesterday's Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102633.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 22, 2008, 09:09:27 am
Israel supported Hamas in order to take the piss out of the PLO and now likes to whine that the entity they helped create (certainly to make viable) does precisely what it always said it would do. Also, in addition to its dubious approach to Israel (violence isn't going to work), Hamas runs food distribution programs and provides other social assistance to its constituency that have nothing to do with blowing stuff up. Like it or not, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the entire creation of Israel and the means by which the land it occupies was seized  and is held was illegal and tantamount to the same sort of war crimes that led to the desire to create the state in the first place.

While this is often considered an impolitic argument to make, black people in the US are inured against the normal backlash for making it because of our own status here. Any discussion along these lines will end in favor of black people until the inequalities of our status here are solved.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and opinions about Israel, pro or con, are literally meaningless when deciding on a presidential candidate. This is election is about US. Israel is just one more nation in the world. When they do things that serve our interests, we should support them, when they don't, we should act accordingly there as well.

That should be the rule for every American ally. If they don't act like allies, then they aren't. Simple.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 22, 2008, 11:12:59 pm
Could it be....personal?

Tsk, tsk.

(This by the way is addressed to EVERYONE)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 23, 2008, 12:00:03 am
Sometimes we outsmart ourselves.

I sometimes have posts where I feel a need for a dissertation, but then I create a bigger target and get confused my own self trying to support an infinitely of points...That's why I just see it as In America EVERYONE is racist.

It's easy to articulate, explain and defend.

No Hamas ain't Racial...They ain't White either.

I never got the Jew thing. I mean one minute you read that some Jews got killed for Civil Rights in Mississippi and then in the next breath someone says the Jews hate Blacks. Then I read that Hitler didn't like them but Hitler looks like a...Jew!

I never got the Jew thing, to me they were just White. Yeah you can point out Sammy Davis Junior and I'll point out Michael Jackson. And yes I know about Ethiopia...But really I never had a religion thing, I got a White thing.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 23, 2008, 02:38:50 am
I agree with redjack, to put all of this down as just "cultural differences" is a cop out. Right and wrong are not abstract concepts they apply equally to everything, everyone. all it takes is to step out of each individuals comfort zone in search of a higher truth. The world at large refuses to admit that life began in Africa, much less the day to day commonalities we share (love, pain, joy death).
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 23, 2008, 09:44:23 am
When Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, the Pope spoke out against it.  The Pope is considered to be the highest official in the Catholic Church.  So in your opinion, should every member of the Catholic Church who supported the invasion have left the Church?

The Catholic Church opposes abortion.  Yet there are practicing Catholics who are pro-choice.  Should they leave too?

Some people that read the Bible don't agree with every single thing it says.  Should they stop reading?

If I changed churches everytime the church's Pastor said something I didn't agree with, by now I would've attended half the churches in the city.

If your fake outrage hard-on lasts more than four hours, see a doctor.

DamonO, I love that Viagra reference!  But no, my outrage over the Hamas endorsement is not fake.  See the first post of this thread to learn why.

All the examples you cite are cases were those who are truly offended spoke out at the time.  Catholics who disagreed with the Pope regarding Iraq openly expressed their disagreement at the time. Catholics who favor abortion speak out against the Church position. Christians who disagree with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible openly say so, and reinterpret the text.  All your examples involve commitment to an entire religion.  Not just one local church.  In the case of Barak Obama, he did not speak out against the positions of the Pastor at the time the Pastor was saying and doing what he was doing.  Indeed, Obama did just the opposite.  Only now, when there is negative pubic reaction, does Obama respond.  Whether you agree or disagree that Obama should have spoken out earlier, his late condemnation does raise a question as to his credibility.  That is just a fact ... like it or not.  One might answer that question with an answer - that you "don't speak out against family."  (The "cultural" thing).  But I don't think one can deny that the question now exists. 

As to whether Obama should have condemned the Hamas endorsement, at the time it was made or now, some of you might believe that such an endorsement was fine, and Obama should not have renounced it then or now.  Others might believe that it is just not that important, that other priorities are more important.  It's a free country.  But such sentiments don't calm concerns that some Jewish Americans may now have.  That too is just a fact. 

All this has nothing to do with the race of the candidate.  The same concerns would exist if the candidate were white and he belonged to a church that had praised the Hamas perspective as a "fresh view" and after that the candidate continued to give high praise to the Pastor.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 23, 2008, 09:44:59 am
Could it be....personal?

Tsk, tsk.

(This by the way is addressed to EVERYONE)

You are 100% correct.  Thanks.  No need to get sidetracked here.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 23, 2008, 11:25:58 am
here's the thing:

while the jewish lobby exerts a good deal of influence via monies spent, the physical numbers of Jews in America are negligible. If 100% of jews opted not to vote for Obama (which won't happen), it wouldn't matter. However, if 100% of blacks chose to vote or not to vote for him, he would feel it.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 23, 2008, 12:52:44 pm
When Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, the Pope spoke out against it.  The Pope is considered to be the highest official in the Catholic Church.  So in your opinion, should every member of the Catholic Church who supported the invasion have left the Church?

The Catholic Church opposes abortion.  Yet there are practicing Catholics who are pro-choice.  Should they leave too?

Some people that read the Bible don't agree with every single thing it says.  Should they stop reading?

If I changed churches everytime the church's Pastor said something I didn't agree with, by now I would've attended half the churches in the city.

If your fake outrage hard-on lasts more than four hours, see a doctor.

DamonO, I love that Viagra reference!  But no, my outrage over the Hamas endorsement is not fake.  See the first post of this thread to learn why.

All the examples you cite are cases were those who are truly offended spoke out at the time.  Catholics who disagreed with the Pope regarding Iraq openly expressed their disagreement at the time. Catholics who favor abortion speak out against the Church position. Christians who disagree with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible openly say so, and reinterpret the text.  All your examples involve commitment to an entire religion.  Not just one local church.  In the case of Barak Obama, he did not speak out against the positions of the Pastor at the time the Pastor was saying and doing what he was doing.  Indeed, Obama did just the opposite.  Only now, when there is negative pubic reaction, does Obama respond.  Whether you agree or disagree that Obama should have spoken out earlier, his late condemnation does raise a question as to his credibility.  That is just a fact ... like it or not.  One might answer that question with an answer - that you "don't speak out against family."  (The "cultural" thing).  But I don't think one can deny that the question now exists. 

As to whether Obama should have condemned the Hamas endorsement, at the time it was made or now, some of you might believe that such an endorsement was fine, and Obama should not have renounced it then or now.  Others might believe that it is just not that important, that other priorities are more important.  It's a free country.  But such sentiments don't calm concerns that some Jewish Americans may now have.  That too is just a fact. 

All this has nothing to do with the race of the candidate.  The same concerns would exist if the candidate were white and he belonged to a church that had praised the Hamas perspective as a "fresh view" and after that the candidate continued to give high praise to the Pastor.

Michael, everything you have said could apply equally to John McCain.  It wasn't until there was a relatively small media spotlight on Hagee's comments that McCain finally made a weak comment that just because he accepted Hagee's endorsement didn't mean he agreed with everything Hagee said.  Keep in mind that McCain has called Hagee one of his "spiritual advisors."

McCain himself in 2000 denounced Jerry Falwell as an agent of intolerance, and then in 2007, when he wanted Falwell's support, went on "Meet the Press" and said that he no longer believed that and accepted Falwell's invitation to speak at Liberty University, where Falwell is the chancellor.   Falwell has said numerous incendiary remarks, including saying he supported apartheid in South Africa back in the 1980s, and by his own admission was a pro-segregationist right up through the 1970s.  He also denounced the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil right movement.  In addition, he blamed what happened on 9/11 on feminists and gays, among others.

I think what you are exhibiting is selective outrage and a double standard.  You're criticizing Obama and giving McCain a pass and using the excuse that because Obama is an actual member of the Church you find offensive, that somehow that is a greater "offense."  As I said earlier, if Obama had sought out the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan and stood on a stage with him while accepting it, you wouldn't be here saying "well, that's okay because he wasn't a member of Farrakhan's mosque."

I challenge you to find one single comment ever made by Obama, and more importantly, find evidence in his voting record that suggests Obama is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or hates his country.  You won't find it.

And you know what?  I'll bet you if someone recorded everything someone close to you said, whether it was a parent, a close relative, or a friend or associate, that they'd find something that person said that many would find offensive.  I'll bet one of them has even said it in your presence before, and that you didn't always correct them or told them that you disagreed with them.  If you're really honest with yourself, you know that that's true.

And as for the Catholic Church example, I don't recall seeing or hearing any Catholics that disagreed with the church's position on those issues speaking out against them.
Hell, Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice practicing Catholic, and he's never criticized the Church for its position or stopped practicing Catholicism simply because he disagrees with what the head of the church has to say.

The simple truth is, people that don't care for Obama are going to find something, ANYTHING, to criticize him on.  Some nut on Fox News criticized Obama's speech because "he read it off a teleprompter."  He's been criticized for not wearing a flag lapel pin, as if somehow that has anything to do with how patriotic a person is.  My take is if you want to be offended by his pastor, his church, his bare lapel, or whatever, go right ahead -- because if its not those things, you'll find something else.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 23, 2008, 03:15:45 pm
DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want.  You (and others) might find interesting an article published in this week's Los Angeles Jewish Journal:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=19113

Dear Senator Obama 
 
By Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief
 
Dear Senator Obama:

Twelve-hundred Jews booed you last month.

This happened at the "Live for Sderot" concert at the Wilshire Theatre on Feb 27. All three presidential candidates each appeared on screen to deliver a videotaped statement of support for the Israelis undergoing a brutal campaign of terror in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.  [For rest of article, see link]


Rob Eshman is not some evangelical-loving neo-conservative Republican goose-stepper.  He is a liberal Democrat. What he writes is pretty even handed. Perhaps he does a better job than I in explaining the concerns.  You'll note that he does tip his hat to the view that "latent racism" may be a factor.  But he also cites considerations that may be more justified to explain Jewish concerns.  Because it is a pretty balanced article, I thought you might like to read it. 

Senator Obama's voting record and statements since he has been in the Senate are supportive of Israel.  He threw in a line in his now famous "race" speech about Israel.  He condemned the pro-Hamas publication in his Church's bulletin last week (after it received negative coverage) and a little while ago indicated that he opposes negotiation with Hamas (though it seems some of his advisers have taken contrary positions, and he himself seems to take a different view with respect to extremist leaders elsewhere).

However, from the moment he entered the Senate he has had his eye on the Presidency.  He doesn't have a long track record spanning decades to point to.  That is why people are looking elsewhere.  Not too long ago Ralph Nader was interviewed on "Meet the Press" (or some such show) and he indicated that Obama did a major about-face on these issues when he started running for the U.S. Senate.  Maybe Nader was lying, maybe he has it in for Obama too, according to you.  Apparently Obama has served on the board of some charity that gave money to a Palestinian organization in Illinois that sponsored several programs very hostile to Israel (advocating Israel's destruction, to be replaced with a single Palestinian state).  So there is all kinds of mixed info floating around regarding the candidate's prior views and current views.

The comparison to endorsements by evangelical ministers is misplaced.  We've already discussed this on the "Pastor" thread, no need to repeat it here.  McCain has a long voting record in the Senate.  It is not hard to determine what positions he's taken over the years.  One can reject him or support him based on that record.  Senator Obama does not have a long record to substantiate what he really believes.  Thus, it is natural that people will look elsewhere to get a sense of who the candidate really is.

We are talking about a man who could be next President of the United States.  A man who could support, or do irreparable harm, to Israel.  For most American Jews, this is an important issue.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 23, 2008, 03:28:35 pm
So what?

Who cares what happens in Israel? Israel isn't an American state (and they should thank God for that). While I have lots of negative feelings about the concept of dual citizenship (I'm totally against it for anyone), the majority of Israelis are not allowed to vote in American elections. If they don't vote, they don't matter.

While a segment of the US population is concerned with Israel's well being, a larger segment is concerned with that of Ireland. NEITHER country matters, at all, when we are deciding who our president should be. They are meaningless. Not relevant. So a president's opinion pro or con the status of any foreign nation, is equally irrelevant.

If they serve our interests we should be helpful to them. If not, not.




Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 23, 2008, 03:38:38 pm
I always thought dual citizenship was cool, like an international spy or  an international man of mystery, somethin' like that.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Princesa on March 23, 2008, 04:10:28 pm
I'm hoping this story about Hamas is not true. The reality is unless he's running for presidency of the black lunatic fringe Obama can't have this kind of mess. He needs to have better judgment than this. Can he go to any church he wants? Yeah. Can the country reject him for it? Yeah. This truly disapoints me.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 23, 2008, 04:56:06 pm
What Hamas story?

I've been looking at the news all day and 20 minutes of Fox last night. What Hamas story?

In fact Obama came out today with another statement DIRECTLY supporting his church:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_on_wright_this_is_not_a.php

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When I googled the above link I found this one from some paper, the  Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(ex)Mayor Koch is a SUPER liberal but on the subject of mid-east war, like Lieberman he is SUPER pro-war.

Everyone has their favorite issue no politician is going to mirror all my concerns. But this "Hamas" thing is a non-issue. Thanks to people like Ted Turner and things like the internet, the media control once enjoyed by Jews is no more. There are no more Cecil B. DeMille pictures of grandeur. The world is quickly learning that this is no country for old men. A growing number of Americans are tired of the same policy that has failed us since the "Shores of Tripoli" and given us 50 years of (successful) Israeli war. We can't tell the PLO from the Sunni from the Iranian from the Hamas from the Abbas. Much as many Americans can't tell Jesse Jackson from Malcolm X. The old policies that lead us to this quagmire need a fresh and exciting perspective. The world and America needs the new leadership of Obama.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Open palm on March 23, 2008, 08:18:38 pm
I was greatly disturbed by the rant of that pastor. On CNN it's been a hot topic but it doesn't make me favor Clinton more.

Since I live in the Philippines my real concern is the stand the next president will make on this country's human rights issues and corruption. Most of the people here believe Clinton will not criticize Pres. Arroyo and just give carte blanche. I don't trust the Republicans because of their view on foreign policy and their warmongering. I don't approve of their continued military support of my country's armed forces operations.

That being said, I don't care what Obama's church said about Hamas. It is not a high priority to me. I only hope if Obama does get the presidency he won't excuse Hamas and lead them to believe he'll excuse their violent attacks.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Sinister8578 on March 23, 2008, 08:26:50 pm
Ditto to Redjack and Jenn.


NUff said.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 23, 2008, 08:32:26 pm
DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want. 

For the record, I'm not questioning your sincerity.  I'm questioning what appears to be a double-standard when scrutinizing one candidate (Obama) vs. another (McCain).

I'm no fan of McCain's.  Quite frankly, I think he'd make a terrible president and that his presidency would be tantamount to a third Bush term.  But that doesn't mean that I think he believes everything that nutty John Hagee believes, or that racist Jerry Falwell believed.  I also don't believe its fair to paint Obama with the same brush as his pastor or his church, especially when he condemned the offending remarks and views.   I judge people by their own words and actions -- even when they are people with whom I disagree with politically.  
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 23, 2008, 11:33:29 pm
DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want. 
I judge people by their own words and actions -- even when they are people with whom I disagree with politically. 

But how do you evaluate whether a candidate is honestly presenting what he really believes, when he lacks significant tenure?  How do you validate, how to you cross-check, his current policy positions to see if they are consistent or inconsistent with what he has done in the past?  How do you validate whether he is being totally honest, or whether he is just doing and saying what is politically expedient at the moment? 

Do you just accept what the candidate says at face value?  Or do you do the same thing the U.S. Government would do to evaluate whether the candidate would qualify for a top secret security clearance? -- i.e. do a background check.  Which normally would include looking at those with whom he has most closely associated in the past.  To the extent you find disconnects or inconsistencies, alarm bells start ringing.

Part of the problem Obama faces is that he is a bit of an enigma because he does lack a longstanding track record.  While some folks on the forum have (probably rightly) theorized other reasons why people are looking into Obama's church and other institutional affiliations (charities he has been active in, etc), the fact that he is (to some extent) a blank slate is certainly one of the reasons.  Probably the most legitimate reason.

Forget we're talking about Barak Obama for a moment.  This question applies to any political candidate for any significant national office who lacks a long track record. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 24, 2008, 01:15:49 am
There's no such thing as being "qualified" to be president. ANYBODY can be president. ANYbody. There's no Presidential training course. There's no home learning package. There is no other job that is even remotely similar. Not even the Vice president is automatically a better choice for president than the guy who delivers your mail. Remember Dan Quayle?

Everyone who tries for the job: businesspeople, legislators, governors, lawyers, activists, puppets, everyone, is doing precisely the same thing: telling you the stuff they think will get them the big chair and spinning their biographies to fit. DUH!

EVERYONE is giving you the same sales pitch: "Here's why you want me. Here's what I mean to do if I get the job. Here's why the others aren't right for it. I want you to take it on faith that I can do what I say I can because there is literally no other way you can make the decision." Do we really need a list of all the criminals and cronies in the woodwork of every pol who goes for the job because let me tell you, under that standard NO ONE would be qualified.

George Bush was a drug-addicted, frat hazing, probably racist daddy's boy who opted out of frontline service  in Vietnam to protect Texas from Mexico. Bill Clinton was a glad handing, OPP hound with a massive talent for being liked by lots of people and was governor of the dumbest poorest state in the union. Ronald Reagan was an actor and a pretty crappy state governor of one of the richest states in the union. he didn't believe there was such a thing as racism and that apartheid was just the way things were "over there.". Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Richard Nixon was not only a crook but an inept and stupid one as he got caught doing things EVERYBODY had been doing and getting away with for decades. Shall I continue?

There's only one way to get presidential experience: be the president. And, as the current idiot has been proving over and over relentlessly for years, even HAVING the job doesn't guarantee you know a damn thing about doing it. He's actually gotten worse at it with time. So much for "experience." I'd be a better president and I'm totally crazy.

All this crap about qualifications and vetting is bs. There are about ten things Americans ALL care about. Convince us that you can solve seven of them and you get the job automatically. Convince us that you can solve five and we'll flip a coin or maybe bounce you because of your faith, gender, race or ethnicity. 50/50 chance.

Convince us you can solve only ONE thing and you end up like Nader or David Duke. Ignored. irrelevant. CYA.

That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. That's how it always will work.

Welcome to the terrordome.
Come on down.
Get down. Get down.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Open palm on March 24, 2008, 01:48:15 am
Hey Redjack. You forgot to mention that Dubyah and his pop personally know the bin Laden family. They have done business with them.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 24, 2008, 08:27:23 am
While the job of President is unique, that was not my point.  My point was that investigative journalists, and nowadays "everyone" as Internet Bloggers, look into the background and prior associations and organizational memberships of candidates to "hold their feet to the fire."  Some because they have partisan motive to "nail" a candidate.  Some because they want to get credit for identifying a candidate's inconsistencies.   Some just because they really want to find out who the candidate really is.  That's just the way it is.

Redjack, some of the candidates you named did have long public records.  Everyone knew Reagan's stance against Communism and for Small Government.  Richard Nixon did not get the nickname "Tricky Dick" for nothing.  Clinton may have been more of an enigma, though he surely did have a reputation for being a bit of a ladies man. Carter too didn't have a long track record ... and his election was more of an anti-Republican thing than a pro-Carter thing. George Bush was criticized for many of the things you note when he was running (and if not for Ralph Nader taking a chunk of the liberal-left votes, the whole "Florida" thing would never have happened and Gore would have been President).  Bush's case may be a case in point -- as one of the major themes in 2000 was his opposition to "nation building" -- though he didn't have a long track record to verify to what extent he really believed that (nor to contradict it). 

Journalists' and bloggers' "background checks" on candidates are not infallable.  But sometimes issues do emerge, particularly when there is some seeming disconnect between a candidate's current public personae and his background.  Requiring the candidate to do some explaining.  In some cases this process can affect the electorate's perception of the candidate (rightly or wrongly).  With a candidate who lacks a long track record, there isn't a lot to go on, so you go with what you can.  That was my point.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 24, 2008, 09:22:44 am
Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 24, 2008, 08:39:57 pm
Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic

Some time ago some folks on this forum went on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Israel, with several forum members bringing up Israel whenever I would post anything -- even when the topic of the thread was wholly unrelated to Israel.  I must have posted 100,000 words (if not 100,000 pages) on the topic in response to personal attacks on me or in respose to distortions regarding Israel posted by others.  Much of the popular mythology has nothing to with what really happened.  Nothing at all.  But I've shared the facts with you and others multiple times, including recently.  It is clear that on this topic we disagree.  I've no desire or intention to again resume that interminable discussion.  And while this may surprise you, there are plenty of people who use "condemnation of Israel" as a surrogate for Jew-hatred -- that they disparage my faith, they look down on Jews, etc etc etc.  Which is not to say a person is an anti-Semite just because he or she is critical of this or that Israeli policy or action.  But when you see a recurring pattern emerge, that goes way beyond reason, rising to the level of an obsession (not reserved for any other nation), well ... it is pretty clear to me what is going on.

I didn't start the Obama threads here ... until the Hamas thread. The only reason I brought up the issue of Obama's church endorsing Hamas is because someone shared the story with me and I was truly shocked, angered, and disgusted that a Presidential Candidate's church would (in effect) endorse the vicious ideology of a terrorist organization as "fresh view."  Given that this is a matter that I feel strongly about, I thought maybe some folks on the forum might be interested in the reaction of someone from the Jewish Community.  Which more broadly touches on the issue of the effect such revelations might have on Jewish support for Obama.  [Time will tell, on that point]. 

Not that I speak for everyone.  Not by a longshot.  My father-in-law, a man in his 70s, a Holocaust survivor, family exiled to Siberia, oppressed by the Communists, whose father was murdered by Soviet police in Poland after the War for a wrist watch, an immigrant who came here with nothing -- that Jewish man is a strident supporter of Obama.  Last night tears came to his eyes when he recalled Obama's recent speech. So there you go.

Recall how I described the Obama speech in the "pastor" thread? My reaction was wholly positive. 

Then came the Hamas thing.  Admittedly something I am emotional about, based on what I've (indirectly) experienced.  I assure you if the same revelation had been made regarding a Republican candidate whose church had endorsed Hamas, my reaction would have been identical.  Only then ... probably a few more people on this forum would actively join me in the condemnation.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on March 24, 2008, 09:31:08 pm
Redjack, as usual, makes EXCELLENT points. 

In my position I hire a lot of people.  Not only do I have to be a quick judge of people, I think that can actually aid the process.  I think your gut knows more than your conscious mind does. 

People respond to Obama because he projects honesty, decency and fresh thinking.  He's not perfect, but he's frank about that without being so self-deprecating that he tears himself down.  He speaks plain English that anyone can understand, which puts me in awe of him.  Almost everyone tops in their field uses professional jargon, so that really impresses me.

BTW, I also like Huckabee.  Not for his policies, but the first time I saw him in the early Republican debates, he seemed far and away the most human guy on stage. I didn't even know he was a pastor!  But I could see why. 

And that's my point about Obama, Mike.  You may not agree with his policies, but you have to acknowledge the quality of the man.  And that's what matters most to me.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 24, 2008, 10:49:06 pm
And that's my point about Obama, Mike.  You may not agree with his policies, but you have to acknowledge the quality of the man.  And that's what matters most to me.

Yes.  As you know, Barak Obama struck me the same way when I first heard him speak.  While, I've learned, I don't agree with all of his policies (and am unsure of some), he comes across as very compelling and sincere.  His recent speech blew me away. You raise a key point that I did not mention in my little "analysis" ... that many people (yes at times including myself) ultimately vote with their gut.

That's part of the reason why, when I said I wished some of this stuff [and particularly the Hamas thing] had not come up, and had not happened, I meant it ... because to a very real degree my "gut" tells me one thing about the man ... and my "mind" tells me something else ... or at least raises reasonable doubts ... regarding issues that could affect people who are incredibly important to me ...  which leaves me in a very discomfited state.  I just hope and pray that if Barak Obama does become our next President, that your (and to some extent my) gut reaction is correct.  I sure hope its not wrong.   :-\
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 25, 2008, 04:45:56 am
Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic

Israel sold arms to and supported the white racist apartheid government of South Africa. Israel likely saw a parallel between her battle with the PLO and the white racist apartheid South African government's struggle to resist surrendering to the black majority in that country. How many Jewish people believed that Israel was justified in making those arms sales to the apartheid, white racist government of South Africa? Nelson Mandela recognized and saluted the PLO as comrades. How many Jewish people had the audacity to find fault with Mandela for doing so? Just recently - within a few days in fact - I heard a report saying that either John McCain or dick cheney remarked that the Palestinian people deserve their own homeland. Will their feet be held to the fire as a result?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 25, 2008, 09:26:58 am
I use specific instances that do not give an advantage to ANY one group of people, my intention is to bring up a situation where you would have no choice but to recognize either right or wrong behavior/actions within the context of the situation. I am not anti-semitic at all ...that was cienzanos' hangup my problem is that the Jews occupy an elevated position in this world through what amounts to tremendous media coverage, historical facts printed in American school books, the pandering of politicians to the jewish lobby, etc. I grew up in this countrys' private school system having more empathy towards jewish suffering to that of my own ancestors! and that was by design. It is a surreal fact that black children who attend public/private schools in this country learn MORE about the Holocaust than they do the Middle Passage. I had to SEARCH for the history of my ancestors on my own, the "Truth" was purposely erased or blurred or deleted. I have said it once so I'll say it again; the Holocaust was a despicable act of inhumanity against the Jews I don't condone it in any way, 6 million lives wiped off the face of the planet. 100 million of my ancestors died in the middle passage.They could not hide in plain sight as the jews could, they couldn't change their last names, they couldn't be anything above cattle to the lowest white man in this country 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 25, 2008, 09:31:15 am
Let's not turn this into a "which of us had it the worst" type thing. It's counterproductive.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 25, 2008, 09:38:10 am
I am not trying to do that lion, so apologies to whomever is offended, However, I have always said that NOONE has a lock on suffering and any conversation dealing with this topic has always leaned more to the pains suffered in the holocaust than any other so I think a Native American would have just as valid a point as a Black, or a Jew, or a Japanese person whose ancestors were kidnapped by north korea. Everybody has suffered at one time or another
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 25, 2008, 10:27:25 am
Well, it's germane.

The issues American Jews have with Israel, anti semitism, their treatment in the holocaust, has almost nothing to do with life in the US. Yes, there have been attacks on jews (hate crimes). Yes, they have been discriminated against in terms of not being allowed to stay in certain places, attend certain schools, clubs etc. But there was no governmental policy specifically in place to keep them down. There were no centuries of torture and degradations for them here. The VP of the Confederacy was jewish and, while many northern jews participated in the Civil Rights struggle, the majority of southern jews did not. Just like the other white folks down there. Jewish Americans, as a group, are no more and no less allied with blacks than the larger white populace and never have been.

Nothing that has happened to the American jewish population IN AMERICA stacks up against what has happened to blacks IN AMERICA. So, when talking about the long suffering of people elsewhere and what we do or don't owe them as decent human beings, I think it's legitimate for American blacks to say, "get in line behind us." Just as the native Americans can say the same to all of us.

The implication, and it's a fairly constant and strong one, that the single worst thing ever to happen to a group of humans happened to jews, gypsies, slavs, poles, homosexuals and the handicapped in in Nazi germany is not only massively insulting to our struggles here, it's numerically and temporally false.

Lots of groups have a holocaust. All are legit and none takes the front seat over the others.  But, when dealing with them, you have to deal with the actual torturers and the actual victims. America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 25, 2008, 10:53:52 am
Exactly.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 25, 2008, 11:57:03 am
America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.


Essentially ignoring what was happening to the Jews in nazi germany.

Turning away Jews seeking to emigrate to the U.S. in an attempt to escape the holocaust.

I'd say that those things are as bad as our government supplying Sadaam Hussein with chemcal weapons which he used on his own Kurdish citizens while our government turned a blind eye to that crime against humanity.

If the story attached to this link is any indication, I'd say America does bear some responsibility for the Holocaust.

http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/12232/

And let's not forget that this nation made it possible for many nazi scientists who participated in nazi germany's rocket program to escape justice so that their expertise could be exploited for our own outer space aspirations.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 25, 2008, 01:08:33 pm
America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.

Essentially ignoring what was happening to the Jews in nazi germany.

False. If you look at both government docs and, more importantly, news of the time, America's position was simply that this was an internal European  (german) problem. Awful, sure. Unfair, absolutely, but also none of our business. We had our own problems around that time. Some of them even made the papers. There was no mention of camps, labor or death, and no reason to think of such a thing. No one in human history had ever turned murder into an assembly line activity so there's no way anyone could have thought of it without evidence. At that time, there was none.

Nations don't get to attack other nations for their treatment of their populace unless that treatment is on the scale of death camps or gas attacks or whatever. Even then we have to tread very lightly. We didn't invade South Africa either. And, more to the point, it would have been problematic to do too much criticism of Germany considering what the US was doing to us at the same time.

We weren't required to get involved. It's ugly but, especially at that time, if a nation wanted to expell a segment of it's own populace, that was their own business. No one knew about the death camps until well after the war was underway.  So no one can be blamed for not acting more quickly on that score. The war was fought to save the whole world, not just to liberate the camps.

And, btw, there's the little matter of us WINNING the war and LIBERATING those camps at the cost of a lot of a American lives. Thousands and thousands as I recall. Payment in full, I think, for any foot dragging before we got in.

Quote
Turning away Jews seeking to emigrate to the U.S. in an attempt to escape the holocaust.

False again. That term and the Hebrew version, SHOAH, were not even in use until well after the war was over. More than a decade. Even after the attocities were discovered, no one, not even the survivors themselves, thoght of it the way we do now. Tht took time. It took distance. It took lots of reflection on the meaning of the horror. At the time the death camp survivors were considered to be no different than any other war refugees.  Some we took. Some we didn't.

The US is not required to take in refugees of any nationality or from any particular conflict or any refugees at all. We take who we want, when we want, for whatever reason we like at the time and we keep folks out according to those reasons as well. That's what a nation is: protected borders. The only thing that entitles someone to US citizenship is being born here or being born of American parents. Everything else is a decision made by us. Just as it is for every other nation in the world.

Quote
I'd say that those things are as bad as our government supplying Sadaam Hussein with chemcal weapons which he used on his own Kurdish citizens while our government turned a blind eye to that crime against humanity.

No. The things you cited were passive. GIVING/SELLING WMD to Saddam is ACTIVE. Not even close to the same thing.

Quote
And let's not forget that this nation made it possible for many nazi scientists who participated in nazi germany's rocket program to escape justice so that their expertise could be exploited for our own outer space aspirations.

Try "bomb delivery systems" and that also would be POST Holocaust. You can thank your lucky stars we got the pick of that litter. Stalin would have been a much bigger problem had we not snapped them up. As it was we nearly destroyed the planet on at least two occasions over squabbling with the Soviets.

We don't owe a thing.  That note is more than paid up.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 25, 2008, 07:00:41 pm
False. If you look at both government docs and, more importantly, news of the time, America's position was simply that this was an internal European  (german) problem. Awful, sure. Unfair, absolutely, but also none of our business. We had our own problems around that time. Some of them even made the papers. There was no mention of camps, labor or death, and no reason to think of such a thing. No one in human history had ever turned murder into an assembly line activity so there's no way anyone could have thought of it without evidence. At that time, there was none.

When has the U.S. not had racial problems of her own? These racial problems did not prevent the U.S. from imposing economic sanctions on South Africa and insisting they adhere to the Sullivan Principles. We wasted no time invading Iraq to "liberate" Kuwait. We wasted no time inventing a reason to invade Iraq for a second time and for what? WMDs? There weren't any to be found. To liberate the Iraqi people? Why should Iraq's internal problems have been any concern of ours? We beat up on Grenada because we believed they had established a government that would become cozy with Cuba. We beat up on Panama to remove a strongman we'd supported, sort of like Sadaam Hussein. Nothing is ever the business of the U.S. unless we decide to make it our business. The U.S. government had some idea what was going on in nazi germany. If the anti-semite Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh knew about the nazi hatred for Jews, our government had to have known.

Quote
We weren't required to get involved. It's ugly but, especially at that time, if a nation wanted to expell a segment of it's own populace, that was their own business. No one knew about the death camps until well after the war was underway.  So no one can be blamed for not acting more quickly on that score. The war was fought to save the whole world, not just to liberate the camps.

The U.S. didn't want to get into the war period. The bombing of Pearl Harbor changed that. And now, it's been said that Pearl Harbor was the Gulf of Tonkin incident of it's day. Or if you will, the destruction of one of our naval vessels that allowed the U.S. to wage the Spanish-American war. I compare Pearl Harbor to these events because many believe the Japanese "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor was not as "sneaky" as has long been believed. According to some sources, the Japanese warned the U.S. government of the impending attack and that the warning was ignored. Why was it ignored? If the explosion of the USS Maine could have excited the American people to wage the Spanish-American War, surely a similar event in Pearl Harbor could have the same result. Today, the U.S. has referred to its past mistake of turning Jews away in their time of need to justify military actions taken in Iraq and Bosnia. The only places where the U.S. seems reticent or disinterested in stopping genocidal slaughter is in Africa. The U.S. acted in its own interests when they turned away the Jews. They didn't want to admit what they decided were "undesirables" at that time. The U.S. government turned a blind eye to Iraq's invasion of Iran and even provided logistical support in their war of aggression against Iran because at that time, Sadaam was our friend and Iran was not.

Quote
And, btw, there's the little matter of us WINNING the war and LIBERATING those camps at the cost of a lot of a American lives. Thousands and thousands as I recall. Payment in full, I think, for any foot dragging before we got in.

As you've said, the war was fought not specifically to liberate the Jews, but to "save the whole world". No. The war was fought because our government decided that the threat of the Axis powers to our own nation was serious enough at that time that we had to get involved. Many whites will say that the Civil War is how they paid off the debt of slavery. What about the horrific crimes against black American humanity that occurred AFTER and as a direct result of the Civil War? These crimes gave rise to the types of sermons delivered by the Reverand Jeremiah Wright which have vexed Sen. Obama as of late.

It's not about debts being paid. It's about historical fact. The facts are these. The U.S. turned away Jews fleeing genocide. We ignored the "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,...." when it came to offering save haven to those in desperate need of it. Military actions in Iraq and in Bosnia were taken with the holocaust in mind. It seems that the U.S. government isn't entirely convinced that it has paid it's holocaust debt in full.

Quote
Try "bomb delivery systems" and that also would be POST Holocaust. You can thank your lucky stars we got the pick of that litter. Stalin would have been a much bigger problem had we not snapped them up.


The U.S. has never evinced a difficulty in engaging in necessary evils to advance itself. Manifest Destiny was a necessary evil. Slavery was a necessary evil. Rescuing nazi devils to advance our outer space aspirations and to build up our military capacity was a necessary evil. Necessary, yes. But still evil.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 25, 2008, 07:45:01 pm
False. If you look at both government docs and, more importantly, news of the time, America's position was simply that this was an internal European  (german) problem. Awful, sure. Unfair, absolutely, but also none of our business. We had our own problems around that time. Some of them even made the papers. There was no mention of camps, labor or death, and no reason to think of such a thing. No one in human history had ever turned murder into an assembly line activity so there's no way anyone could have thought of it without evidence. At that time, there was none.

When has the U.S. not had racial problems of her own?


Please explain this. It seems like you're saying the problems of Europeans should have been more important than the ones we have/had here. that can't be right, can it?

 
Quote
These racial problems did not prevent the U.S. from imposing economic sanctions on South Africa



Bwahahahahahaha! "Sanctions." Yeah. Boy. We really showed them. Just as if we gave them the Dresden treatment.


Quote
and insisting they adhere to the Sullivan Principles.


Oh. Come ON! Meanwhile Israel is in bed with the Boers. Give me a break. They brought their own lube.

Quote
We wasted no time invading Iraq to "liberate" Kuwait.

Money.

Quote
We wasted no time inventing a reason to invade Iraq for a second time and for what?


"We?" i take no responsibility for that lying creep and his cronies in the white house.

Quote
We beat up on Grenada because we believed they had established a government that would become cozy with Cuba. We beat up on the Phillipines to remove a strongman we'd supported, sort of like Sadaam Hussein. Nothing is ever the business of the U.S. unless we decide to make it our business. The U.S. government had some idea what was going on in nazi germany.

The US knew Germany was expelling undesirables. As I said, that was not perceived to be an American interest. It's sucky but they were not citizens of this country and we are under no obligation to consider them one way or the other.

Quote
If the anti-semite Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh knew about the nazi hatred for Jews, our government had to have known.

Henry Ford was not a member of the government. You're using modern behavior to retroactively hold the US accountable for something there was no way we could have known about. The POINT is, the US was an isolationist nation at that time with MASSIVE internal problems of which race was only one. Contrary to you your unsupported assertion, while Lindbergh was certainly an anti-semite and very enamored of German efficiency and convinced they couldn't be beaten in a stand-up fight (which was true at the time he made his report) the fact is, the camps weren't built yet, no one as being murdered wholesale and, most important, none of those people were Americans. The name of this planet is not America. We don't owe ANYBODY anything except our own citizens and cannot be held guilty for actions in other nations that we failed to prevent (especially those actions about which we had no knowledge).

Quote
The U.S. acted in its own interests when they turned away the Jews.

You have to stop with this. even the article you cited said tht the US turned away a stack of desperate peoples. Seperating the jews out as a unique group when they were clearly part of a larger trend is in opposition to the facts.

Quote
As you've said, the war was fought not specifically to liberate the Jews, but to "save the whole world". No. The war was fought because our government decided that the threat of the Axis powers to our own nation was serious enough at that time that we had to get involved. Many whites will say that the Civil War is how they paid off the debt of slavery. What about the horrific crimes against humanity that occurred AFTER the Civil War?

Many whites are idiots. The civil war was about holding the union together. WW2 was about stopping the germans from taking over the world. Freeing the slaves and liberating the camps were incidental to the larger issues.

Quote
It's not about debts being paid. It's about historical fact. The facts are these. The U.S. turned away Jews fleeing genocide. We ignored the "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,...." when it came to offering save haven to those in desperate need of it.

so what? we do that every day. literally. We don't owe anybody outside this nation a thing. not one thing. not everybody who wants to gets in and not everybody being persecuted gets saved. it's a tough pill to swallow but it's the only one you get. The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust. We still haven't worked out the fallout from the two holocausts we are responsible for. If you seriously imagine that black Americans will EVER stack our experience here below that of any persecuted foreigners- cambodian, tutsi, kurd, palestinian or jew- you are dreaming. It's an ugly thing to assume and an even uglier request to make.

American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here. We don't blame Spain for Jim Crow. Learn the lesson we teach.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 25, 2008, 07:47:16 pm
Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic


Israel sold arms to and supported the white racist apartheid government of South Africa. Israel likely saw a parallel between her battle with the PLO and the white racist apartheid South African government's struggle to resist surrendering to the black majority in that country. How many Jewish people believed that Israel was justified in making those arms sales to the apartheid, white racist government of South Africa? Nelson Mandela recognized and saluted the PLO as comrades. How many Jewish people had the audacity to find fault with Mandela for doing so? Just recently - within a few days in fact - I heard a report saying that either John McCain or dick cheney remarked that the Palestinian people deserve their own homeland. Will their feet be held to the fire as a result?


OK, hurumph ... here goes ...

Israel has supported the creation of a Palestinian state.  That was the whole idea of the Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit: The creation of the Palestinian Authority that would transition to a Palestinian Government.  Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton actively pursued the matter.  The Israelis made major concessions in the pursuit of peace.  I remember this distinctly, as we were all very optimistic at the time.  I even had an Israeli and Palestinian flag on a little stand on my desk at work. Billions of dollars were transferred to the P.A. (unfortunately a large amount of these funds found their way to the Swiss bank accounts of the Palestinian leadership).  Arafat (in a surprise to everyone) backed out when the moment of decision arrived.  He could just not bring himself to make peace.  Even after the peace process collapsed, Israel has tried to act unilaterally. Most notably Israel forcibly expelled the Jewish residents of Gush Katif (a large community that many of the displaced persons had spent a lifetime building) and unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.  Some argued that the Israeli withdrawal would “lessen the provocation” and give peace a chance. Liberal Jewish groups donated funds to make sure that the large Gush Katif community, the agricultural infrastructure, the hot houses etc, would be ready for the Palestinians to take over and use to improve their lives. Instead, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, Hamas supporters entered the area and destroyed everything.  Hamas has proceeded to shower rockets into Israeli cities. I’m sure you are aware of the Hamas election victories in the last Palestinian general election.

The advocacy of a “Palestinian State” by Hamas is a joke (but not a funny joke). The Hamas vision of a Palestinian state is one stretching from the West Bank of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.  Hamas advocates the destruction of the whole of Israel and the extermination, expulsion and/or subjugation of the Jewish population.

Today it would be insane for Israel to agree to the creation of a Hamas terrorist state in the West Bank and Gaza.  Given the Palestinian Authority’s rejection of the peace process and rejected opportunities for a state over and over again, its own support of terrorist activities, and the widespread dissemination antisemitic hate propaganda in the Palestinian Media (including in children’s programming), the motives of the old PLO leadership are also highly suspect. However, perhaps over time something can be worked out.  My guess, however, is that it won’t be anytime soon.

The Camp David Summit in 2000 was not the first time the Arabs rejected a Palestinian state.  Jews had lived in Palestine for generations. The Zionist settlers in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries purchased land from the Turkish landowners. The original Palestinian Mandate administered by Britain to create a homeland for the Jewish People included the land both to the east and west of the Jordan River. Britain unilaterally carved out the eastern part of the Mandate and presented to an Arabian royal family after WWI as a consolation prize for not receiving Arabia (thus the state of Jordan was born, while the Saud’s got Arabia).  While the rest of Palestine was under British administration, Jews were massacred in Arab riots in the late 1920s and 1930s and (with the cooperation of the British) expelled from traditional Jewish areas, such as Hebron.  During WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler.  Much of the propaganda disseminated at that time is still repeated in Palestinian circles today.  

After the War, the British (who saw a strategic interest in allying themselves with the Arabs) forcibly kept Jewish refugees from immigrating to Israel – with many, including my mother in law, placed in detention camps in Cypress.  In 1947 the Palestinian Partition Plan would have created a Palestinian state alongside Israel.  The British abruptly withdrew and provided material support for the Arabs.  An Arab-Jewish civil war ensued.  When in 1948 the UN ratified the creation of Israel, the Arab states rejected partition (a "two state solution") and declared war against the infant state.  They promised the Arab residents that the war would be over in a few days and urged the locals to get out of the way (or join the fight); they were primarily responsible for the creation of “Palestinian Refugees.”  Israeli Defense Forces, itself primarily comprised of refugees, miraculously prevailed against the invading Arab armies.  After 1948, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were forced to flee Arab countries, and were willingly absorbed by Israel.  Had the surrounding Arab nations (particularly Egypt) had the same attitude toward their Palestinian "brothers" there would have been no Palestinian refugee crisis.  Instead the Arab states used the Palestinians as pawns, keeping them in refugee camps (notably in Gaza), to keep the hatred of Israel alive.

After 1948 Gaza was held by Egypt, and the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) were in Jordanian hands. Jordan had no interest in creating a Palestinian state, viewing the residents of the West Bank as Jordanian. In the early 1960s, the PLO was founded, when the West Bank was still part of Jordan.  The goal of the PLO then, and many believe now, was not the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. The purpose was the destruction of the state of Israel.  

Today the majority of the population of Jordan is in fact Palestinian. In terms of its demographics, it is a Palestinian state.

When the Arab armies massed on the borders of Israel in 1967, with Nasser declaring he would “drive the Jews into the sea” Israel defended herself in what is now known as the Six Day War.  Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai – and Jerusalem was reunified.  This was not some war of colonial occupation. It was a war of total self-defense.  In 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Israel was again attacked. That time the state was almost destroyed.  The only thing that prevented Israel’s destruction was that the Egyptian army stopped in its tracks as it had penetrated way further than anticipated and didn’t receive timely central orders as to what to do next.  In any event, Israel did not do what many other countries have done when attacked by an enemy. Israel did not expel the hostile enemy population (as took place in parts of Europe after WWII).  Instead Israel gave administrative rights over the holiest of Jewish sites, the Temple Mount, to Muslim Administrators.  This is in stark contrast to the behavior of the Jordanians when they captured East Jerusalem in 1948: the destruction of Jewish consecrated sites and synagogues.

Jews began to settle - mostly in areas that had once been traditional Jewish areas (such as Hebron or near Hebron, for example) near holy Jewish sites, and in suburbs of Jerusalem (in the West Bank).  I was in Hebron and in these suburbs of Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago.  It is noteworthy that in the small Jewish area of Hebron, Arabs live in safety.  Jews, however, cannot live and could not live safely, in the rest of Hebron, administered by the P.A.  Hebron is the second most holy city (after Jerusalem) to the Jews, as it is where the Patriachs are buried. Even at the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Jews are relegated to a relatively small area of the structure that is forbidden to be renovated (for fear of offending the Arabs).  However, the Arabs are free to renovate their much larger area in the structure, which I am told is beautiful (it is a mosque).  The huge structure was originally built by King Herod.

You also raise South Africa. The Israeli arms trade with Apartheid South Africa is a flashback to the 1980s. It is troubling, I agree. However, Israel did reverse course in its relationship with that regime. Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we’ve been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

Israel was not the only nation to trade with South Africa. According to a State Department report issued in March of 1987, South Africa was receiving arms from several European countries, including companies from Britain, France, Switzerland and West Germany. However, it is true that over time Western European nations and manufacturers did drop out of the trade.  On March 18, 1987 the Inner Cabinet of the Israeli government denounced the Apartheid policy of South Africa and limited Israel's security ties with Pretoria. On September 16, 1987 the Israeli Cabinet approved a series of measures designed to limit trade, sports and cultural ties with South Africa.  

Today Israel maintains full diplomatic relations and cordial business contacts with South Africa.

If anyone is interested in this as a matter of historical interest, they can look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations

It is worth noting that during the time frame of the 1970s and 1980s Israel was the victim of an insidious Arab Boycott, urged by the Arab states that sought, but failed, to destroy it.  Given the clout of the oil-rich Arab regimes, despite Israel’s efforts to provide foreign assistance to African countries, many African nations joined that boycott.  In recent years the boycott has weakened, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was very actively pursued.  Some general information is provided in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_political_boycotts_of_Israel

Regarding Israel’s historical relationship with South Africa, it is interesting that it was the opposition to British Colonialism (not “racism”) that forged the historical connection between Israel and South Africa. It is also worth noting that, although Jews accounted for only 2.5% of South Africa's white population and 0.3% of South Africa's total population, many Jews played notable roles in the anti-apartheid movement.  For example, when 156 political leaders arrested on December 5, 1956, more than half of the whites arrested were Jewish. They were charged with high treason resulting in the Treason Trial which lasted from 1956-1960. And, all of the whites initially charged in the 1963 Rivonia Trial were Jewish. For more information on this, you can read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_South_Africa

I question whether anyone has the time to read what I've written (Arghhhh!), and I sure don't have much more time to pursue this. The Hudlin Forum had these discussions ad nauseum before.  We could go round and round forever in a point-counterpoint fashion, and at the end of the day we will have burned hours of time.  

My only real purpose in laying all this out now is to express to you the perspective of a large segment of the American Jewish Community.  To help give you further understanding of why there may be some political fallout from the sympathetic publication of the Hamas stance in the “Pastor’s Corner” of the church bulletin.  
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 06:15:09 am
Please explain this. It seems like you're saying the problems of Europeans should have been more important than the ones we have/had here. that can't be right, can it?


The U.S. has never allowed whatever internal problems it has had to interfere or involve itself in the affairs of other sovereign nations. The U.S. became involved in WWII during the Great Depression. Indeed, it has been said that WWII effectively pulled the nation out of the Depression. Internal social strife did not prevent the U.S. from involving itself in Vietnam. In truth, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam served to exacerbate the existing social problems we were experiencing at that time. Internal problems didn't prevent the U.S. from supporting Israel with money and arms. The U.S. govt. has invoked the Holocaust and our failure to respond in timely fashion to that attrocity for reasons why we bombed Yugoslavia in an attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. The U.S. govt invoked the Holocaust for reasons why we invaded Iraq - both times. Today, the economy is in recession and millions of Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure. We're sending billions of dollars to Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure and support their people in establishing a U.S.-friendly government, this same government who hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, I ask you...does it look as if the U.S. is paying more attention and spending more money than we have to spend on a foreign nation when the American middle class is disappearing, our economy is going down the toilet and hate crimes against minorities are up since the late 1990's? The holocaust wasn't a "European problem" anymore than the obscene white racist apartheid government in South Africa was an "African problem". What happened to the Jews should have been a human rights problem. Today, as I have said, our government has inserted itself in the conflicts between ethnic groups of foreign nations using the example of its delay in acting during the Jewish Holocaust as the reason for doing so. So yes. I am saying that or nation should have given sanctuary to any Jew attempting to escape the Holocaust just as our government allows any Cuban national who is fortunate enough to reach the U.S. from Cuba to stay rather than to be deported back to Cuba.

 
Quote
These racial problems did not prevent the U.S. from imposing economic sanctions on South Africa

Quote
Bwahahahahahaha! "Sanctions." Yeah. Boy. We really showed them. Just as if we gave them the Dresden treatment.


Yes, we did show them. The sanctions coupled with the agitation by the native peoples of the former nation of rhodesia enabled Mugabe and his supporters to come to power and reestablish the nation of Great Zimbabwe. It wasn't long afterward that faced with the same pressure of international sanctions and the great agitation of the black majority that F.W. deKlerk freed Nelson Mandela from prison and allowed nature to take its course which today has given us two black Presidents of South Africa.


Quote
and insisting they adhere to the Sullivan Principles.

Quote
Oh. Come ON! Meanwhile Israel is in bed with the Boers. Give me a break. They brought their own lube.


Did I say anything about Israel in this statement? What I said (or meant to say), was this. The Sullivan Principles essentially told the U.S. corporations in South Africa how they were to conduct their affairs. It eliminated segregation, forcing whites and blacks to work together and to be treated fairly. The Principles also had a profound economic effect on the apartheid government.

Quote
We wasted no time invading Iraq to "liberate" Kuwait.


Quote
Money.


True. Does that make our invasion right and proper or does it make us look like the imperialistic nation some have accused us of being? Iraq invaded Kuwait because the nation owed Iraq a debt that went unpaid. The reason Iraq gave for invading Kuwait was that it was reclaiming a breakaway province of its own nation, much like China perceives Taiwan. The U.S. invaded Iraq for money and oil, but the reason it gave the world for doing so: "To free the people of Kuwait." And yes, the U.S. did have internal problems at that time. However, it decided to put those problems aside to go "fee the people of Kuwait."

Quote
We wasted no time inventing a reason to invade Iraq for a second time and for what?

Quote
"We?" i take no responsibility for that lying creep and his cronies in the white house.


 ::)

Quote
We beat up on Grenada because we believed they had established a government that would become cozy with Cuba. We beat up on the Phillipines to remove a strongman we'd supported, sort of like Sadaam Hussein. Nothing is ever the business of the U.S. unless we decide to make it our business. The U.S. government had some idea what was going on in nazi germany.


Quote
The US knew Germany was expelling undesirables. As I said, that was not perceived to be an American interest. It's sucky but they were not citizens of this country and we are under no obligation to consider them one way or the other.


"sucky", eh? It was inhumane. It was barbaric. Today, the U.S. will accept any refugee from a war-torn part of the globe provided their claims are legitimate. Africans who have escaped the genocidal wars there have settled in the U.S. and are now living the "American Dream". When the U.S. govt. turned away the Jewish refugees, they were sending those unfortunate people back to their deaths. There is no other way of looking at it. There is no way to absolve the nation of its guilt where that part of the Holocaust is concerned.

Quote
If the anti-semite Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh knew about the nazi hatred for Jews, our government had to have known.


Quote
Henry Ford was not a member of the government.


So what? Was Henry Ford more intelligent than the intelligence agencies the U.S. had at its disposal at that time? Ford supported hitler. Ford agreed with hitler. Charles Lindbergh did the same. This nation had to have known that the Jews were in deadly peril under the third reich. Those who learn nothing from history are bound to repeat that history. Did the world learn nothing from the Spanish Inquisition? The first sign of persecution of Jews by the german nazi government should have raised red flags.

Quote
You're using modern behavior to retroactively hold the US accountable for something there was no way we could have known about. The POINT is, the US was an isolationist nation at that time with MASSIVE internal problems of which race was only one. Contrary to you your unsupported assertion, while Lindbergh was certainly an anti-semite and very enamored of German efficiency and convinced they couldn't be beaten in a stand-up fight (which was true at the time he made his report) the fact is, the camps weren't built yet, no one as being murdered wholesale and, most important, none of those people were Americans. The name of this planet is not America. We don't owe ANYBODY anything except our own citizens and cannot be held guilty for actions in other nations that we failed to prevent (especially those actions about which we had no knowledge).


Kristallnacht - The Night Of Broken Glass - took place in 1938. The entire world, the U.S. included, knew of the attrocity, knew of the peril the Jews were in and condemned the event. This "we don't owe anybody anything except our own citizens...", puts you in the minority of national thought. Yes, there are many today who ask why we have to be the world's policeman. It's because our nation has put itself in the position of being the world's policeman. This nation claims to be the sole superpower (I think that if we're not careful, we may find out the hard way that China is likely more than our equal militarily), and as the U.S. has cast itself in the role of liberator, your "we don't owe anybody anything...." is just a lonely statement blown away on the breeze.

Quote
The U.S. acted in its own interests when they turned away the Jews.


Quote
You have to stop with this. even the article you cited said tht the US turned away a stack of desperate peoples. Seperating the jews out as a unique group when they were clearly part of a larger trend is in opposition to the facts.


I never have to stop telling the truth. Among those "desperate peoples" who were turned away were Jews who were in mortal peril. This nation turned its back on innocent and frightened people, sending them back to face a torturous death. That is a fact.


Quote
As you've said, the war was fought not specifically to liberate the Jews, but to "save the whole world". No. The war was fought because our government decided that the threat of the Axis powers to our own nation was serious enough at that time that we had to get involved. Many whites will say that the Civil War is how they paid off the debt of slavery. What about the horrific crimes against humanity that occurred AFTER the Civil War?


Quote
Many whites are idiots. The civil war was about holding the union together. WW2 was about stopping the germans from taking over the world. Freeing the slaves and liberating the camps were incidental to the larger issues.


You know that the main purpose of the Civil War was to keep the Union together. I know that as well. And yet, in schools all over this nation, it is being taught to school children that slavery was as significant a reason for fighting the war as saving the Union was. Fighting the germans was all about keeping them from taking over the world? Why did we fight Japan?

Quote
It's not about debts being paid. It's about historical fact. The facts are these. The U.S. turned away Jews fleeing genocide. We ignored the "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,...." when it came to offering save haven to those in desperate need of it.


Quote
so what? we do that every day.


Then that makes our nation one of hypocrisy doesn't it?

Quote
literally. We don't owe anybody outside this nation a thing. not one thing. not everybody who wants to gets in and not everybody being persecuted gets saved.


Unless they happen to be Cuban, eh? Any refugee who can survive the trip from Cuba to Florida, is in like flynn once they put their pinky toe on U.S. soil.

Quote
it's a tough pill to swallow but it's the only one you get.


 ::) uh huh.


Quote
The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.


Tell that to Bill Clinton and both George "Bushes", all of whom cited the Holocaust in their reasons for U.S. war action in Yugoslavia and Iraq. In essence, they all said like the Jews, "never again."

Quote
We still haven't worked out the fallout from the two holocausts we are responsible for. If you seriously imagine that black Americans will EVER stack our experience here below that of any persecuted foreigners- cambodian, tutsi, kurd, palestinian or jew- you are dreaming. It's an ugly thing to assume and an even uglier request to make.


I've never suggested that there be a heirarchy of painful, horrific experiences and that one should supercede the other. HUMAN SUFFERING IS HUMAN SUFFERING. All human suffering should be addressed. It would be great if all could be addressed at the same time. That isn't possible. Still, that does not negate the truth that during a time of extreme crisis for german Jews seeking to escape persecution and death at the hands of the nazis, this nation turned those people away. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were.

Quote
American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here. We don't blame Spain for Jim Crow. Learn the lesson we teach.


 Is that so? Then what was Frederick Douglass doing during the time he visited England? http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1078.htm  What was a prominent Abolitionist and black American (so to speak), to talk about during the two years he spent in Europe? Douglass absolutely spoke about how horrific life for the black man, the black slave was here in the U.S. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Battle on March 26, 2008, 06:39:43 am
Well, it's germane.

The issues American Jews have with Israel, anti semitism, their treatment in the holocaust, has almost nothing to do with life in the US. Yes, there have been attacks on jews (hate crimes). Yes, they have been discriminated against in terms of not being allowed to stay in certain places, attend certain schools, clubs etc. But there was no governmental policy specifically in place to keep them down. There were no centuries of torture and degradations for them here. The VP of the Confederacy was jewish and, while many northern jews participated in the Civil Rights struggle, the majority of southern jews did not. Just like the other white folks down there. Jewish Americans, as a group, are no more and no less allied with blacks than the larger white populace and never have been.

Nothing that has happened to the American jewish population IN AMERICA stacks up against what has happened to blacks IN AMERICA.

BAM! ;)  Excellent points!
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 06:52:14 am
The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.


The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”  

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article3.html

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 06:57:29 am
OK, hurumph ... here goes ...

I question whether anyone has the time to read what I've written (Arghhhh!), and I sure don't have much more time to pursue this. The Hudlin Forum had these discussions ad nauseum before.  We could go round and round forever in a point-counterpoint fashion, and at the end of the day we will have burned hours of time.  

My only real purpose in laying all this out now is to express to you the perspective of a large segment of the American Jewish Community.  To help give you further understanding of why there may be some political fallout from the sympathetic publication of the Hamas stance in the “Pastor’s Corner” of the church bulletin.  

Good Lord, man!

I don't think our own supreme illuminati has composed a message as lengthy as the one you've posted. I'll see you all in a week as I read and digest your offering  :D

I'll find the time to read your fine post in its glorious entirety....between the NCAA Basketball tournament games - both male and female - the NIT Basketball tournament games, the new CBI Basketball tournament games and any high school basketball state tournaments that may be aired in the near future. You haven't typed and posted in vain  ;)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on March 26, 2008, 07:07:16 am
The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.


The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”  

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article3.html[/url]

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.



Seems like the promise of "never again" only applies to either people with oil reserves or non-black skin.  The U.S. and UN's actions (inactions) in the Darfur Conflict is testament to that.  All the rhetoric that's been quoted here shows the hypocrisy this nation was built on and is fueled by.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 07:15:21 am
The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.


The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”  

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article3.html[/url]

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.



Seems like the promise of "never again" only applies to either people with oil reserves or non-black skin.  The U.S. and UN's actions (inactions) in the Darfur Conflict is testament to that.  All the rhetoric that's been quoted here shows the hypocrisy this nation was built on and is fueled by.


And you are absolutely correct, Catch! I agree with you 100%. In fact, I may have alluded to this very observation in an earlier posting in this thread. I can't remember which one at the moment. But wait....I went back and looked and located my exact quote from that earlier posting. Here it be: Today, the U.S. has referred to its past mistake of turning Jews away in their time of need to justify military actions taken in Iraq and Bosnia. The only places where the U.S. seems reticent or disinterested in stopping genocidal slaughter is in Africa.  

Please make no mistake. In pointing up the fact that the U.S. turned nazi german Jews away during a period of their mortal peril, I am in no way ignoring this nation's abominable inaction where African genocide is concerned. And as this is the case, it is easy for me to see why the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would exclaim, "goddamn America" in his sermon. They aren't black people, but "goddamn America" for allowing Gen amherst to give blankets laced with small pox to a tribe of Indians as a means of germ warfare.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 07:53:17 am
Aha.  :)

Having found what I was looking for in your posting:

You also raise South Africa. The Israeli arms trade with Apartheid South Africa is a flashback to the 1980s. It is troubling, I agree. However, Israel did reverse course in its relationship with that regime.

I can now go back and read your post in total. Well, I'll be able to do that as soon as you explain to me what you were getting at with the following statement:

Quote
Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we’ve been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).


"Other than as a mere pretense"?

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 26, 2008, 08:04:13 am
Well, it's germane.

Jewish Americans, as a group, are no more and no less allied with blacks than the larger white populace and never have been.

Nothing that has happened to the American jewish population IN AMERICA stacks up against what has happened to blacks IN AMERICA. So, when talking about the long suffering of people elsewhere and what we do or don't owe them as decent human beings, I think it's legitimate for American blacks to say, "get in line behind us." Just as the native Americans can say the same to all of us.

Lots of groups have a holocaust. All are legit and none takes the front seat over the others.  But, when dealing with them, you have to deal with the actual torturers and the actual victims. America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.

Redjack, I believe your implication that Jews were no more involved in the Civil Rights movement than any other group of white Americans is false.  While or course most Jews did not actively participate (too busy working, raising families, etc ... to be directly involved, just as with any social movement), I believe that the percentage of Jews that did actively participate far exceeded the percentage of Jews in the general American population.  That is to say, Jews did participate at a higher rate than most white Americans.  And those who did not participate actively on the streets did participate in the voting booth.  Even to this day Jews tend to be far more liberal than the general white American population.

On another topic ... I don't know how the Nazi Holocaust came up ... I certainly didn't raise it.  The extermination of the Jews of Europe was a horrible thing.  The Slave trade was a horrible thing of greater magnitude.  Perhaps the Holocaust is given greater emphasis because it was more recent, or perhaps because as you mentioned nobody before then believed there could be assembly-line mass murder in the 20th Century, or maybe because of an ethnocentric bias (as in "How could 'civilized' Europeans do such a thing?"), and yes maybe because the victims, while Jews, were white. 

Getting back to horrors.  The Cambodian genocide was horrible. The genocide in Rwanda was horrible.  What is taking place in Africa today is horrible.  As to this latter example, Jewish organizations and Jews in leadership positions of non-Jewish organizations are far more active in condemning the genocide in Africa today, and in trying to alleviate the suffering, than any other ethnic group in America, bar none.  Jews have traditionally been "over-represented" (vis a vis our % of the population) in movements fighting for social justice, combating genocide, and alleviation of global suffering.

Part of the reason may be because of our own cultural "memory" of the Holocaust.  Many Jews, even American Jews, lost family and friends.  Many Jews in America today are the children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Holocaust survivors.  If the memory of the Holocaust as spurred American Jews to fight for justice and work to help the oppressed elsewhere, that is something to praise, not to minimize.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: bluezulu on March 26, 2008, 08:09:00 am
Never want to get into a comparisons of generational atrocities, however Jews were allowed to continue being...Jews after WW II well the American slave lost almost all ties to their native land and culture up to and including diluted blood lines. Even the Native American culture is celebrated on some level and is defined. The descendants of slaves run far away from that point in history despite having generational curses left from it.

ps: not trying to throw off thred topic.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 26, 2008, 08:20:00 am
Never want to get into a comparisons of generational atrocities, however Jews were allowed to continue being...Jews after WW II well the American slave lost almost all ties to their native land and culture up to and including diluted blood lines. Even the Native American culture is celebrated on some level and is defined. The descendants of slaves run far away from that point in history despite having generational curses left from it.

ps: not trying to throw off thred topic.

Though thankfully the slaves' African culture could not be totally eradicated ... parts of it were sustained and emerged in indirect ways, forever changing the course of American Culture (and to some extent, the culture of the Western World).
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 26, 2008, 08:49:08 am
I don't think our own supreme illuminati has composed a message as lengthy as the one you've posted. I'll see you all in a week as I read and digest your offering  :D
And so you quoted it in full. 
Perhaps just the beginning and some ... would have sufficed.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 09:27:06 am
And so you quoted it in full. 
Perhaps just the beginning and some ... would have sufficed.

Perhaps.

Getting back to the topic, HAMAS has engaged in suicide/homicide bombings. But after political successes it appeared HAMAS was prepared to change its tactics opting for a cease fire, a truce and talks with Israel. Their political opponents Fatah, were none too pleased with these developments. Fatah may have actively sought to undermine the HAMAS-led government. If I'm not mistaken, both Israel and the U.S. favored Fatah over HAMAS did they not? What part might Israel and the U.S. have played in destabilizing the HAMAS-led power structure? It's probably already been posted somewhere, but when exactly did Church of Trinity's endorsement of HAMAS come to light? How long has the Church endorsed HAMAS? Was it before or after HAMAS sought a cease fire and a truce with Israel?

I noticed in the article attached to the first link in the initial post of this thread, it states that Obama's Church's Newsletter referred to HAMAS as the "Islamic Resistance Movement", seeming to suggest that it was the Church's decision to refer to HAMAS by that title. But when I look up "HAMAS", I find that the name literally means "Islamic Resistance Movement."

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 26, 2008, 10:34:13 am
Sinjection:

My father, for nearly twenty years, worked as an officer in the United Nations High Commission for refugees. Before that he worked for various NGOs in Africa, India and Vietnam. I split my time between life with him and life with my mom who, until recently, taught school in the so-called inner city. When I need a lecture about the US's policy toward refugees, it won't be you I call. I grew up with the refugee situation as part of everyday life.

Like many descendants of those who faced horrible adversity in their home countries, you seem to be of the opinion that what happened to your particular group was in some way unique or that the United States owes yours or any group, automatic safe haven if things are awful at home. That isn't the case. It's never been the case. It's never going to be the case and, as Americans, you shouldn't want it to be the case.

There is simply too much crap going on the rest of the world for the "come one, come all" policy to be effective or even sound. It's a good place to come from emotionally but, in practice, it's not workable. IOW: the US routinely turns away hundreds of thousands of people who "deserve" asylum here. We always have and we always will and those who don't get in have to eat it. It's tough. It's horrible in fact, but they still have to eat it because we can't take them all.

Like a lot of people, you are conveniently leaving out those facts that don't support your assertions and conflating unconnected events in an effort to support them. That stops right now.

In the period leading up to the 2nd World War, America was looking inward. Our economy was destroyed, millions were displaced, there was racial, ethnic and class strife on a scale that most can't imagine today who didn't live through it. Meanwhile, in Europe, the democratically elected leader of a nation is being cruel to his own people. NO ONE here knew about the death camps because, unsurprisingly, they hadn't been built yet. Mass deportation is cruel but it is not, in itself, an automatic ticket into the US. Sorry. We have our own crap to deal with. Lots and lots and lots of our own crap.

In the build-up to our entry into the war England repeatedly warned us of Hitler's megalomania and desire for conquest and repeatedly begged for us to get in before things got really dire. We did not. America had no real military at the time, our munitions were substandard and in many cases antiquated. After Lindbergh got a look at the German air force his opinion was they would crush us in a straight out fight and, at that time, he was absolutely right. yes, he was a racist. Doesn't mean the report was false. It wasn't and everybody concerned knew it.

(Side note: American multinational corporations, sadly, have never cared about local evils as long as there's a buck to be made. Hell, they often assist or create those evils to stretch buck farther. Incidentally, I also lived in and around South Africa for several of the Apartheid years and I think the importance you place on the participation of American corporations in the fall of apartheid would come a sever and insulting shock to many there. It wasn't sanctions that turned that tide, bunky.  It was a LOT of black people writing on the wall: "We will win this eventually. It can be with blood or you can give up the ghost. LOTS of people left rather than stay and forge the new nation.)

Couple that weakness with the incredible social and economic strife at home and it's easy to see why the American public had to be convinced that the Germans weren't, at worst,  just a problem for Europe. Hell, we still had vets of the last time we stopped a German land grab who were disinclined to have the country get mired in the same crap again. So a tiny subset of our population has relatives at home who are getting a raw deal? Welcome to the club. A larger subset, the Irish Americans, had problems too, massive ones, and we didn't invade England to stop them or absorb every Irishman who took the boat ride. A larger subset, black Americans, had problems RIGHT HERE, that were, shall we say, not being paid serious attention. You think a bunch of European refugees are going to rate? Get over yourself.

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

Within that saving we and the other allies freed from hideous bondage the victims of the Nazi death camp system and the world was given a glimpse of the sort of horror that most would rather think only exists in novels about hell. The camps were never the point.  Even after we did know about them. Even after escapees and spies brought out photos and testimony. The camps were INCIDENTAL to the overall war effort. They were a small subset of the whole. Just as the Japanese labor camps were.

We did not know what we didn't know and can't be held accountable for that ignorance.  Moreover, while it may seem unfair to you that so many Jews were turned away, I must AGAIN remind you that the US routinely turns away people fleeing similar events. Cambodians don't get a free pass. African refugees from various nations don't. Tibetans don't. Etc. etc. etc. We don't take everybody. We don't even take most of those who want to get in. We can't. So get over it. It's not specific to your group and it's not personal. GET. OVER. IT. And those people, in the context of the world's horrors, aren't special. They are, sadly, depressingly common.

America owes a debt to Americans and to those peoples we have, ourselves, harmed or destroyed. We do not owe anything to the victims of other people's evil deeds. If we do open a hand or a door, it is because we WISH to, not because we share guilt.

Those Presidential speeches were about HINDSIGHT and REGRET and, btw, complete BS. The US has subsequently turned a blind eye to MULTIPLE acts of horrible oppression and has propped up the perpetrators of brutality. Presidents say all kinds of stuff in front of cameras and to specific ethnic or class gatherings.  it's called pandering.

As with all things, what they DO matters considerably more than what they say.

Michael:

Jews are white. By the spurious definitions of "race" that everyone seems so comfy with, jews are white. The underlying and unspoken  reason for the outrage at their treatment both here and abroad is because of the collective shock that, as white people, the should get the raw deal. German jews thought of themselves as Germans. American jews thoght they were white americans. They were proven, in many cases, not to be right about that.

But, also because they look white (isn't racism fun, kids?), they were able to blend into the existing system here and change things for themselves, for the better, from within. Some blacks did it too but it's more difficult for us for obvious reasons. We call it "passing." It's not held in high regard and it creates resentment in those ho see it happening, especially when getting lectured by those who do it and reap the benefit.

While I would never downplay the participation in and support of various Jewish individuals and organizations in the latter part of the civil rights struggle, you are not allowed to describe that participation as somehow representative of the whole.  it's not. And, it must be said, black people think WE did the whole civil rights thing alone. As Bill Clinton just found out. That's false. We had help. Lots of it.

No matter what we said or how many of us marched, if white America hadn't agreed with the sentiments expressed, nothing would have changed for us. In fact things could have gotten worse. Lots worse. We get credit for pushing them, over a about a century, into that agreement but there was no guarantee that they would. And that was still most whites. It was almost always with qualifiers and nowhere near all.

However, just because the majority (and we'll never know how wide a majority) of non-blacks seemed to get on the band wagon eventually, that doesn't obviate the deeds and indifference of those who did not. White. Jewish. Latin. Chinese. Whatever. If they didn't join up, they're still on the hook.

Charleton Heston was famous for saying he "marched with King."

The most common response I ever heard to that was some version of "So what? What have you done for me lately with your cold dead hands?"

Anybody can take a stroll.

Those Jewish kids that stood up for what was right were doing so not because of their Jewishness but because of their American-ness just as the blacks were fighting not to create some sort of Afrocentric enclave but simply to be considered Americans like everybody else. There's a theme there.

If more people would grasp it, we'd all be better off.

Obama's pastor said nothing wrong. Obama himself doesn't need to pass some litmus on how he feels about Hamas or Israel or freaking Darfur for that matter. We elect presidents for what they will do for US, not what they can do for the world. Otherwise the world would get  a vote.

They don't.



Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 11:09:46 am
Obama's pastor said nothing wrong. Obama himself doesn't need to pass some litmus on how he feels about Hamas or Israel or freaking Darfur for that matter. We elect presidents for what they will do for US, not what they can do for the world. Otherwise the world would get  a vote.

They don't.


But...but did he HAVE to say "garlic noses"?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 12:31:22 pm
Sinjection:

My father, for nearly twenty years, worked as an officer in the United Nations High Commission for refugees. Before that he worked for various NGOs in Africa, India and Vietnam. I split my time between life with him and life with my mom who, until recently, taught school in the so-called inner city. When I need a lecture about the US's policy toward refugees, it won't be you I call. I grew up with the refugee situation as part of everyday life.

 :D Well then, it's a good thing for me that I didn't attempt to lecture you about the U.S. policy toward refugees isn't it? What I did do is give you the straight facts about how this nation turned away german Jews who were fleeing for their lives and sent them back to a godless regime which slaughtered them. Today, if a refugee from any war torn part of the world is fortunate enough to make it to the U.S. and present a legitimate case for why they should be allowed to remain in this nation, they are offered asylum.

Quote
Like many descendants of those who faced horrible adversity in their home countries, you seem to be of the opinion that what happened to your particular group was in some way unique or that the United States owes yours or any group, automatic safe haven if things are awful at home. That isn't the case. It's never been the case. It's never going to be the case and, as Americans, you shouldn't want it to be the case.

You must have missed (or overlooked), the part where I said rather emphatically I might add, that human suffering is human suffering. Period. All human suffering should be addressed. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were. I see human suffering as a UNIVERSAL EVIL. Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, etc....are trying to trump the suffering of black people and that they "need to get in line". No, I don't agree with that attitude.

Quote
There is simply too much crap going on the rest of the world for the "come one, come all" policy to be effective or even sound. It's a good place to come from emotionally but, in practice, it's not workable. IOW: the US routinely turns away hundreds of thousands of people who "deserve" asylum here. We always have and we always will and those who don't get in have to eat it. It's tough. It's horrible in fact, but they still have to eat it because we can't take them all.

As far as I know, Cubans who are fortunate enough to escape Cuba, survive the 90 mile journey over open water from Cuba to Florida, and who are able to put their foot on U.S. soil are allowed to stay. Feel free to enlighten me if you find that the policy toward Cuban refugees has been changed. Any refugee who is absolute danger of facing death upon their return home should be granted asylum. Recently, I heard a report about an Iranian youth who happens to be a homosexual. He learned while studying in Britain, that his partner had been executed in Iran for the crime of sodomy and that upon his return, he would face that same fate. The youth left Great Britain and applied for asylum in Scandanavia I believe. It was not granted due to some red tape situation existing between the workings of asylum between Britain and Scandanavia. Meanwhile, the youth's visa or whatever they call it over there, is expiring; in fact, it should have expired by now. Either Britain was able to work out a way which would allow the young homosexual Iranian to be granted asylum in their country or the youth is heading home to keep a date with the gallows. I see what you're saying, but the U.S. took in Irish escaping the potato famine didn't they? In more recent times, the U.S.opened the doors for Southeast Asians, didn't they? Discussions are now underway to formulate a plan which would allow Iraqi refugees to come to America. The fact remains, what happened to those german Jews who came here to escape a slaughter in their homeland was nothing short of abominable.

Quote
Like a lot of people, you are conveniently leaving out those facts that don't support your assertions and conflating unconnected events in an effort to support them. That stops right now.

Okay, let's see what you've got  :)

Quote
In the period leading up to the 2nd World War, America was looking inward. Our economy was destroyed, millions were displaced, there was racial, ethnic and class strife on a scale that most can't imagine today who didn't live through it. Meanwhile, in Europe, the democratically elected leader of a nation is being cruel to his own people. NO ONE here knew about the death camps because, unsurprisingly, they hadn't been built yet. Mass deportation is cruel but it is not, in itself, an automatic ticket into the US. Sorry. We have our own crap to deal with. Lots and lots and lots of our own crap.

The U.S. had no money, but could somehow find the means to print WWII versions of the Beat Back the Hun posters. This nation knew enough about "the democratically elected leader" and his attrocious aspirations and hatreds for Jews and other "sub-cultures". Before WWII began in earnest, the U.S. sought to shove that "democratically elected leader's" words about his "super race" down his throat pinning their hopes on the athletic prowess of two black Americans, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens. The U.S. knew at that time that hitler was bad news getting worse. And as Clinton said in his address: "Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.” Those Jews seeking refuge in the U.S. weren't all deaf mutes. They could communicate and could tell whomever it concerned, what was happening in their home country. Sorry. Because of the position this nation finds itself in these days and based upon how we've cast ourselves and comported ourselves, the world expects the U.S. to be there to aid stricken nations after every natural disaster. The world expects the U.S. to exercise the "power of our position" to assist in slowing or stopping nation-on-nation aggression. The world expects us to deal with "our own crap" and their "crap" too. And why not? That's what we've been trying to do for decades is it not?

Quote
In the build-up to our entry into the war England repeatedly warned us of Hitler's megalomania and desire for conquest and repeatedly begged for us to get in before things got really dire. We did not. America had no real military at the time, our munitions were substandard and in many cases antiquated. After Lindbergh got a look at the German air force his opinion was they would crush us in a straight out fight and, at that time, he was absolutely right. yes, he was a racist. Doesn't mean the report was false. It wasn't and everybody concerned knew it.

The U.S. military began girding for war as early as 1939. Isolationist or not, these preparations were being made because the government KNEW that at some point, the U.S. was going to enter the war. It had to be prepared to defend our bases in places like the Phillipines. When the german aggression began and war in Europe broke out, President Roosevelt put our military forces - meager in some places, but quite strong in others, the air force being one - on alert. So though America was "isolationist" and far removed from Europe, our President put our military forces on alert. Why? Well, I'm sure you know why. Our military was already drawing up battle plans as the President put forward a plan to increase the size of our army and equipping them. By 1940, our forces were participating in war games preparing for entry into the war. During this time, we were ACTIVELY SENDING MUNITIONS TO BRITAIN AND FRANCE. But we weren't in the war  ::) By 1941, France had been defeated and America's war prep had achieved its goal. During that time we had amassed an army not yet capable of waging war, but very close to being able to do so. Why? Because we were destined to enter the war notwithstanding the urgent urgings of Great Britain. By 1941 congress passed laws which enabled the U.S. to drop its neutrality stance and already the plan was not "if", but "when" the U.S. entered the war, it would attack germany. hitler didn't wait for us though. Angered because we had been supplying Britain and France with munitions, germany declared war on U.S. (that's us).

Quote
(Side note: American multinational corporations, sadly, have never cared about local evils as long as there's a buck to be made. Hell, they often assist or create those evils to stretch buck farther. Incidentally, I also lived in and around South Africa for several of the Apartheid years and I think the importance you place on the participation of American corporations in the fall of apartheid would come a sever and insulting shock to many there. It wasn't sanctions that turned that tide, bunky.  It was a LOT of black people writing on the wall: "We will win this eventually. It can be with blood or you can give up the ghost. LOTS of people left rather than stay and forge the new nation.)


"Bunky"? I haven't called you out of your name. If you must address me, sinjection will do. Thank you very much. The Sullivan Principles were very effective in putting tremendous economic pressure on South Africa. Don't sell the sanctions short. Without them, those black people writing on the wall would have been writhing against the wall after having been shot or beaten by emboldened racist policemen serving a government not having to worry about international sanctions against them.

Quote
We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

 :) Oh, so melodramatic. The U.S. played a large part in saving the world, this is true. Do not forget about our Russian ally. Without their withering assault on germany, forcing her to fight a war on two fronts, the Eastern front being the most damaging because the Russians weren't playing. The U.S. was able to do its part in saving the war with our Russian and British allies. And why is it that after winning those "civil rights victories", german prisoners of war were treated better and accorded more respect than black American soldiers who were attached to French and British units because white American soldiers didn't want to fight beside them. When black soldiers returned home from WWII, they quickly discovered that they were still n_____ as far as white Americans were concerned. "The traditional social structure was shattered"? Tell that to the black American soldier who in fighting for the U.S. had to do so attached to French or British units because white American soldiers didn't want to serve alongside a black American soldier. Tell Dr. Charles Drew who through his work with blood transfusions was put in charge of that function during the war, but left in disgust when told he was to be sure "white blood" didn't mix with "black blood". Can we say the "traditional social structure" was maybe cracked just a little? Because "shattered" it certainly was not.

Quote
Within that saving we and the other allies freed from hideous bondage the victims of the Nazi death camp system and the world was given a glimpse of the sort of horror that most would rather think only exists in novels about hell. The camps were never the point.  Even after we did know about them. Even after escapees and spies brought out photos and testimony. The camps were INCIDENTAL to the overall war effort. They were a small subset of the whole. Just as the Japanese labor camps were.

We did not know what we didn't know and can't be held accountable for that ignorance.
 

I say again, the U.S. government could not have been "that ignorant" of the fact that the nazis had death camps and were mass murdering Jews and others in those camps. The camps were built beginning in 1940. The Allies had reliable information about these camps as early as 1941. They had aerial photos of the camps. The allies had a Polish plant within one of those camps and he was supplying the allies with accurate accounts of the horrors taking place in those camps. The allies and I'm sure the Americans as well, knew what was going on in those camps as early as 1941 and dismissed that information as exaggeration. Now if you believe the government is above lying about what it knows and when it knew it....what can I say?

Unfortunately, my time is running short and I cannot respond to your fine post in the manner it deserves. I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along. This nation chose to turn away people who were fleeing for their lives hoping to find safety and sanctuary in the nation who boasts, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." I will always say because I will always believe that the U.S. fell far short of her lofty words when they sent those Jews back to Europe and to their deaths.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 26, 2008, 02:54:19 pm
:D Well then, it's a good thing for me that I didn't attempt to lecture you about the U.S. policy toward refugees isn't it? What I did do is give you the straight facts about how this nation turned away german Jews who were fleeing for their lives and sent them back to a godless regime which slaughtered them. Today, if a refugee from any war torn part of the world is fortunate enough to make it to the U.S. and present a legitimate case for why they should be allowed to remain in this nation, they are offered asylum.

Your problem is you think you get to determine what "legitimate" means. You don't.

Quote
You must have missed (or overlooked), the part where I said rather emphatically I might add, that human suffering is human suffering. Period. All human suffering should be addressed. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were. I see human suffering as a UNIVERSAL EVIL. Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, etc....are trying to trump the suffering of black people and that they "need to get in line". No, I don't agree with that attitude.

I see that. It's why you keep making the mistake you do. There is a line. It forms waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back there. And then another line forms at the border for people who want to get into the first line.

Quote
As far as I know, Cubans who are fortunate enough to escape Cuba, survive the 90 mile journey over open water from Cuba to Florida, and who are able to put their foot on U.S. soil are allowed to stay.

One, that's not invariably true. Two, the Cuban model is not representative and is, at the very least, considered somewhat controversial. Three, you are conflating modern behaviors with past ones again; that doesn't work.  Four, the US deals differently with different nations and in different situations. That is our right and we are under no obligation to let anyone stay just because someone else got to. Zero.

Quote
Feel free to enlighten me if you find that the policy toward Cuban refugees has been changed. Any refugee who is absolute danger of facing death upon their return home should be granted asylum.

"Should be" is your determination. You don't speak for the US.

 
Quote
Recently, I heard a report about an Iranian youth who happens to be a homosexual. He learned while studying in Britain, that his partner had been executed in Iran for the crime of sodomy and that upon his return, he would face that same fate. The youth left Great Britain and applied for asylum in Scandanavia I believe. It was not granted due to some red tape situation existing between the workings of asylum between Britain and Scandanavia. Meanwhile, the youth's visa or whatever they call it over there, is expiring; in fact, it should have expired by now. Either Britain was able to work out a way which would allow the young homosexual Iranian to be granted asylum in their country or the youth is heading home to keep a date with the gallows.

I hope he makes it. If not, that's really tough. But the immigration policy of one nation is not the business of another. No more than the internal politics of another nation, say a massive totalitarian regime that employs slave labor to make gods for US consumers.

 
Quote
I see what you're saying, but the U.S. took in Irish escaping the potato famine didn't they?

Some. Not all. And, again, one size doesn't fit all.

Quote
In more recent times, the U.S.opened the doors for Southeast Asians, didn't they?

Some. Not all. There were strict regulations as to who got in and why and even under those regs not everyone who "technially qualified" got in.  Lots and lots and lots got and get turned away. Also, there is a "we broke it, we bought it" undercurrent in the South Asian and Iraqi cases that was not present in WW2.

Quote
Discussions are now underway to formulate a plan which would allow Iraqi refugees to come to America. The fact remains, what happened to those german Jews who came here to escape a slaughter in their homeland was nothing short of abominable.

It's rough. No one's saying it's not. But using a tough immigration policy to link the US in responsibility to the WW2 holocaust is too big a stretch. It's just not true.

Quote

The U.S. had no money, but could somehow find the means to print WWII versions of the Beat Back the Hun posters. This nation knew enough about "the democratically elected leader" and his attrocious aspirations and hatreds for Jews and other "sub-cultures".


Enough for what? it was a sovereign nation. The was no UN then. The League of NAtions was a joke from day one. exactly what right did we have to say or do anything to Hitler beyond shaking our fist and calling foul? None, that's right. And, btw, America's treatment of its own minority populations at the time made any such criticism of Hitler hypocritical at best. Which was pointed out on more than one occasion by people of the day.

Quote
Before WWII began in earnest, the U.S. sought to shove that "democratically elected leader's" words about his "super race" down his throat pinning their hopes on the athletic prowess of two black Americans, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens.

A dubious political stance considering the US's teatment of Owens himself before and after the contest.  It was a PR victory, not a declaration of intent.  We were running our own eugenics programs here during the entire period. Difficult to get too hot about somebody else doing it. Had Hitler not been an expansionist it is likely the Nazis would still be running Germany. His ethnic policies were never going to be enough to inspire conflict on their own. Look at how we deal with countries where women have fewer rights than animals. We shake hands and play nice. No difference. Aggression against your neighbors is what gets the harsh response or cutting into company profits.

Quote
The U.S. knew at that time that hitler was bad news getting worse. And as Clinton said in his address: "Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

We call that hindsight. the word you're apparently not reading is "fragmentary."

Quote
Those Jews seeking refuge in the U.S. weren't all deaf mutes. They could communicate and could tell whomever it concerned, what was happening in their home country.

I'm sure they did. The response was obviously, "that's really awful. take a number." Just like it is for the majority of refugees.

Quote
Sorry. Because of the position this nation finds itself in these days and based upon how we've cast ourselves and comported ourselves, the world expects the U.S. to be there to aid stricken nations after every natural disaster.

Yeah. that's pretty tough. the thing is, what "the world" expects is not our concern when voting for president or in letting in refugees. What WE want is all that matters on either score.

Quote
The world expects the U.S. to exercise the "power of our position" to assist in slowing or stopping nation-on-nation aggression. The world expects us to deal with "our own crap" and their "crap" too. And why not? That's what we've been trying to do for decades is it not?

Like I said. "The world" needs to get over that. Unless they also want to follow our laws and live under our constitution. So far there haven't been too many takers on that.

Quote

The U.S. military began girding for war as early as 1939. Isolationist or not, these preparations were being made because the government KNEW that at some point, the U.S. was going to enter the war.

No. It means the US was keeping its options open as best it could given increasingly dire reports from Europe and Churchill STILL couldn't actually budge us to add troops and actually declare.

Quote
So though America was "isolationist" and far removed from Europe, our President put our military forces on alert.


Because there was a disconnect between what the president wanted and what the people, as represented by the house and senate, wanted. There was strong fascist sympathy in this nation. Hell, there still is.

Quote
"Bunky"? I haven't called you out of your name.

LOL. You guys need to get over this "called out of my name" crap. I honestly haven't heard anyone outside these boards say anything like that since i was a child. I'll continue to determine how I address people without help, thanks.

 
Quote
The Sullivan Principles were very effective in putting tremendous economic pressure on South Africa. Don't sell the sanctions short.

Don't oversell them. I was there.

 
Quote
:) Oh, so melodramatic.


No. We saved the world. So did the Russians. So did the Brits. The French, not so much.

Quote
"The traditional social structure was shattered"? Tell that to the black American soldier who in fighting for the U.S. had to do so attached to French or British units because white American soldiers didn't want to serve alongside a black American soldier. Tell Dr. Charles Drew who through his work with blood transfusions was put in charge of that function during the war, but left in disgust when told he was to be sure "white blood" didn't mix with "black blood". Can we say the "traditional social structure" was maybe cracked just a little? Because "shattered" it certainly was not.

Oh, I'd say it was shattered the first time a nigger suited up to fly a fighter. Or the first time a woman became a factory foreman. Shattered is appropriate. It was those very same niggers, back from the war, who planted their feet and said "This sh*t is over as of now" when it came to their unequal treatment. That generation did the foundational work for the peace talkers like King to come in and solidify.

Quote
I say again, the U.S. government could not have been "that ignorant" of the fact that the nazis had death camps and were mass murdering Jews and others in those camps.

You'll need proof to the contrary, I'm afraid. "Shoulda" and "Coulda" don't mean much to me.

Quote
The camps were built beginning in 1940. The Allies had reliable information about these camps as early as 1941. They had aerial photos of the camps. The allies had a Polish plant within one of those camps and he was supplying the allies with accurate accounts of the horrors taking place in those camps. The allies and I'm sure the Americans as well, knew what was going on in those camps as early as 1941 and dismissed that information as exaggeration.

Right. Which means, what? That they didn't "know."  They didn't believe the scattered and, at the time, wild accounts. No one in human history had ever done it that way before and I'm sure it was difficult to convince people that they had. Hell, there are people NOW who refuse to accept it.

Quote
I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along. This nation chose to turn away people who were fleeing for their lives hoping to find safety and sanctuary in the nation who boasts, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." I will always say because I will always believe that the U.S. fell far short of her lofty words when they sent those Jews back to Europe and to their deaths.

I agree. But they weren't citizens so I don't care as much as I do about those people who were and are.  It's terrible. it's awful. But they were not and are not our problem or shame.

The US is not heaven and only US citizens are US citizens. Only US citizens are entitled to the benefits of being a US citizen (and tourists of course, and only up to a point). Any time some other nation wants to sign up for our program they can ask nicely, let us decide and abide by that decision. Until then it's a case-by-case, era by era structure that governs who we help and how.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 26, 2008, 06:41:05 pm
Quote
Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we've been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

What I meant is that some folks who have an agenda to support Hamas, who in their hearts of hearts would like to see the Hamas agenda fully implemented, who would love to see Israel purged from the Middle East, may try to justify their position by citing Israel's relationship with S. Africa decades ago, in an attempt to demonize Israel today. 

You, of course, have not advocated support for Hamas, so I would not count you as one of those folks.

However, since you did raise the S. Africa thing, I looked into it.  That was a lotta years back.  Shared what I came up with.  Including the citations that provided a lot more info -- and by no means a whitewash.  Seemed like a pretty even-handed presentation (even for Wikipedia, haha). 

One thing I found interesting is that apparently Israel had a relationship with S. Africa that went back to the 1950s, that the first head of state to visit Israel was from that country, and that their opposition to British Colonialism as what brought them together.  I don't claim to be an expert on S. Africa's history, but as to Israel, it was very clear "what side" the British were on, and it wasn't on the side of the Jews.  Sounds like the South Africans were "friends" of Israel very early on.  This brought to mind the concept that some have expressed on this thread regarding Obama, that you don't throw your friends or family under the bus. I'm wondering if this sentiment might have had something to do with the thinking of some of the Israeli policymakers.  I don't think such a sentiment justifies the arms sales to the apartheid regime ... but I too was struggling to get a handle on what was going on.  This might have been a part of it.  But again, that is just speculation.  I really don't know. In any event, Israel did reverse its position and ceased its arms sales to South Africa in the 1980s.

I also found it interesting that, as in the United States, a "disproportionate" number of Jews in South Africa were active in that country's civil rights movement (i.e. the anti-apartheid movement).
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 07:41:08 pm
 :o Gadzooks!!!!  

Ah well, "Once more unto the breach..." and all that.  :D

 
Your problem is you think you get to determine what "legitimate" means. You don't.

Where did you get the idea that it was I who got to determine what "legitimate means"? It wasn't I who determined that the Shah of Iran should be admitted to the U.S. It wasn't I who decided to grant asylum Salvadorans escaping the aftermath of a civil war in their nation to U.S. As many of them were likely in life threatening situations, I would have done so. It isn't I who gets to decide that Cubans who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. are granted asylum but Haitians who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. for the same reasons are sent back. Don't try to blame the Mariel Boatlift on me. I had nothing to do with Castro sending his mental patients and convicts here. They were economic refugees. Had it been my decision to make, there wouldn't have been a "boatlift". Those people were not in a life-threatening situation until they took it upon themselves to travel to the U.S. in overcrowded, rickety boats. Those Jews seeking to escape persecution and the death camps had what I believe was and is a legitimate case and should have been granted asylum. Had it been my decision to make, they would have been granted asylum.

In your world perhaps. Not in mine. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees from Cuba, but not grant asylum to economic refugees from Haiti. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees over refugees fleeing their nations in fear for their lives. It's always a mistake to allow such things as oil and other strategic interests to factor into the determination of what humans are suffering the most. That's the shameful mistake this nation has been making. Has granting asylum to Southeast Asian boat people made worse the situation of Native Americans and Black Americans? Do you believe those people usurped our place "in line"? In MY world, if I see children starving whether it be in Haiti, in Somalia or here in our own nation, I'm going to do what I can to end that human suffering as quickly as possible only the logistics in providing necessary aid would determine who would receive it first. I wouldn't rate such human suffering on any scale of severity unless one group is on the very brink of the point of no return. But no, I wouldn't have such a line as you suggest, Native Americans first, Black Americans second, and so forth.  

Quote
One, that's not invariably true.


You're right. We did send Elian Gonzalez back, didn't we? But only because his father demanded his return. I believe most of the mental patients and convicts who came over on the Mariel Boatlift are still here however.

Quote
Two, the Cuban model is not representative and is, at the very least, considered somewhat controversial. Three, you are conflating modern behaviors with past ones again; that doesn't work.  Four, the US deals differently with different nations and in different situations. That is our right and we are under no obligation to let anyone stay just because someone else got to.


In other words, the "Cuban model" is still in effect. Maybe that will change now that Fidel has stepped down and his brother is now running things.

Quote
"Should be" is your determination. You don't speak for the US.


But I still have the right to express my opinion. I stand by what I've been saying. And, I do hope the young Iranian was able to manage some sort of extension and will be granted asylum. I will never understand a culture that executes a person because of sexual orientation and stones or beheads or imprisons a woman who has been raped while those who assaulted her receive a slap on the wrist. That's almost as messed up as your "get in line" policy.

Quote
Some. Not all. And, again, one size doesn't fit all.


Yes, many Irish escaping the potato famine were allowed to emigrate to the U.S. Cuban economic refugees were allowed to remain in the U.S. This resembles your own "get in line" stance. Because this nation believes it needed to make a point against Cuba and communism, mental patients and convicts were able to "move up in line" over many individuals who were perhaps more worthy of asylum.

Quote
Some. Not all. There were strict regulations as to who got in and why and even under those regs not everyone who "technially qualified" got in.  Lots and lots and lots got and get turned away. Also, there is a "we broke it, we bought it" undercurrent in the South Asian and Iraqi cases that was not present in WW2.

In other words, Yes; the U.S. did grant asylum to Southeast Asians. But there was a time when this nation turned back Jews fleeing from their lives from the nazi regime determined to wipe them from the face of the earth. Not good.

Quote
It's rough. No one's saying it's not. But using a tough immigration policy to link the US in responsibility to the WW2 holocaust is too big a stretch. It's just not true.

The decision to turn those Jews away was abominable and remains a stain on American history as far as I am concerned. The U.S. is directly responsible for the death of Anne Frank. If she was among those Jews who the U.S. sent back when she could have been granted asylum in this nation, then it follows that the U.S. is directly responsible for that young girl's death. Had the U.S. not turned her party away, she and her family would not have been captured in that attic hideaway and sent to nazi concentration camps.

Zounds... and it goes on and on and on. Unfortunately as much as I'd like to do so, I haven't time to respond to the remainder of your comments. And as our discourse has taken this thread far afield, it's probably best that I don't. That is not to say that I don't believe my position to be correct. I stand by everything I've said from the U.S. responsibility as far as the Holocaust is concerned, its stated vow that "never again" should such a thing happen anywhere as hypocritical as that might seem. I would not doubt that the U.S. knew about the nazi death camps before you seem to believe they did...as Rev Wright said; "Governments lie!"  :D The nation did pin its hopes on Joe Louis and Jesse Owens to take hitler down a peg and to this point:

Quote
Oh, I'd say it was shattered the first time a nigger suited up to fly a fighter. Or the first time a woman became a factory foreman. Shattered is appropriate. It was those very same niggers, back from the war, who planted their feet and said "This sh*t is over as of now" when it came to their unequal treatment. That generation did the foundational work for the peace talkers like King to come in and solidify.

You think that qualifies as the "traditional social structure" being "shattered"? Look. Peter Salem, Salem Poor, Crispus Attucks, all black men who took up arms and fought for the U.S. before it WAS the U.S. Crispus Attucks was reputed to be the first or second American to die in what would become this nation's Revolutionary War. Black slaves were allowed to take up arms and fight for this nation believing that at wars end, they too would be as "free" as their white countrymen would be. Now there was a moment that the "traditional social structure" was so-called "shattered" a black slave with a gun that could actually fire balls capable of ending a white man's life and what did it get the blacks in the newly-formed America? It got them back to the plantation picking cotton, that's where it got them. And when our soldiers returned from WWII battlefields they were still the same ol' n-----. This nation didn't even recognize black soldiers from that era with the medals they deserved until fairly recently. Any medals awarded black troops from America were given them by their foreign commanders. No. the "traditional social structure" was far from "shattered".

And now in the interests of getting this thread back to the topic it was intended to discuss, these will be my final words regarding our exchange. It was stimulating  ;)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 26, 2008, 07:43:22 pm
Quote
Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we've been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

What I meant is that some folks who have an agenda to support Hamas, who in their hearts of hearts would like to see the Hamas agenda fully implemented, who would love to see Israel purged from the Middle East, may try to justify their position by citing Israel's relationship with S. Africa decades ago, in an attempt to demonize Israel today. 

You, of course, have not advocated support for Hamas, so I would not count you as one of those folks.

Cool  ;)

I have to run, but would like to respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 26, 2008, 09:41:06 pm
Uh...

Hm.

I think your assessments are based on a naive understanding of how nations work and on your singling out a particular group's suffering as some sort of  trump card. In fact, while many Jews were turned away, many were not. To you the US was required to provide universal asylum to any and all who were in need. Anything less than 100% and we're on the hook with the Nazis?

Sorry. That's just complete bullsh*t.

I think, if you really consider what  nations are and how this one in particular must function in order to maintain itself as itself, you may see how you've got your priorities in this matter a bit skewed.

A nation with wide open borders is not a nation. A nation that doesn't exercise control of who is allowed to join is citizenry is not a nation. These facts are true, they are constant, regardless of external conditions or trouble elsewhere.

Until you see this, you aren't seeing.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 26, 2008, 10:46:01 pm
Sinjection:
Those Jewish kids that stood up for what was right were doing so not because of their Jewishness but because of their American-ness just as the blacks were fighting not to create some sort of Afrocentric enclave but simply to be considered Americans like everybody else. There's a theme there.
If more people would grasp it, we'd all be better off.

Actually Redjack, no.  They were acting as Jews. 

While some Jews have not lived up to the ideal (and you alluded to some), there is a very long Jewish tradition to show compassion to the needy, to the downtrodden. 

It all goes back to something in the collective Jewish consciousness, preserved in our tradition ... something in the Jewish experience that happened in Egypt.  Something we recall every year at the Passover seder.  Something that we are required to recall as though it were yesterday.

"Once we were slaves, but now we are free."
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 26, 2008, 11:03:24 pm
But after political successes it appeared HAMAS was prepared to change its tactics opting for a cease fire, a truce and talks with Israel. ...
I noticed in the article attached to the first link in the initial post of this thread, it states that Obama's Church's Newsletter referred to HAMAS as the "Islamic Resistance Movement", seeming to suggest that it was the Church's decision to refer to HAMAS by that title. But when I look up "HAMAS", I find that the name literally means "Islamic Resistance Movement."

Hamas has a single objective, an objective that has been unambiguously expressed in words, rockets and suicide bombers.  Any "cease fire" with Hamas is one-sided, only to allow Hamas to regroup and rearm.  It is a textbook example of "cease fire" as military tactic. 

In addition, a "cease fire" is a useful tool for Hamas to use in their propaganda war when (ooops!) there is a "slip" and Hamas fighters fires several rockets into an Israeli city and Israel responds to take out the aggressors.  Followed by the condemnatory international headlines, "Israel violates cease fire."  Pllllllease.  "Cease fire" with Hamas.   :P
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 27, 2008, 04:05:58 am
Then let them show that compassion to the Palestinians. The war between Israel and Palestine has gone on for how long? and yet the reason that peace has not prevailed ( in your mind ) is because of the palestinians? That is ridiculous on so many fronts! in any sustained conflict not only does the original cause for the conflict become diluted ( from one atrocity to the next ) but the behaviors of both protagonist become more violent and detrimental to a peaceful conclusion. Nobody looks less violent than the other, nobody looks more the victim than the other, both parties equally are pathetic in their rationale to do anything other than kill each other.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 27, 2008, 05:23:34 am
One thing I should clear up. Going into WWII, the U.S. military was as stringently segregated as it had always been. Having fought alongside white soldiers in the Revolutionary War and showing remarkable valor in segregated units during the Civil War, the Plains Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War (don't believe the hype. It wasn't the Roughriders who took San Juan Hill; it was the Buffalo Soldiers who did that), and WWI, the sense was in the military that the black soldier couldn't fight and wouldn't fight. When WWII began, black soldiers were mostly relegated to materials handling and kitchen detail.

Gen Dwight Eisenhower was sort of a different breed in that it appeared to be his wish that the black soldier be utilized more in combat situations and not only that, he wanted to see the military racially integrated. The Battle of the Bulge gave Eisenhower the chance to do just that. Needing all the manpower that could be mustered, the military offered black soldiers to volunteer for combat duty which they did in droves. Many black soldiers gave up higher rank so they could fight as privates. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the black soldiers' performance was outstanding. Slowly but steadily, military units became more racially integrated. One white U.S. Marine officer is reported to have said something to the effect, "There is no more Negro Marine. There is just a Marine." His was not the prevailing sentiment however.

Black soldiers during WWII were still discriminated against because of their race. A white officer and a few of his black soldiers went to a cafe for a bite to eat and were refused service, the white officer refusing to leave his men declined to be seated inside. The soldiers were told they could go around back and there, they would be given sandwiches and coffee. Not long afterward, white American soldiers accompanied by German soldiers arrived at this same cafe and were observed being cordially greeted, enjoying a fine meal and pleasant company.

It wasn't until 1997 that many WWII era black soldiers were awarded their Medals of Honor. So no, there was no "shattering of the traditional social structure". There was a fissure that opened during the Revolutionary War and then sealed itself not to reappear until the Battle of the Bulge in WWII and which widened during the Korean Conflict. My Father served in an integrated unit during that time and saw combat. I wanted to make sure that I corrected myself. While black soldiers may have been attached to military units representing European nations during WWII, it was during WWI that black soldiers did most of their fighting attached to French military units.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 27, 2008, 05:39:41 am
Uh...

Hm.

I think your assessments are based on a naive understanding of how nations work and on your singling out a particular group's suffering as some sort of  trump card. In fact, while many Jews were turned away, many were not. To you the US was required to provide universal asylum to any and all who were in need. Anything less than 100% and we're on the hook with the Nazis?


The U.S. took in approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees during the WWII era and it was known at the time that there was room for many, many more under the established quota. It was said that Roosevelt was possibly indifferent to the Jews and that is why more weren't granted asylum. Not one of our nation's brighter or prouder moments I'd say. If we turned away the boat carrying a passenger named Anne Frank, then I contend that the U.S. is directly responsible for that child's death in the concentration camps.

By the by...when I reminisce on the final years leading up to the eventual end of apartheid South Africa, I don't recall a strong, united effort by South Africa's blacks to overthrow the white-ruled government. I remember Mandela's ANC clashing with supporters of Zulu Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi. I remember the two factions fighting each other with machetes and whatever else they could get their hands on. I remember the horrific practice of "necklacing". I remember armored South African vehicles, black children throwing rocks at those vehicles only to have white South African soldiers jump up like "jack-in-the-box" guns blazing. Aside from that, I'm certain that at the highest levels of the ANC there was a positive push aided mightily by the Sullivan Principles and international sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa that eventually culminated in FW deKlerk freeing Nelson Mandela and allowing the black majority to participate in their own nation as full citizens.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 27, 2008, 05:42:55 am
I think, if you really consider what  nations are and how this one in particular must function in order to maintain itself as itself, you may see how you've got your priorities in this matter a bit skewed.

A nation with wide open borders is not a nation. A nation that doesn't exercise control of who is allowed to join is citizenry is not a nation. These facts are true, they are constant, regardless of external conditions or trouble elsewhere.

Until you see this, you aren't seeing.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it now.

So we can turn away desperate people fearing for their lives, but decades later, we can try to make a point by allowing Fidel Castro to send us his convicts, crazies and kooks.

I believe I have seen the light. It's probably that freight train at the other end of the tunnel  :)


Uh oh. I'd forget my head if it wasn't attached to my neck, shoulders, torso, pelvis, legs, ankles and feet. I said last night that I would post to the topic. My bad. So this will be my final words regarding this line of discussion  :)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 27, 2008, 07:48:11 am
I think, if you really consider what  nations are and how this one in particular must function in order to maintain itself as itself, you may see how you've got your priorities in this matter a bit skewed.

A nation with wide open borders is not a nation. A nation that doesn't exercise control of who is allowed to join is citizenry is not a nation. These facts are true, they are constant, regardless of external conditions or trouble elsewhere.

Until you see this, you aren't seeing.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it now.

So we can turn away desperate people fearing for their lives, but decades later, we can try to make a point by allowing Fidel Castro to send us his convicts, crazies and kooks.

I believe I have seen the light. It's probably that freight train at the other end of the tunnel  :)


Uh oh. I'd forget my head if it wasn't attached to my neck, shoulders, torso, pelvis, legs, ankles and feet. I said last night that I would post to the topic. My bad. So this will be my final words regarding this line of discussion  :)


Yeah. The sarcasm would be more cutting if you didn't have a comic book view of the issue.


In 2006 the US accepted roughly 1,300,000 new immigrants. 70 thousand were refugees and asylum seekers. Worldwide there were just under 10 million refugees seeking asylum. We can assume that considerably more than 70k tried to get American citizenship.

By your logic, by capping our acceptances or simply not taking everyone who "deserves" to be taken, the US is equally culpable for any horrors those people face when they go home.

Which brings up two points:

1) Now you can see why your position is crap.

2) The US is not the only country in the world that takes refugees. Being denied entry here doesn't automatically send you back to your country of origin. The US may be the preferred choice but, again, what a non-citizen desires has no bearing on what the US has to do about those desires. They could desire to live in a penthouse in Westwood rather than a mud hut but I don't think they are automatically allowed that either.

We could close our doors tight or decide only to let in redheads with grey eyes and that would be our prerogative. The REASON for the refugee status has, literally, no bearing. We decide how many. We decide what's legitimate. Both factors shift according to time, circumstance and politics.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 27, 2008, 07:57:57 am
The U.S. took in approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees during the WWII era and it was known at the time that there was room for many, many more under the established quota. It was said that Roosevelt was possibly indifferent to the Jews and that is why more weren't granted asylum. Not one of our nation's brighter or prouder moments I'd say. If we turned away the boat carrying a passenger named Anne Frank, then I contend that the U.S. is directly responsible for that child's death in the concentration camps.

sinjection, I'd argue that your contention is at least somewhat exaggerated. In your hypothetical, the US would bear at most indirect responsibility. In order to be an accessory to a crime, for instance, one must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)) Even that seems questionable in the context of WWII to say the least. Direct responsibility clearly belongs to those who committed the murders.

The degree of moral responsibility that you wish to attribute to the US government for its acts and omissions is a subject for discussion on which reasonable people can differ. However, unless you are accusing the US government of being an accomplice to Nazi Germany (which would be a more extreme claim than I have ever seen anywhere), there is no direct responsibility here.

By the by...when I reminisce on the final years leading up to the eventual end of apartheid South Africa, I don't recall a strong, united effort by South Africa's blacks to overthrow the white-ruled government. I remember Mandela's ANC clashing with supporters of Zulu Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi. I remember the two factions fighting each other with machetes and whatever else they could get their hands on. I remember the horrific practice of "necklacing". I remember armored South African vehicles, black children throwing rocks at those vehicles only to have white South African soldiers jump up like "jack-in-the-box" guns blazing. Aside from that, I'm certain that at the highest levels of the ANC there was a positive push aided mightily by the Sullivan Principles and international sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa that eventually culminated in FW deKlerk freeing Nelson Mandela and allowing the black majority to participate in their own nation as full citizens.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but how reliable are your reminiscences? It's been my experience that the reality is almost always more complex than any simple narrative.

Anyway, you all seem to be in agreement that change there came about due to a combination of internal and external pressures. I'm not sure the degree of influence of one factor versus another is even knowable.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 27, 2008, 09:34:52 am
yeah...
happy coexistance shall reign in the HEF!
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 27, 2008, 11:55:25 am
In 2006 the US accepted roughly 1,300,000 new immigrants. 70 thousand were refugees and asylum seekers. Worldwide there were just under 10 million refugees seeking asylum. We can assume that considerably more than 70k tried to get American citizenship.

Why are you bringing up what happened 2 years ago when I am referring to an abomination that occured in the 1940s?

During that time period, the U.S. set a quota at 27,370 the refugees it would accept deemed "undesirable" namely, Italians and Jews. I have consulted one source which states the U.S. accepted approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees. The U.S. could have and should have in my view, accepted more. There were those who saw that the U.S. quota for Jews was not met. The same was true of other potential sanctuary nations, but I am more concerned with the U.S. Those who recognized that the U.S. quota had not been met and that more Jewish refugees could have been granted asylum but were turned away, attributed this fact to Roosevelt's seeming indifference toward the Jews.

Yes, there were more Jews seeking asylum in the U.S. and other nations and all seemed to set their quotas so low that all those seeking safety from the nazis by fleeing to another nation could not be accomodated. In the case of the U.S. and specifically for Anne Frank and her family, they were so close to safety only to be turned away by our nation who had not yet and never did reach its quota. So to you and to Curtis, it is my unwavering contention that through the extremity of cause and effect, the U.S. is directly responsible for the deaths of Anne Frank, her family and any other persecuted persons in their party. The Allies had received intelligence about nazi death camps and what was happening in those camps as early as 1941 - 42, approximately the same time the camps were established and operating. I have very little doubt that the U.S. government at its highest levels were appraised of this situation and like the Allies, dismissed the reports as exaggeration. So in my opinion, not only do I suspect the U.S. had knowledge of what was occuring in those camps, they chose to dismiss that intelligence even in the face of the desperate exodus from that nation by frightened Jews. That makes the U.S. both negligent and culpable in my book.

The degree of moral responsibility that you wish to attribute to the US government for its acts and omissions is a subject for discussion on which reasonable people can differ. However, unless you are accusing the US government of being an accomplice to Nazi Germany (which would be a more extreme claim than I have ever seen anywhere), there is no direct responsibility here.

I'm a reasonable person. I'm sure that the other fellow is as well. He has his opinion, I have mine. Our opinions differ, hence our exchange. And I would say that the U.S. government was an irresponsible, unwitting and tragic accomplice to nazi germany in the murder of Anne Frank, her family and those our nation turned away. As this is the case, you may now pass your eyes over one of the "more extreme" claims you have seen anywhere. I stand by my contention.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but how reliable are your reminiscences? It's been my experience that the reality is almost always more complex than any simple narrative.

The reality I saw related to my reminiscences are exactly as I stated them. The reportage of the events I cited were inescapable. "Necklacing", the practice of placing a gasoline-filled tire around the neck, chest and arms of a victim which is then set ablaze was a common practice of the ANC against those they regarded as traitors. Winnie Mandela herself approved of this brutal practice. Everyday it seemed, there were stories about violent clashes between Buthelezi's Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party and the predominantly Xhosa African National Congress. Black people killing black people. Black people killed by white soldiers. And then there was talk about how the Zulu Chief Buthelezi and Nelson Mandela, a Xhosa, leader of the ANC would co exist. In the meantime, the Sullivan Principles combined with ever-increasing, ever-restricting sanctions on the apartheid government was doing its part in bringing down the obscene government.

Would you care to enlighten me or correct me where you see I might be in error? What are your reminiscences Curtis?

yeah...
happy coexistance shall reign in the HEF!

 :D

You know it, too. As always, "I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow"
A little Stuart Scott for your Thursday afternoon reading pleasure  ;)

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 27, 2008, 01:33:36 pm

Why are you bringing up what happened 2 years ago when I am referring to an abomination that occured in the 1940s?


Because you have no idea what you're talking about and persist in filtering your opinion through a cartoonish understanding of interntional politics and immigration policy. YOU consistently flip back and forth between the 40s, the 50s and the present to serve your eroneous position. I chose the most recently catalogued point and used it as an example of a long term pattern. This is called winning the debate in case you haven't been keeping up.

Please note the bolded portions of your own statement and have the decency to bow out gracefully.

Quote
During that time period, the U.S. set a quota at 27,370 the refugees it would accept deemed "undesirable" namely, Italians and Jews. I have consulted one source which states the U.S. accepted approximately 21,000 Jewish refugees. The U.S. could have and should have in my view, accepted more. There were those who saw that the U.S. quota for Jews was not met. The same was true of other potential sanctuary nations, but I am more concerned with the U.S. Those who recognized that the U.S. quota had not been met and that more Jewish refugees could have been granted asylum but were turned away, attributed this fact to Roosevelt's seeming indifference toward the Jews.

Yes, there were more Jews seeking asylum in the U.S. and other nations and all seemed to set their quotas so low that all those seeking safety from the nazis by fleeing to another nation could not be accomodated. In the case of the U.S. and specifically for Anne Frank and her family, they were so close to safety only to be turned away by our nation who had not yet and never did reach its quota. So to you and to Curtis, it is my unwavering contention that through the extremity of cause and effect, the U.S. is directly responsible for the deaths of Anne Frank, her family and any other persecuted persons in their party.

The Allies had received intelligence about nazi death camps and what was happening in those camps as early as 1941 - 42, approximately the same time the camps were established and operating. I have very little doubt that the U.S. government at its highest levels were appraised of this situation and like the Allies, dismissed the reports as exaggeration. So in my opinion, not only do I suspect the U.S. had knowledge of what was occuring in those camps, they chose to dismiss that intelligence even in the face of the desperate exodus from that nation by frightened Jews. That makes the U.S. both negligent and culpable in my book.


We can be glad then that it is a small book and largely fictional.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 27, 2008, 07:47:26 pm
This is called winning the debate in case you haven't been keeping up.

Nice try, but it won't fly. That dog won't hunt. It's 4th and 10 and you'd better punt.

Look at your own posting history why don't you.

Mike opened the topic expressing his concerns about Obama's church endorsing Hamas. Mike explained that in his view, Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on destroying the Jewish state and the Jewish people.  The early discussion centered around Rev Wright's controversial statements, the church taking a position on an issue which in this case, would give Jewish voters cause to pause when considering Obama's suitability to be a U.S. President because of what is a very close relationship between himself and Rev. Wright.

To counter his position, explain the reasons why the Rev Wright would harbor and express the opinions many Americans find troubling and divisive and defend Obama by explaining that while he has faithfully attended Rev Wright's church, was married by Rev Wright, had his children baptized by Rev Wright that it is unfair and untrue to assume that Obama was in total agreement with the Rev Wright's positions and preachments, some of us began to cite examples of questionable beliefs and behavior by Israel and Jewish people.

I believe it was karaszero who first made mention of the Holocaust. For my part, I suggested that the tactics Hamas has used against Israel may not have been that much different from those used by Menachem Begin and the Igrun against the British and Palestinians in the 1940s. I remarked that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I then offered up the offensive comments made by the Rev James D Manning which attacked and sullied Obama and his parents. Mike continued to press the point that Obama's membership in a church and close friendship with the pastor of this church which would endorse what he and other Jews consider to be a terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction would cause him to consider not voting for Obama.

The discourse continued, much of it centered around Obama's church, Rev. Wright, and reasons why Obama hasn't repudiated Wright, continues to be a member of the church and more examples of terrorist group vs freedom fighter depending upon one's perspective. In fact, we both used the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line. I did so in an earlier posting: mine, reply #8, 3-21, yours reply #37, 3-22. And so, the discourse continues. karaszero makes the point that Mike never seemed to be as critical of Republicans as Democrats and often seemed to attempt to rationalize and defend the actions of Israel even when those actions may have been indefensible at which time I mentioned Israel's arms sales to the apartheid government of South Africa and the appearance of a common ground between the two nations with respect to their enmity with people wanting to put an end to their existences as national entities.

Lion admonishes us to not turn this into a "which of us had it worse" discussion because doing so would be counterproductive. And of course, in reply #65 that is exactly what you do. You say that Jewish people have not suffered as blacks have IN AMERICA, say that is perfectly acceptable that blacks tell the Jews to "get in line behind us" as if this were a customer service line in a department store and then invoked the Holocaust again saying rightly that all holocausts are legitimate, but that as the Jewish people suffered their holocaust at the hands of nazi germany, that the U.S. doesn't owe Jewish persons anything related to that attrocity. Of course, I disagreed as I believe as many do - including U.S. Presidents whom you have dismissed as panderers - that the U.S. did play a part in the Jewish holocaust and I then cited the reasons why that was.

So while my comments dealt with Rev Wright, his church, Obama's membership in that church, the discussion of "terrorist group vs freedom fighter", YOU did EXACTLY WHAT LION ADMONISHED US NOT TO DO and thus, we find ourselves where we are now. And where we are now is your not being able to post anything that disproves what I've been saying about the debt the U.S. owes for our part played in the Jewish holocaust.

Feel free to keep trying, but I'm getting off this merry-go-round because you aren't going anywhere. I owe Mike a reply to his posting anyway. Good bye. Be good.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 27, 2008, 08:14:54 pm
I sympathize with sinjection's point of view.  It troubles me that the greatest powers in the world can't get it together to stop repeated instances of major genocide. 

Just imagine.  You approach a guy thrashing in a lake, choking, panicked, going under ... you look at him and say, "Oh hey, will he give me a reward?  Nahhh, looks kinda shabby, let's hope he can swim" and pass on by whistling "zippidy doo dah" as the guy drowns.  "Hey, not my fault the guy fell in the lake!"

OK, that's a little tongue in cheek, but what this is touching on is the responsibility a nation has to show moral leadership in the world.  It greatly bothers me that the world stands by, that we stand by, and let Holocaust after Holocaust after Holocaust happen. 

You know, moral intervention might even coincide with Redjacks' more Machiavellian view of the state acting in self-interest, if by showing moral leadership the state gains international credibility and garners greater respect worldwide, or if (over the long run) it preemptively neuters morally dubious movements that could later destabilize its international areas of interest or even pose a threat to itself.

But my words too are just "talk, talk, talk."  The reality is, nobody is really "winning this debate" except the brutal butchers of the world.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 27, 2008, 08:26:41 pm
You're "getting off" because you got your metaphoric ass whipped.

As much as I respect the other posters here (you included), nobody gets to dictate which way a conversation goes. You have expressed a binary opinion in order to support your moral outrage. Your own words undercut any true validity in your opinion as even you admit that the largest portion of your analysis is simply conjecture and moral posturing. IOW: not actually analysis.

MY position is to show you that the pattern of exclusion of people who "deserve" to be let into the US based upon brutal treatment at home is meant to favor the US, not the various incoming peoples. It always has been so and it alway will be. Moreover that is how it SHOULD be. And it's how every nation in the world operates. I have supported my positions with facts. Actual statistics and the analyses they support.

Far from treating everyone equally, as I have, you have taken the position that the plight of the Jews (rather than the Jews and all the others the Nazis persecuted) merited some extra moral observance from the US. You're not whining about the Gypsies that were turned away or the Poles. Only the Jews. It is me that has to consistently remind you of 12 million victims rather than the 6 you care about. It is YOU who has created a hierarchy and me who has proven no such hierarchy exists. Proven. Not argued. Not asserted. Proven.

Some folks get let in, some don't and we take LOTS and LOTS of them. It sucks for those we don't take but the trouble they face at home is not our problem to solve. And we're not required, morally, to do that or to take everyone. Certainly not to prevent from offending your delicate sensibilities.

Perhaps you should get a better handle on the concept of nation state before entering into this sort of discussion in future.

And figure out how to walk a straight line in a debate as well.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 27, 2008, 10:17:00 pm
karaszero makes the point that Mike never seemed to be as critical of Republicans as Democrats ...

Well, at least I should be able to refute one allegation to everyone's satisfaction:

Buchanan is a bigoted asshole.
As an aside, you might be interested to learn that he is also an antisemite. 
       
He is also a highly-respected political commentator and influential conservative and Republican.  So what does that say about the people and organizations that embrace him?

What that "says" is that there are schmucks on both the Left and the Right.   >:(  ...   ;D
         As seen in the "You Negroes should be more grateful" thread

HoHoHoHoHo!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 27, 2008, 11:19:24 pm
Oh my ... here is something else that just came to my attention ... and just when I was in a good mood:

Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Another Israel Bashing Newsletter From Obama's Church
 
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59884
"Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church published an open letter from a Palestinian activist that labels Israel an 'apartheid' regime and claims the Jewish state worked on an 'ethnic bomb' that kills 'blacks and Arabs.'...The June 10, 2007, newsletter, which is still available at Obama's church's website, identifies Baghdadi as an Arab-American activist, writer and columnist who 'acted as a Middle East advisor to the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam, as well as Minister Louis Farrakhan.' The piece is titled 'An open letter to Oprah,' referring to talk show giant Oprah Winfrey, who last year accepted an invitation to visit Israel offered to her by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel."

Original Letter As It Appears On The Church's "Pastor's Page": http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf

I imagine Barak Obama wasn't in church that Sunday either ...   :P
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 28, 2008, 12:24:26 am
What Hamas story?

I've been looking at the news all day and 20 minutes of Fox last night. What Hamas story?

In fact Obama came out today with another statement DIRECTLY supporting his church:

[url]http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_on_wright_this_is_not_a.php[/url]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When I googled the above link I found this one from some paper, the  Jerusalem Post

[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull[/url]


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(ex)Mayor Koch is a SUPER liberal but on the subject of mid-east war, like Lieberman he is SUPER pro-war.



Well this story has finally hit the AMERICAN msm (So far it's only been noted in the Israeli press). There are also stories that Rev Wright said that Italians have long noses (Heard it on CNN).

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/28/church_newsletters_fuel_controversy_over_obamas_former_pastor/

Let's see if this story has legs...Either way the participants of this thread should be well prepared, right?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 28, 2008, 02:05:19 am
No legs.

Polls slow Obama is made of teflon so far.

Sorry, haters. Do better.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 05:49:23 am
You're "getting off" because you got your metaphoric ass whipped.

 ;D

I didn't bother with reading the body of the post attached to the first sentence, too wordy; too full of hot air and bluster. By the way...


American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here. We don't blame Spain for Jim Crow. Learn the lesson we teach.

Since American blacks have never banged on "England's door saying how rough we have it here", have you been able to discover just what black America's most eloquent Abolitionist, Frederick Douglass was doing while he spent 2 full years in England? You know, it would come as a shock and would truly be a shame if Frederick Douglass failed to utilize his oratorical gifts to take the plight of his enslaved brethren to those who might carefully listen to and consider his words since he was received there not as a black man, but as a man. What was he doing while there since you have said "American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here"...was he playing croquet and enjoying tea and crumpets with Her Majesty? I ask you because well, you seem like you know it all and I think I might benefit from the teachings of a know-it-all in this very strange case. I didn't mean to offend you by referring to you as a know-it-all. Just pretend I just called you "bunky"  :)

You now have my undivided attention. Let's talk Holocaust and how American antisemitism aided and abetted the nazi cause.

For starters, a bit of information from near WWII's end. On July 23, 1944, forces of the Soviet Red Army were the first to encounter and liberate a Nazi death camp. The camp was called Majdanek. As they entered the camp, the Soviet soldiers discovered SS militia men hurriedly attempting to burn, bury or hide as many corpses as they could in an attempt to conceal the evidence of their attrocities. The shocked Soviets shot film of the camp which was then sent to the U.S. and the western allies. The film evidence and the Soviet account of what their soldiers discovered was dismissed as Communist propaganda by hitler and by the allies. The British had received information about what was happening in nazi death camps as early as 1941. My suspicion is that at the highest most secretive levels of the U.S. government, they had this information as well. The British and quite probably the U.S. dismissed those reports as "exaggeration". Now here, faced with visual proof and eyewitness accounts from Soviet forces, the U.S. and our western allies dismiss what they already knew was happening - what they had dismissed as "exaggeration" as early as 1941 - as Communist propaganda.

The sinjection correction will now commence.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 05:53:52 am
It was in this foul national climate, desperate Jews fleeing nazi germany were turned away, turned back and sent to their deaths in nazi concentration camps:

- April 7, 1934: Several thousand Americans attend a pro-Nazi rally in Queens, New York.

- July 6 - 14, 1938: An international conference at Evian-les-Bains, France, is called by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. Roosevelt's aims, some say, are to deflect American Jewish appeals to help German Jews. Aside from Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic, which want enormous sums of money to allow a small number of Jews to immigrate, the 32 nations attending the conference decide they will not permit large numbers of Jews to enter their countries.

Recognizing the intent of the Evian Conference nations in regard to the Jews, a Nazi newspaper headlines: JEWS FOR SALE AT A BARGAIN PRICE -- WHO WANTS THEM? NO ONE.

- 1939: An anti-Semitic film comedy Robert und Bertram is produced in Germany. In the United States, an Elmo Roper Gallup poll claims that 53% of Americans feel Jews are "different" and require "social and economic restrictions". A Gallup poll reports that 83% of Americans oppose the admission of a larger number of Jewish refugees.

- 1939: Based on instructions coming from the State Department, a United States consular official in Stuttgart, Germany tells Ernest Michel, a German Jew who has an American sponsor, that all United States immigration quotas are filled and that he should reapply for admission to the United States in three years. Ironically, 1939 was the only year in which U.S. quotas were filled.

- Feb - June, 1939: New York Democratic Senator Robert F. Wagner, a German-American, and Massachusetts Democratic Representative Edith Nourse Rogers jointly propose the Wagner-Rogers Bill to permit 20,000 German children (specifically Jewish children), into the United States over a two-year period. The bill is tagged with so many amendments that, after hearings, it never leaves the House or the Senate. The bill does receive considerable support from the press and certain churches, and many individuals and organizations testify for or against the bill. But the antisemitism rife in the American public and Congress - and the lack of support from President Franklin Roosevelt - sink the bill. The Wagner-Rogers Bill's foremost opponent, Senator Robert Reynolds of North Carolina, has a secret relationship with German-American Nazi agent August Gausebeck. Gausebeck's partner is Walter Schellenberg, the coordinator of Gestapo activities in the United States.

Asked her opinion on the bill, Mrs. James Houghteling, wife of the commissioner of immigration, whispers that the only problem with the Wagner-Rogers bill is "that 20,000 ugly [Jewish] children would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults." Mrs. Houghteling is Laura Delano Houghteling, President Roosevelt's cousin.

As a result of Roosevelt's administration's policies, the United States offers refuge to fewer Jewish children - about 1,000 from 1934 to 1945 - than Belgium, France, Britain, Holland, or Sweden.

The foregoing from the book: The Holocaust Chronicle.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 06:16:56 am
Having begun my response, I've returned to your bluster...er, I mean your post to see what all the hub bub is about, bub.

MY position is to show you that the pattern of exclusion of people who "deserve" to be let into the US based upon brutal treatment at home is meant to favor the US, not the various incoming peoples. It always has been so and it alway will be. Moreover that is how it SHOULD be. And it's how every nation in the world operates. I have supported my positions with facts. Actual statistics and the analyses they support.

Your initial position was to attempt to contrast the plight of Jews IN AMERICA against that of blacks in America when nobody else but you was interested in that topic. Mike didn't bring up the holocaust. karaszero mentioned it once and then it was done. You brought up the holocaust, said the United States didn't have anything to do with it and that the Jews should "take it up with germany" or some such nonsense. Lion admonished you not to go down that course, but you've got a hard head under those naps (you're not bald are you?  ;D ), and off you went on this course. I disagreed with your assertion that the U.S. was not culpable for what happened to 6 million Jews and supported my position with facts, facts that you try to dismiss as "pandering" and whatever else creeps into your noggin. So now, I will give you more facts about my position than you can handle. Just remember, you asked for it. I do believe that many of those Cuban refugees who were part of the Mariel Boatlift would not qualify as being a benefit favoring the U.S. I'm sure you would concur.

Quote
Far from treating everyone equally, as I have, you have taken the position that the plight of the Jews (rather than the Jews and all the others the Nazis persecuted) merited some extra moral observance from the US. You're not whining about the Gypsies that were turned away or the Poles. Only the Jews. It is me that has to consistently remind you of 12 million victims rather than the 6 you care about. It is YOU who has created a hierarchy and me who has proven no such hierarchy exists. Proven. Not argued. Not asserted. Proven.

I only discussed the Jews because up until this posting, that's the only group you've been discussing. I mentioned Haitians and Cubans - Castro's convicts, crazies and kooks - but I don't remember you mentioning the Poles. I don't remember you mentioning the Gypsies. I remember you harping about the Jews and how they have to "get in line" behind us. I will demonstrate to you exactly what I've been asserting all along. It was America and the antisemitic attitudes at the highest level of government and social strata that enabled the nazis to murder thousands of Jews who otherwise might have been safely sheltered in our nation.

Quote
Some folks get let in, some don't and we take LOTS and LOTS of them.


During the nazi war years, we barely took in any because most if not all of those desperately wanting admittance and refuge were Jews and the antisemitic U.S.A. didn't want any Jews. Those antisemitic Americans of that day didn't want the Jews who were American citizens. It was this climate that dictated not only America's decision to turn so many Jews away and back to their deaths in concentration camps, but that of other nations as well. But here and now, I'm only concerned with America who I have asserted was directly responsible for the death of Anne Frank, her family and the party traveling with her when they turned her boat away and sent it back into the hands of murderous nazi beasts.

As you might have guessed by now, I don't give a goddamn about immigration policies and how a nation state operates. I'm focused on the racist and antisemitic attitudes of those who made the decisions about such things, people who might have harbored some of the attitudes that some of our most respected contemporary citizens have let seep through; Billy Graham and his private conversation with then President Richard Nixon exchanging their views about Jews (that rhymes); Jesse Jackson who believing he was with "the brothas" and could speak freely, made the remark that he was going to "Hymietown" to see the "hymies". The type of people whom Mike and other American Jews might be concerned about if they were running for President or associated with people running for President.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 06:40:53 am
I sympathize with sinjection's point of view.

Why thank you, Mike. I sympathize with my point of view, too  ;) 

Quote
It troubles me that the greatest powers in the world can't get it together to stop repeated instances of major genocide.
 

You and me both. In an earlier posting, my "right honorable opponent"  ;D suggested that I might have given the Sullivan Principles and international sanctions against the white racist apartheid government of South Africa too much credit for the strangulation and the ultimate dissolution of that government. He seems to believe that youth "writing on the wall" the message that the black majority would "win" one way or the other, in a sense giving the white racist government a warning and ultimatum, is what really unnerved that racist government. No sir.

 The black majority certainly outnumbered the white minority, but as far as firepower was concerned, they would not have stood a chance against the white minority and I don't care if the Soviet Union, Cuba and whoever else was supplying arms. The Arab states outnumbered tiny Israel too and how did that "Six Day War" turn out? I was a huge fan of C-Span during the climax of the South African situation. I saw a South African foreign minister interviewed. When asked about an armed conflict with S. Africa's black population and any neighboring black nations who might want to join in to help, this foreign minister said, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, "We have the sufficient firepower that we could put down an internal rebellion and capture the capitals of any aggressive neighboring African nations and still be home in time for dinner." It made me angry to hear that, but I would not have liked to see the black South Africans and their neighbors try to prove the minister wrong.

South Africa's blacks were well represented by the lovely Winnie Mandela and the eloquent and majestic Archbishop Desmond Tutu and that was the best thing S. Africa's blacks had going for them internationally. Tutu kept the issue of apartheid before the world and his patience insistence culminated in the sanctions package that eventually brought the apartheid government to its knees. South Africa's blacks? As I told Curtis, what sticks out most prominently in my mind is Inkatha vs ANC, Zulu vs Xhosa, potential animosity between Buthelezi and Mandela, Winnie Mandela ordering traitors to be "necklaced". I didn't see a concerted, directed effort of blacks in South Africa against South African whites. I didn't see any of those youth Redjack talked about making life difficult for whites. I didn't see blacks killing whites at all. I saw too much of whites killing blacks and blacks killing blacks. I'm afraid that had not the sanctions forced the S. African government to surrender, there would have been a bloodbath and genocide, just as we see the Arabs committing genocide against Africans in Darfur.

Quote
But my words too are just "talk, talk, talk."  The reality is, nobody is really "winning this debate" except the brutal butchers of the world.

What my "right honorable opponent" calls a debate really isn't a debate at all. Oops. I guess since that is the case, I'd better stop referring to him as my "right honorable opponent"  :)

I'm not attempting to "beat him" at anything. I am communicating the reasons why I believe that the United States IS culpable for the Holocaust, that American Jews have faced American strife, that there is "no line of greater to lesser" when there is evidence of human misery. I will provide my friend with facts which lead me to believe that the antisemitic climate which existed in the U.S. at that time essentially dictated American immigration policies and other decisions where Jewish people and their plight was concerned.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 28, 2008, 06:49:55 am
No legs.
Polls slow Obama is made of teflon so far.
Sorry, haters. Do better.

Haters?  It appears that Reverend Jeremiah Write is the hater, Redjack.

Edited to correct the spelling of the good Pastor's name.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 07:02:29 am
No legs.
Polls slow Obama is made of teflon so far.
Sorry, haters. Do better.

Haters?  It appears that Reverand Jerimiah Write is the hater, Redjack.

Don't forget the Reverand James D. Manning: Harlem, NY. He who emphatically stated that Obama was a long-legged mac daddy pimp and other things even worse.

At least in Reverend Wright's case, while how he said what he said was aggressive and abrasive, everything he said was not necessarily wrong. Reverend Manning is the "Reverend all the way wrong" compared to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 07:23:31 am
From the Holocaust Chronicle, A Study In Words And Pictures:

- June 2, 1939: The Boston, Massachusetts, newspaper of the Christian Science Church attacks Jewish refugees as causing their own troubles, a position taken by many important Protestant journals of the time.

- June 1939: The German refugee ship St. Louis reaches Cuba. But after extortionate demands for money are made by the Cuban government, the St. Louis departs Cuba and sails along the east coast of the United States. President Roosevelt orders the Coast Guard to prevent any of the passengers from landing in the U.S., even should they jump.

- June 17, 1939: After being denied access to Cuba and the United States, the German refugee ship St. Louis docks at Antwerp, Belgium. Belgium offers to take 214 passengers, the Netherlands 181, Britain 287, and France 224. Ultimately, the Nazis will murder jmost of the passengers except for those accepted by Great Britain.

And now, a little antiSemitism from the U.S. cousins across the pond. Hide your eyes, Wise Son.

- July 30, 1939: Reacting to German anti-Jewish policies and reflecting the attitude of many other officials in Great Britain and Western Europe, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain writes: "No doubt Jews aren't a lovable people; I don't care for them myself. But that is not sufficient to explain the pogrom."

IS IT ANY WONDER HOW THE BRITISH AND LIKELY THE U.S. WOULD DISMISS OMINOUS REPORTS OF ATTROCITIES TAKING PLACE IN NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AS "EXAGGERATION" GIVEN THE LEVEL OF ANTISEMITISM THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED?

- 1940: President Franklin Roosevelt puts the question of Jewish immigration into the United States into the antisemitic hands of Asst. Secretary of State Breckinridge Long and associates in the State Department. A political ally of the President, Long opposes "excessive humanitarianism" in regards to the Jews. Tainted by a general xenophobia and a predilection for Mussolini and Italian facism (Long was ambassador to Italy), Long seems particularly distressed at the prospect of more Jews entering the United States.

- 1941: Charles and Anne Lindberg, members of the America First Committee, attend a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, at which Lindberg blames the Jews for "agitating for war...for reasons that are not American...Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our radio, and our government.

Now I'm wondering if I remember seeing a similar sentiment expressed by someone in this thread. I'll have to examine the posts very carefully to see if I might have.

- 1941: United States Senator Gerald Nye denounces the "yiddish controllers" of American theater and movies. U.S. Senator Burton Wheeler attacks Jews in the movie business as "Hollywood hitlers". Senator Champ Clark sponsors an investigation into Hollywood's "unpatriotic" Jewish filmakers ("unpatriotic" because their films advocate involvement in the European war) Other congressmen express antiSemitism. Many Americans agree with these sentiments. Many Americans also believe that should the United States go to war, it must be against the Soviet Union, not against Germany.

New York Congressman, Emanuel Celler, a Jew, submits legislation to allow French Jews about to be deported to their deaths in Eastern Europe to immigrate to the United States. The bill is killed by the House.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 08:33:21 am
The implication, and it's a fairly constant and strong one, that the single worst thing ever to happen to a group of humans happened to jews, gypsies, slavs, poles, homosexuals and the handicapped in in Nazi germany is not only massively insulting to our struggles here, it's numerically and temporally false.

Okay, so you did mention the Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, even the homosexuals and the handicapped. I must have overlooked or forgotten this part of your posting. My apologies.

I do believe that you are overly sensitive to this issue however. Just as we blacks still have unresolved issues resulting from our brutal chattel slavery experience, Jewish people - a minority wherever they have existed outside of Israel - have a long and brutal history of persecution. You seem to be insulted when Jews react warily of anything or any circumstance that hints at antiSemitism. Why? Surely most American Jews are aware of the slavery experience our ancestors and great elders suffered. Our experience was not theirs. Their experiences from the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust to Israel's turbulent history is not ours. Blacks and Jews can be aware of each other's painful experiences. We can recognize each other's experiences. And while painful, Blacks may not be able to fully appreciate the pain of the Jewish Holocaust experience just as Jews may not be able to fully appreciate the pain of the chattel slavery experience of black Americans. This does not mean that either group gets to "compare scars" and argue about who had it worse. We don't dismiss each other's horrific past experiences. We recognize them for what they are, examples of man's inhumanity to man and since we are two groups who suffer the ramifications of such experiences, we join together and with others who have suffered their own holocausts and remind the world that these horrible things must never happen again.

As for the American Jews history with respect to American strife, they weren't beaten, they weren't subjected to the same tactics used against Blacks intended to dehumanize us, but American Jews did face withering antiSemitism which actually increased in intensity during the WWII years. American Jews were affected by the knowledge that German and Eastern European Jews were undergoing systemic persecution and propaganda designed to strip them of their humanity. Fearful of agitating an already intolerant, antiSemitic American public, American Jews couldn't be as outspoken as they could have been and wanted to be for fear of unleashing that intense intolerant antiSemitic American sentiment against themselves, removing any slim chance they had at that time for advocating for their fellow Jews facing death in Europe. This nation put Japanese-Americans in American concentration camps. Even some German-Americans were looked upon with suspicion and hatred. In one instance, this hatred caused German-Americans to lynch a young male, one of their own, to demonstrate to their Anglo-American neighbors and peers that they were "loyal German-Americans".
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 09:47:07 am
sinjection, I'd argue that your contention is at least somewhat exaggerated. In your hypothetical, the US would bear at most indirect responsibility. In order to be an accessory to a crime, for instance, one must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term))[/url] Even that seems questionable in the context of WWII to say the least. Direct responsibility clearly belongs to those who committed the murders.


With South Africa being mentioned, I remember something PW Botha said during a television interview in which he was defending the apartheid government and the attractive quality of life enjoyed by both white and black South Africans. He cited the number of black Africans from neighboring nations applying for immigration into South Africa. Botha said (paraphrasing him from memory): "It's said life is terrible for blacks in South Africa. If that's so, why then are there so many blacks from other nations wanting to come to South Africa? Do people want to immigrate to hell?"

In late 1930's -40's Europe, we seen the reverse taking place where the European Jews are concerned. The attempts of those people to leave Europe was frantic and desperate. They exhibited the type of behavior associated with people fearing for their very lives. You have posted a link which states "In order to be an accessory to a crime, one must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed."

I submit the following as proof the Allies meet the criteria given in the statement:

There is no doubt that the Allies knew about the death camps long before the Russians liberated Majdanek. Some prisoners did escape from the camps and told the Polish resistance movement exactly what was going on in the camps and this information was sent to London to the Polish Government in exile who accordingly informed the Allies.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/death_camps.htm

The information about the camps was dismissed by the allies to be exaggeration at the time the Allies received it, when it was still early enough to do more to help those Jews not yet captured and imprisoned in the camps. After the Soviet Red Army put Majdanek out of business, they provided eye-witness testimony and filmed evidence to the Allies who dismissed the information as Communist propaganda. The Allies ignored the frantic attempts by European Jews to escape certain death and in many instances, turned asylum-seeking Jewish refugees away only to be captured and destroyed in the death camps the Allies knew about as early as 1941 but dismissed as exaggeration and later with solid evidence about the death camps in their hands, as communist propaganda.

The U.S. government in my opinion, is directly responsible for the death of Anne Frank, her family and those who traveled with. There was knowledge at that time, not shared by all perhaps, but by those "who needed to know", what faced those Jews when they returned to Europe. This satisfies the criteria of the linked statement.

If I'm standing alongside a member of the LCB-R D outside an open enclosure of a lion exhibit in a zoo and I shove that member of the LCB-R D into the open enclosure which results in his being torn apart by the lions within, who is directly responsible for the demise of that individual, the lions who mauled him or the person who pushed him into the lion exhibit?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 28, 2008, 09:53:07 am
Sin

As I said. You only seem to care about one group and the group is, apparently, not Americans. I don't bluster. Nothing I said was remotely blustery. I was cold, if anything. I asked you to bow out with grace instead you shoved a mountain of irrelevant facts down our throats.  Nothing, not one thing you wrote refutes my analyses and, once again, your conclusions and assertions are just your own.

Even if all of Europe had agreed with Hitler, the US would not have been under any obligation to accept more refugees than it wished to and would not have been responsible for any negative treatment visited on foreign nationals by other foreign nationals within the borders of those other countries. That is the end of the story. What you have written is bluster. It's chaff.

Please stop with the Frederick Douglas crap; it's not relevant. It doesn't even count as a response to the sentence I wrote that it means to attack. If you READ what I wrote you'll see why. It is, however, an example of you jumping around in time to find random beads to add to your string off erroneous assertions.

You have an opinion. You have emotion. You have a few, mostly unrelated, facts. You do not have a point. You lost this argument pages ago and still can't see it. And you don't even have the balls to own the fact that this was a debate. Sad.

I didn't obviate the effect of the sanctions. I minimized them. As I said, I was present, you were not. If the sanctions had any effect on the day-to-day lives of South Africans, even a slight one, there was literally no evidence. They did everything just as they always had done. What changed was internal politics and that has to do with a shift in generations.

Just as Israel will never beat the Palestinians and the US would NEVER have beaten the Vietnmese and the Chinese will never beat the Tibetans, White South Africa would never have beaten the various black nations (the Xhosa are a nation, just like the Sioux) that had been there forever. The blacks had nowhere to go. They were already home. And they outnumbered their oppressors 20 to one. Each successive generation became more militant and more violent in their struggle to regain their country and ALL PROJECTIONS AT THE TIME had the place descending into an orgy of blood. There was no foreign nation for the South African war machine to move against. They would have been destroying their own infrastruture. There was no way to partition the country because blacks were all over it and too much of the economy depended on their nearly free labor. They tried to partition it wth townships but couldn't take it farther than that. You think the Israelis have a rough time with the PLO and  HAMAS? I think, in Rwanda, you've seen what a committed population armed only with knives, can do. As I said, the world was SURPRISED when South Africa didn't explode. Literally. There was real concern that the apartheid government would nuke the place rather than hand it back to its owners.

But, in treating the past as if it's all one era, the same era, as you seem to want to do, you have conveniently missed this and other facts that undercut all of your assertions and conclusions.

It was math that killed Apartheid. If you were capable of making a clean analysis, one without the filter of your prism, you would see this. But, sadly, I'm guessing that's not possible.

As for your increasingly shrill pronouncements about what the US owed those refugees, this despite the obvious and well documented pattern of equivalent treatment for all refugees inside the framework of our politics here, I just shake my head. Horse, there's the water. Figure it out.

You did come up with facts, yes. Lots of them. Thanks. But those facts do not support your conclusion which was already handily refuted by me. The US is, in NO WAY, responsible for any part of the WW2 Holocaust. Zero percent. We stopped it and killed or imprisoned the people who actually were responsible. That's the US participation.

You feeling otherwise is your right but it is a delusion. It's certainly not proof.

This isn't a hot button issue for me. It's just the theme of the thread.

"We" blacks do not have unresolved issues from slavery. WHITE people say that. "We" blacks have REAL, CURRENT, life altering issues that stem from a constant racist attack from our own country. That attack began with slavery but slavery is not something that influences the current discussion. Again, that is something WHITE PEOPLE float to infantilize the complaints.

Michael.

As much as I enjoy our fencing matches and think you're a basically good guy, you also have one test by which you determine the worth of a candidate or other public figure.

All this hand wringing about Wright being done by right wing whites is bullsh*t. One, if you're surprised that blacks in this country have ambivalence or even anger about how this place has treated and continues to treat us, you've been living in a box. Or you think we have. For hundreds of years before this country was founded and for hundreds after this nation has given us the second worst deal it has had to offer and, SURPRISE, we noticed. Now some whites have the audacity to pretned there's something out of school being said by the Reverend? Bullsh*t.

Two, Wright has been a pillar of his community for decades, doing good works, being a solid example of Christin fellowship, uplift and bridge building. The church he built is filled and it's not becuase he preaches hate rhetoric. Those whites who are claiming shock and "disgust" at his words are completely full of sh*t. They are behaving as if there is som parity of experience between the two groups and that, by speaking the way he does on occassion, the Reverend is somehow being unfair. Again, bullsh*t.

Three, this other guy that has been recently YOUTUBED is a joke. A meaningless aberration that makes racists feel good and secure in their feeling about us. Not even worth the time it took to type these last three sentences. More, bullsh*t.

Rev. Wright has done more, considerably more, than give these few isolated speeches and the text of the speech that started this ball rolling DOES NOT in fact, say what so many in the media have claimed. I've really had it with this crap.

Let me be very clear on this.

Nothing he has said that I have read, including the big "Damn America" speech is in any way hateful or even bothersome. And you'll find that most black Americans feel the same. And you'll find that most honest white Americans do too if they bother to actually read it instead of listening to pundits. If they let their minds be guided by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh then, frankly, I can't describe them as having minds at all. They're just skin bags taking up space. Useless.

How a candidate feels about Israel or Hamas or the PLO is meaningless because that region is meaningless to the future existence of this nation. They don't produce goods we can't get elsewhere. They don't have any oil. They draw billions of dollars out of our economy annually with absolutely no return. They are a tick on the American economy. A candidate's opinion on CHINA or INDIA dies have deep and last impact on how things work here does matter because it is our companies giving our jobs to those countries and selling our economy to them that is having impact on all our lives.

Israel means a lot to you. Hamas is high on your radar. You have a reason for that that I understand. But those entities are meaningless to the mass of us here because they are meaningless to life in this country. Literally. If the whole region went away tomorrow, no one here (in the US) would notice. If China vanished, we'd feel it.

Bottom line: Don't talk all this peace and love stuff just so you can feed me your personal party line. I'm not buying it and I don't think the mass of black Americans are either. We live here, remember? We know exactly where we are and always have.

Barack Obama is smart. Articulate. Sober. Passionate. He apparently seeks the high ground whenever possible and has, at least he's campaigning on, a deep desire to fix a good many of the things that are troubling Americans in their millions. If he can make his case for that, he gets the job. End of story. And that, my friends, is a VERY good thing. If you really think his opinion, good or bad, about Hamas, or rather the opinion of his former pastor about Hamas, is even a tiny bit relevant to whether or not he deserves to be president, I submit that you think of yourself not as an American first but as something else.  If you don't think of yourself as an American first, you have no place in a discussion about America's future because, ultimately, you don't really give a damn about it. I further submit, if Wright's opinion, good or bad, on Hamas sways your vote, that you weren't voting for Obama in the first place, despite any protestations to contrary. You can't vote for a black candidate in the US and not appreciate a little of the life experience that is a consequence of being black here.

Black America has earned the right, in perpetuity, to be as critical as we like about this nation and any policy this nation takes. It's been kicking our assess since it dragged us here in spite our service and affection. When the kicking stops, after a short rest and maybe a party, we'll scale back the crits.

Until then, expect more of the same.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 10:10:36 am
What's sad, Redjack is your attempt to squiggle and squirm in an attempt to snatch victory from an exchange of opinions that you want to see as a debate.

I made a statement and stood by it. Clearly I don't care about "one group" as I have said more than once that human suffering is human suffering. Period.

The examples I have provided absolutely supports my position that America essentially ignored what was happening to the Jews in Europe as I stated in my initial post of our exchange. Not only did the U.S. ignore what was happening to the Jews, they were spiteful about it as well. For many Americans of that era, I'm sure they believed that hitler was doing them a favor.

You said "American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here." And I respond with an example of a legendary black American Abolitionist who spent two years in England doing just what you said American blacks aren't doing.

The point is absolutely relevant.
 
The only "bow" I'll be taking is one acknowledging the satisfaction of being able to navigate through all of your verbiage and attempts to make our exchange something it was not. My point, the U.S. essentially ignored the Jewish Holocaust. That point has been firmly driven home.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 10:15:59 am
Since you seem to need a reminder.....


America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.


Essentially ignoring what was happening to the Jews in nazi germany.

Turning away Jews seeking to emigrate to the U.S. in an attempt to escape the holocaust.

I'd say that those things are as bad as our government supplying Sadaam Hussein with chemcal weapons which he used on his own Kurdish citizens while our government turned a blind eye to that crime against humanity.

If the story attached to this link is any indication, I'd say America does bear some responsibility for the Holocaust.

http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/12232/

And let's not forget that this nation made it possible for many nazi scientists who participated in nazi germany's rocket program to escape justice so that their expertise could be exploited for our own outer space aspirations.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 10:47:02 am
From A History Of The Holocaust, Revised Edition
Yehuda Bauer

Excerpt from: "The Attitudes Of The Major Powers; The United States"

Throughout most of the war, the American government, as well as most non-Zionist Jewish groups, clung to the delusion that the Nazis were persecuting the Jews because of their political or religious beliefs. The basic misinterpretation was, of course, rooted in the fear of identifying the struggle against Nazism with a "Jewish" cause. Widespread antiSemitism in the United States and strong remnants of isolationis sentiment may help to explain this position, which resulted in American policies lagging several steps behind the Nazi onslaught.

Whereas the Nazis talked openly of their anti-Jewishness, the Anglo-Americans were hiding shamefacedly behind such euphemisms as "persecutees", "political and religious refugees", and the like. The Nazis persecuted and killed Jews. The Allies protested against Nazi persecution of "perscutees"

There was no need to know of the mass murder (up to 1942), in order to save as many European Jews as possible by bringing them into the New World. What was published in the American press was quite sufficient: the persecutions and deportations of German Jews until 1938; the pogroms of November 1938; the mass arrests of Jews and their murderous treatment in the Nazi concentration camps in 1938 and 1939; the establishment of the ghettoes, and the attendant waves of hunger, epidemics, and death, all this was presented in the press, photographed by newsmen who until 1941 could still visit Eastern Europe. The suffering of hundreds of thousands, soon of millions was evident for consciences to be aroused, for steps to be taken. Nothing was done. - Bauer, ibid; pp 80 - 81.

The United States in effect closed its gates to emigration from Europe in 1940 - 41, when German and West European Jews were still allowed to emigrate. Although the country was neutral, antisemitic tendencies were strong. In five polls between March 1938 and April 1940 some 60 percent of those responding thought Jews had objectionable qualities. In 1940 - 41, 17 to 20 percent of the population saw the Jews as a menace to the United States. They were believed to be more of a threat than the Germans and far more dangerous than Catholics or Blacks.

In ten surveys between 1938 and 1941, 12 to 15 percent were ready to support a general antisemitic campaign. An additional 20 percent were sympathetic to such a policy and 30 percent opposed it. The remainder did not care either way. Antisemitism actually increased during the war and started to decline at the end of it. The accusation generally leveled against the Roosevelt administration for its lack of action to save the Jews must be seen in the context of American public opinion: Could a democratic government go far beyond an intolerant, prejudice-ridden, antisemitic public? Could the American government run the "danger" of being accused of fighting a war for the Jews as the Germans said in their propoganda? Could a liberal President intent on mobilizing his people for a tremendous war effort risk unpopularity because of a minority against such prejudices were held?

Everything I've posted this morning, including this excerpt only serves to buttress my position even more firmly. I have supported my statement. I have made my case.

And now, I bow  :)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on March 28, 2008, 10:51:20 am
Posted by: Redjack Posted on: Today at 11:53:07 AM

How a candidate feels about Israel or Hamas or the PLO is meaningless because that region is meaningless to the future existence of this nation. They don't produce goods we can't get elsewhere. They don't have any oil. They draw billions of dollars out of our economy annually with absolutely no return. They are a tick on the American economy. A candidate's opinion on CHINA or INDIA dies have deep and last impact on how things work here does matter because it is our companies giving our jobs to those countries and selling our economy to them that is having impact on all our lives.

In the current political climate (the one we've had for the last two decades in this country, at least) for a candidate (of the left or the right) to say the above bolded remarks would be commiting political suicide. The candidate would be in wingnut territory along with Pat Buchcanan and Ron Paul.

So on a practical level, a Presidential candidate's opinion on Israel and the Palestinians does matter. If it didn't there would not be this attempt by the Right to paint Obama as some sort of anti-semite by assocation (Today its Rev. Wright, yesterday it was Samantha Power).

It's the idea that Obama (or any of other candidates for that matter) would do anything to reverse the pro-Israel trend of the last 25-odd years that I find silly.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 28, 2008, 11:40:19 am
We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

 :) Oh, so melodramatic.

"...and, oh yes, SAVED THE F*UcKING WORLD."

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

And he called me "shrill"?

"..the f*ucking world."

...reminds me of the x-men for some inexplicable reason.

oh well  :D
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 28, 2008, 11:51:29 am
It's called wagging the dog, Vic.

The issue, as you rightly point out, isn't what Wright's views are but what Obama's views are. In practical terms, in real terms, the entire region should be written off as a liability with no possible gain on our investment. Even if there is a peaceful settlement, we don't gain a single thing. And we spend BILLIONS of dollars on that cesspool every year while our own people literally die in the street and our infrastructure crumbles around us. Excuse me if I think Americans and their well being is slightly more relevant than who should get to control a few miles of useless dirt.

The fact that a powerful lobby has a single issue litmus test, one that has no meaning in the context of our own society, and uses that single issue as a bludgeon to kill or promote a candidate is ugly and should be stopped.

It only works because the mass of the public doesn't take the time to actually dig into these things for the real facts and depend on "news" and pundits to make up their minds for them. So, yes, in practical, real political terms, Obama's opinion matters in the context of him getting elected but, also in those practical terms, there's no point in asking the question because we know, in advance, what he and every other candidate is going to say. So why ask? Why make an issue of it?

Fear and racism.

Fear beuase those who actually make a living on this stuff know that popular support is only as good as people's ability to choose between support and eating. Eating will always win unless you can make people angry or scared enough not to care about food. Opening a debate bout Israel and Palestine is a great way to stir things up

Racism because there's a basic distrust of black people in this country that runs deep enough to be exploited by any white candidate who wants to. It may prove to be Obama's Achillies' heel. We'll see.

Wright isn't running for anything and, if we're bouncing candidates by the things their preachers and supporters say, then NOBODY would get in. The entire discussion is a pile of sh*t meant to distract from the actual things that matter in this nation. The fate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just isn't on the list.

Obama makes people nervous in certain quarters because he keeps talking about excising the special interests from the political process but he doesn't say yet what he deems a special interest group to be. Those groups with lots of cash but little in the way of popular support stand to lose big if he wins and follows through on his promise so there's been a concerted effort to paint him into traditionally racist corners. Honestly, he won't do much excising in any case as no politician will.

So far he hasn't fallen in or allowed himself to be trapped and his polls show him to be, at this stage anyway, teflon covered. As we get closer and closer to the actual election the shots will get more and more nasty and less and less relevant to the actual problems facing the nation. The idea will be to scare Americans into backing away from their black candidate because he is black. They won't say it that way but that is the underlying message.

If the Demos do an end run around the electoral process in order to put Hillary in the chair, I will join the thousands of other blacks who will surely leave the party a a result.



Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 28, 2008, 12:06:00 pm
What's sad, Redjack is your attempt to squiggle and squirm in an attempt to snatch victory from an exchange of opinions that you want to see as a debate.

Don't give yourself too much credit. You couldn't best me in a debate on my worst day. Squirm? Please. 

My "opinion" isn't. It's what actually happened. Yours is based on a jaundiced and incoherent view of the facts as well as the conflation of multiple factors into an unsupported pattern.  yeah. We did save the f*cking world and there's nothing shrill about saying so.

Quote
I made a statement and stood by it. Clearly I don't care about "one group" as I have said more than once that human suffering is human suffering. Period.

Comma.
Yes. You say that but you only whine about one group and dismiss the realities of others. That's called being full of sh*t where I come from. Period.

Quote
The examples I have provided absolutely supports my position that America essentially ignored what was happening to the Jews in Europe as I stated in my initial post of our exchange. Not only did the U.S. ignore what was happening to the Jews, they were spiteful about it as well. For many Americans of that era, I'm sure they believed that hitler was doing them a favor.

The highlighted portions are what's wrong with pretty much everything you say. You don't know any of that. It's just how you feel. How you feel isn't relevant. Only what actually happened is. You continually ascribe motivations and knowledge to people and groups without verification or support. You consistently use phrases like  "essentially" and "I'm sure they did X" which show that even you know you don't have anything to stand on but opinion.

Yeah, everybody gets to have an opinion, but not all of them are equal or even equivalent. yours, in this case, is unfounded and unsound. Therefore crap.

Quote
You said "American blacks aren't banging on England's door saying how rough we have it here." And I respond with an example of a legendary black American Abolitionist who spent two years in England doing just what you said American blacks aren't doing.

The point is absolutely relevant.

Again, I think you need to reread the thing you're quoting and ask yourself how Frederick Douglas is even remotely germane. He's not.  Read it slowly. You're still not understanding your mistake.
 
Quote
The only "bow" I'll be taking is one acknowledging the satisfaction of being able to navigate through all of your verbiage and attempts to make our exchange something it was not. My point, the U.S. essentially ignored the Jewish Holocaust. That point has been firmly driven home.

It wasn't a "jewish" holocaust. There were 12 million people there, not 6. And they weren't ignored. they just weren't the point.  By your logic, by consistently omitting the other 6 million from your spew, you are equally culpable for their treatment at the hands of the Nazis.

Luckily we have better logic than yours to stand on.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 28, 2008, 12:42:27 pm
If the Demos do an end run around the electoral process in order to put Hillary in the chair, I will join the thousands of other blacks who will surely leave the party a a result.

Hear, hear. I haven't yet decided if my vote would go to McCain or Nader. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 28, 2008, 01:26:18 pm
Getting back to Rev. Wright (correct spelling: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.), I thought this opinion piece from Jonetta Rose Barras was insightful. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102742.html)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 28, 2008, 01:26:34 pm
i feel you curtis.
that would be the most f***ed up move in politics...
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: moor on March 28, 2008, 06:47:15 pm
If the Demos do an end run around the electoral process in order to put Hillary in the chair, I will join the thousands of other blacks who will surely leave the party a a result.

Hear, hear. I haven't yet decided if my vote would go to McCain or Nader. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

It would have to be Nader for me.  McCain will NEVER EVER get my vote. 

It would also likely be my last time voting as a registered Dem. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on March 28, 2008, 10:46:30 pm
Getting back to Rev. Wright (correct spelling: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.), I thought this opinion piece from Jonetta Rose Barras was insightful. ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102742.html[/url])


"...For a decade, tensions have been rising over questions ranging from what it means to be black, to whether there needs to be a new, post-civil rights meaning of racism, to what features of black America should be transmitted to the mainstream, to whether there even is such a thing as "black America" anymore..."

Could it be that we are on the verge of redefining "Black Identity". Twenty years ago Rev Wright's philosophy was common from church to the dinner table in MY Black community and oft times I/we didn't care if a White heard it or not. Somewhere around the NON-speech (Excuse the plug but I note this in the book I wrote) of Farakhan at the Million Man March I think it started to dawn on Black America that such speech is divisive if not outright racist.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: JLI Jesse on March 29, 2008, 06:02:28 am
It would have to be Nader for me.  McCain will NEVER EVER get my vote. 

You'd be better off not voting then.  Any vote for Nader would just encourage him to run again in 4 years and screw over another candidate.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 29, 2008, 06:08:45 am
And a vote for McCain will literally increase the body count and the number of disabled young men and women dying in this war! you really think he is the best choice for america? The dead deserve better than what their given
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 29, 2008, 07:52:53 am
It would have to be Nader for me.  McCain will NEVER EVER get my vote. 
You'd be better off not voting then.  Any vote for Nader would just encourage him to run again in 4 years and screw over another candidate.
And a vote for McCain will literally increase the body count and the number of disabled young men and women dying in this war! you really think he is the best choice for america? The dead deserve better than what their given
It is admittedly a dilemma. But if the Democrats screw Obama at the convention, I'll be damned if I will just take it. It's hard to imagine at this point any circumstances that would result in Hilary receiving my vote.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 29, 2008, 09:36:54 am
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 29, 2008, 10:58:49 am
Hillary is not a lock for the VP either many people are wondering if NY mayor Bloomberg would be interested in VP or a cabinet level position
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 29, 2008, 11:19:02 am
Hillary is not a lock for the VP either many people are wondering if NY mayor Bloomberg would be interested in VP or a cabinet level position

I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that Bloomberg won't get a VP slot.  He's not even a Democrat, he's an independent.  Plus, he endorsed Bush in 2004.  They shouldn't even give him a position leveling cabinets, much less a cabinet level position.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 29, 2008, 01:56:53 pm
i don't want another clinton near that chair. Not in my lifetime. Chelsea can run once I'm dead. That should be sufficient time to stop the dynasty train.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 29, 2008, 06:48:29 pm
Redjack, don't take this personally, but I didn't even bother to read your latest response to me. Your psuedo-sophisticated sophistry bores me. Your thinly-veiled antisemitic attitude appalls me.

The United States bears its fair share of the responsibility for the Holocaust. This, you cannot deny. I have provided firm evidence that the Allies knew of the existence of the death camps and what was transpiring in those camps when all you can do is parrot the government's lie that "they did not know" and that their intelligence was "fragmented". The Allies knew as early as 1941 and very likely, as early as 1939 shortly after the camps were up and running, that nazis were murdering Jews and others in those camps. When faced with irrefutable evidence provided them by Soviet liberators of Majdanek, the Allies - probably wanting a means to claim ignorance and deniability - found themselves in alliance with hitler himself when they agreed with him dismissing the Soviet intelligence as "communist propaganda". Today, you probably lap up that lie the same way you cling to your indefensible claim that the Allies didn't know about the camps until the actual Allied liberation of those camps.

Black Americans didn't have to "bang on" anybody's door, Redjack. One of the most oft-repeated cries of the Civil Rights Movement was "The world is watching!" Black Americans didn't have to travel hither and yon with our sad tales of racial persecution in the U.S. If we wanted to emigrate from the land of our birth to escape the persecution, there was always Liberia, the African state created specifically for the progeny of America's former slaves. The world was shrinking even then. We lived in a smaller, more closely connected world than what existed in the late '30's and '40's. The world could see, hear and read about the plight of the black American and our righteous fight for justice and equality and the world was moved in a way they weren't where the Jews were concerned. Possibly taking an example from the Civil Rights Struggle, Desmond Tutu and those fighting the South African white racist apartheid government adopted the same tact, "The world is watching!" In both struggles, the world did its part to help - in its own way - to bring appropriate pressure to bear on those racist institutions effectively weakening U.S. segregation/persecution and destroying the racist nation of rhodesia and the white racist government of South Africa.

In the case of the German and Eastern European Jews, the western world knew what was happening to them and couldn't have cared less. They were only Jews afterall. You haven't disproved anything I've said. There was more at work against the Jews than immigration policies and the machinations of "nation states". There was antisemitism, world-wide antisemitism which polluted the better angels of the heads of national governments and their populace, our United States included. It was in that environment that the Holocaust was allowed to proceed unchecked resulting in the deaths of millions of innocents, Jewish and others. I stand by my statement and none of your long-winded loopy nonsense has budged me an inch.

You weren't debated. You were provided facts in the face of your fallacy. You weren't debated. You were corrected. You said earlier that you didn't bluster, that you were cold. I didn't even feel a hint of a breeze. Your furious flurry of pompous words were mere fluff and foolishness laced with a sense of pathetic entitlement which believes the black American needs something from the white American to make us whole, as if Affirimative Action, Welfare, the "Great Society", the Civil War, the 14th Amendment were as nothing.

If that's all you've got, then you haven't got anything. The United States was directly responsible for the deaths of Anne Frank, her family and those who traveled with them when they were turned away from these shores and from sanctuary. When a suicide victim leaps from a high point, it isn't his ascension to that point that kills him, but it precipitates it. When he leaps, it isn't the falling that kills him, but he has irreversibly taken the action that will lead to his death. The direct cause of death is the impact the victim makes with the ground when he hits it. So, do you blame the ground for the victim's death or the actions the victim took that led to his death? Had the suicide victim turned away and not taken the leap, he wouldn't have been a suicide victim.  When a person is fatally shot, it is the bullet ripping through the body that causes death. I've never seen a bullet stand trial for murder, Redjack. I've never seen the gun from which the bullet was discharged stand trial for murder. It's always the human being whose finger pulled the trigger of the gun which fired the bullet who is charged and stands trial for murder. In turning away those Jews seeking sanctuary in this nation when it was within our immigration quota to accept them, we were in essence the "high point". When the Jews returned to Europe, they "impacted" with a murderous nazi regime which caused their deaths, deaths that need not have happened had the U.S. provided those victims sanctuary.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 29, 2008, 07:02:27 pm
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on March 29, 2008, 07:22:50 pm
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.


That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 29, 2008, 07:38:01 pm
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.

That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 

I would love to be able to agree with you, Catch...but I just keep having these "Tom Bradley effect" flashbacks. Remember, Tom Bradley was immensely popular in California. During his gubernatorial run against George Du...there is no way I'll be able to spell that man's name without looking it up...many white Californians swore that Tom Bradley was their choice and pledged to vote for him. As it turns out, they did not. Later, following to the election, two white males who actually worked for the Bradley campaign admitted that when they were alone in the voting booth and faced with the two choices for California's next governor, there was no way they could bring themselves to vote for a black man over a white man. Recently, PA. Governor Rendell said that in his state anyway, many whites are not ready to vote for a black man for high office in explaining why he was able to defeat Rep. challenger Lynn Swann, the very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler wide receiver, in their campaign.

I say again, I'd love to be able to agree with you and see with my own eyes, the nomination go to Obama. At this point however, I just can't see it. And I wonder....who had more blacks in their administrative Cabinet, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice certainly held more significant offices in the Bush administration than Ron Brown held in the Clinton administration.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 29, 2008, 07:38:36 pm
this is a huge decision for the superdelegates.
Get some sleep muthasuckas!
hahahahha
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 29, 2008, 07:52:34 pm
this is a huge decision for the superdelegates.
Get some sleep muthasuckas!
hahahahha

Most of them are already sleepwalking, MM  :)

Howard Dean is clueless, a coward or both.

Al Gore? He ain't goin' anywhere NEAR this mess.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 29, 2008, 08:07:35 pm
Getting back to Rev. Wright (correct spelling: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.), I thought this opinion piece from Jonetta Rose Barras was insightful. ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102742.html[/url])


"Wright" ... OK, got it.  I could say that I saw it somewhere spelled "Write" and just picked that up ... but the truth is, I was always the first kid to drop out of the spelling bee.   :-[
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 29, 2008, 08:17:29 pm
It's the idea that Obama (or any of other candidates for that matter) would do anything to reverse the pro-Israel trend of the last 25-odd years that I find silly.

Once in office, a President certainly could reverse the (so-called) "pro-Israel" position.  He would just couch it in politically correct terms, provide justifications, and so on.  Many of the extreme Left and extreme Right would cheer (both those elements have more in common that some are willing to admit).  As it is the U.S. puts pressure on Israel all the time, and has the clout to do so.  The degree and form of pressure varies from administration to administration. 

There may also be a time in the not-too-distant future when Israel will be forced to defend herself against a devastating external threat ... and the extent to which the U.S. supports, is neutral or overtly undermines that effort will have a direct impact on the survival of Israel as a nation (not to mention the long-term survival of her population).
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 29, 2008, 08:19:52 pm
So, I peeked. As I thought, it really wasn't worth my time and effort to do so.

My "opinion" isn't. It's what actually happened. Yours is based on a jaundiced and incoherent view of the facts as well as the conflation of multiple factors into an unsupported pattern.  yeah. We did save the f*cking world and there's nothing shrill about saying so.

 ;D

It wasn't "what" you said that was shrill. It was the shrill way you said it. "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD!"

...the "f*cking world. The shrill quality of using all caps as if you were making some grand pronouncement and "f*cking world"?, that could be a good thing (in a sexy sort of way for those of us who like having sex) or a bad thing, (you called the world a mean name).

And in my mind's eye, all I could see is you clutching your naps in your hands - that is if you have naps, if not, slapping your bald head - and jumping up and down hysterically.

I find that image both shrill and amusing  ;)

And "conflated/unsupported pattern" my big toe. The "factors" I provided were presented in chronological order from 1938 - 1942 and absolutely gave proof to the type of antisemitic attitudes which influenced the opinions of nation leaders and citizens - the U.S. in particular - and kept the Jewish people seeking to escape the holocaust vulnerable and without hope of rescue.

Furthermore, the U.S. didn't "save the procreating world". The U.S., her Allies and the very significant efforts of the Soviet Red Army brought this terrible war to an end. If the U.S. had saved "the procreating world", there wouldn't have been any need for the U.S. to submit to the carving up of "the procreating world" between ourselves, our Allies and a national entity the U.S. didn't trust or even like. Patton wanted to go to war with the Soviets right then and there. Had the U.S. saved "the procreating world" on its own, the U.S. could have told the Soviets to take a hike. They didn't do that because the couldn't do that. Understand?

And now, our discourse is at an end. It's gone on far too long and I've since forgotten the point I'd intended to make in response to Mike's post concerning Hamas. Now I must retrace my steps, re-read that post and hopefully, remember the reply that I'd intended to make.

 

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: DamonO on March 29, 2008, 10:29:51 pm
Most likely scenario:  Obama gets the nomination, Hillary runs as VP.  That helps unite the party, and hopefully, they defeat McCain in November.  That's my prediction.

I agree, but only flipped. I have this suspicion that the Superdelegates will make the determination that even though her negatives are extremely high, Clinton is the more electable candidate. She has won the traditional Democratic states with Obama's most significant wins being Illinois and Missouri. My prediction is Clinton will be chosen the nominee and after much pleading, Obama might consent to run as VP.

That, in itself, is flawed thinking.  It's not like California and New York aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.  That's was Hillary's argument for her electibility and it was a weak argument for her as well.   If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to her on a silver platter, we'll see some people stay home during the general election.  If Obama has more states, delegates and votes, it'll make a lot of black folks feel like neither party respects us.  This country is in dire need of a viable third party candidate. 

I would love to be able to agree with you, Catch...but I just keep having these "Tom Bradley effect" flashbacks. Remember, Tom Bradley was immensely popular in California. During his gubernatorial run against George Du...there is no way I'll be able to spell that man's name without looking it up...many white Californians swore that Tom Bradley was their choice and pledged to vote for him. As it turns out, they did not. Later, following to the election, two white males who actually worked for the Bradley campaign admitted that when they were alone in the voting booth and faced with the two choices for California's next governor, there was no way they could bring themselves to vote for a black man over a white man. Recently, PA. Governor Rendell said that in his state anyway, many whites are not ready to vote for a black man for high office in explaining why he was able to defeat Rep. challenger Lynn Swann, the very popular former Pittsburgh Steeler wide receiver, in their campaign.

I say again, I'd love to be able to agree with you and see with my own eyes, the nomination go to Obama. At this point however, I just can't see it. And I wonder....who had more blacks in their administrative Cabinet, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice certainly held more significant offices in the Bush administration than Ron Brown held in the Clinton administration.

Thing is, Powell was so marginalized in the Bush Administration that he didn't even stick around for the second term.  He so disillusioned with the GOP, that he's been advising Obama on foreign policy, and when asked point blank if he'd vote for the GOP nominee in November, Powell's only response was that he'd vote for who he felt the best candidate was.  That should tell you how he felt he was treated by that group.

As for Condoleezza Rice, the only reason she's still around is because she's a Bush bootlicker who'll only tell him what he wants to hear.

Lynn Swann may be a popular former Steeler, but he was an awful candidate.  I saw an interview with him prior to the election, and his answer to almost every question was "I don't know."  These were questions about issues he should've had some opinion on.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 29, 2008, 11:06:33 pm
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia   :P).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...???   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 29, 2008, 11:46:33 pm
Redjack, don't take this personally, but I didn't even bother to read your latest response to me. Your psuedo-sophisticated sophistry bores me. Your thinly-veiled antisemitic attitude appalls me.

The United States bears its fair share of the responsibility for the Holocaust. This, you cannot deny.

Wow. Just keep digging that hole. You obviously don't know when to stop. If you persist I'm really going to have to spank you. Now you're calling me an anti-semite? God, talk about boring.

You read them. You read every word and then got so outraged you had to spew your ridiculous theory yet again. It doesn't work, moron. Not only is it inconsistent internally and ahistorical it's too cartoony to withstand contact with actual reality.

Now, frankly, I'm only engaged in this with you because your ignorance is irritating. But, since you persist, let's take the boy to school. Pull up a chair and pay attention this time.

While no one has disputed the fact that the US kept out a large number of Jews during the period, what you consistently fail to acknowledge is that this was in no way pointed or special. The US routinely denied and continues to deny access to peoples fleeing horrible tyranny all over the world. That is our right as a sovereign nation-state and it is ABSOLUTELY morally proper for us to have and exercise that ability. moreover, internally, the US was not only an apartheid state but was engaged in its own eugenics programs in various regions. It should be noted that these programs were pointed not only at ethnic groups (of whcih jews ere not one) but also at whites who where, for whatever reason, deemed "genetically undesirable or inferior."

Your own figures set the US's self-created quota at around 27000, i beleive (didn't go back to look at the exact figure). Also by your own numbers the US accepted 21000 of those refugees. That leaves roughly 6k out in the cold. Sad for those 6, no question, but hardly evidence of bias towards that specific group. The quota is not meant to describe the number the US is REQUIRED to take but to set the number it should not exceed. There's a difference.

What you have failed to comment on because you don't know or because you don't care is the the numbers of other ethnic groups who were admitted/ barred during that period and in the intervening time. The reasons you omit this data are twofold.

1) as i said, despite your protestations about being involved with mankind, all you really care about is the Jews. Which is why I keep having to remind you of the other 6 million people the Nazis ran through the meat grinder. You don't mention them because they don't matter to you. That makes you a liar, Sin. And a bit of a ethnicist yourself, despite your lofty claims.

2) on some level you know your moralistic posturing is both unsupported and, frankly, idiotic and so you do whatever you can to hide the fact that the totality of the real facts don't support your position.

Yes. We saved the world, idiot. So did the Brits. So did the Russians. The one statement doesn't obviate the others.

Now, you myopic child, here are some salient dates and attendant facts that not only undercut your bullsh*t moralistic stance but put a stake through the heart of the notion that anyone was singled out for negative treatment.

1892- Ellis Island opens for business.

1903- the US makes rules restricting the access of ANYONE entering the country via the Mexican border.

1907- THIS IS BIG SO PAY ATTENTION IDIOT The US enacts several laws and reorganized the South Western states in order to stop the flow of immigrants crossing in from Mexico.

1917- 24 - Stack of acts limiting and further regulating ALL immigration including the establishment of ethnic and national quotas.

1940 - immigrants are now required to carry identification marking their status

1950 - Internal Security Act - Birthday of the modern GREEN CARD which was used as a means of IDing immigrants and, if they weren't carrying one, used as the primary reason for booting them out.

1968- AGAIN, MORON, PAY ATTENTION - this was the year the US acknowledged its traditionally racist immigration policy and DID AWAY WITH IT (sort of)

1976 - US stops giving preferential treatment to immigrants from Western states. (ah, now we're getting somewhere)

There's more, lots more in fact, but this is sufficient. There is NO WAY any healthy mind can look at the clear pattern of racist refusals in US immigration policy, a policy the US itelf eventually acknowledged and moved to fix, and make the case that somehow the jews fleeing persecution in Germany were singled out for mistreatment. They were not. Clearly. That's reality. It's not my opinion. It's not the result of "anti-semitism." It is simply a fact.  Okay? You're done. Fold it up and walk away.

I'm not an anti-semite, idiot. I have no feeling about semites one way or the other as is clear from my complete indifference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. BOTH sides are semites. You get that, right? Indeed, I consider such descriptions of peoples to be archaic, even anachronistic. Semites are, according to tradition, the children of Shem, a fictional construct, who is the son of Noah, another fictional construct who is based upon another fictional construct called Utnapishtim. No one is actually a semite because there was no such person as Shem. Those who deem themselves to be semites are genetically indistinguishable from one another. I am acquainted with reality, you see.  I don't generally waste time on hating groups that don't actually exist.

If you want to go on believing in fairy tales and taking enormous moralistic stances based upon those tales, be my guest, but now you don't have the excuse of ignorance of the actual facts.  Ignorance, in itself, is nothing to be ashamed of. Everybody is ignorant of something. It's easy to correct. Either you dig yourself for the new data or somebody does you the favor of telling you.

You have just been told. You are not ignorant anymore. Now, if you keep making the same mistake, it is because you are stupid which is something that is not as easily fixable.

This was over when I told you it was over and it's REALLY over now.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: moor on March 30, 2008, 12:09:59 am
It would have to be Nader for me.  McCain will NEVER EVER get my vote. 

You'd be better off not voting then.  Any vote for Nader would just encourage him to run again in 4 years and screw over another candidate.

i understand what you're saying Jess, but damn...
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 01:44:10 am

Thing is, Powell was so marginalized in the Bush Administration that he didn't even stick around for the second term.  He so disillusioned with the GOP, that he's been advising Obama on foreign policy, and when asked point blank if he'd vote for the GOP nominee in November, Powell's only response was that he'd vote for who he felt the best candidate was.  That should tell you how he felt he was treated by that group.

This is true, Damon. However, during Bush's initial run for the Presidency, he was always able to get a rousing applause whenever he would mention to those at his rallies; "And Colin Powell is going to be your Secretary of State!" *applause*applause*applause* During "Desert Storm", Sec. of Defense, Dick Cheney, Chairman of the Joint Chief Of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf basked in something of the "rock star" status that some have said Obama now enjoys. It was Powell's extremely swift and aggressive strategy used in "Desert Storm", known as the "Powell Doctrine", which was so successful in that engagement. Chairman Powell would also be blamed by some and in some circles for pulling Gen. Schwartzkopf back, not allowing him to invade Iraq proper. Even then, Powell was wise enough to know what would happen if we had done so.
 
It is my recollection that during the afterglow of "Desert Storm", only Dick Cheney was a confirmed Republican. The party affiliations of Powell and Schwartzkopf were unknown and both men were the darlings of the GOP. When Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf declared he was a Democrat, he seemed to disappear overnight. Chairman Powell on the other hand was a Republican and he became even more beloved, admired and desired by the GOP. I believe that up until Powell, the most significant black American in the GOP, said to have a very bright future was former U of Oklahoma Sooner QB, Congressman J.C. Watts who - hearkening back to your point to why Powell became "disillusioned" and resigned his office - feeling as if he was mere window dressing, a successful black face for the GOP to present to the U.S. and the world, resigned his seat. There were some who wanted Powell to be tapped as VP candidate, just as today there was talk that Condoleeza Rice could make a very interesting running mate for McCain. Dr. Rice is determined to return to civilian life, so that possibility is out.

I remember Powell as a highly-regarded figure, indeed, some considered Powell to be the "star" of the Bush administration. European leaders seemed to have more respect for Sec. Powell than they did for the President himself. Then came the ill-fated "Operation whatever-the-hell-it-is" conceived by "Hussein and his sons have until midnight to get out of town", George Bush. The story the lying Bush administration fed the nation and the world is that Iraq possessed WMD and was a training base for Al Quaeda, both claims which could not be substantiated by UN investigators on the ground. Powell was a believer of the UN investigators and there was for a time, a split between Powell and the Bush administration that had to have frustrated and embarrassed Bush, as Powell traveled Europe trying to forestall war. Powell had strong support from France who held the belief that war with Iraq was uneccessary and would be the wrong thing to do. You remember the response of many Americans to the "France stance". French products were boycotted. Restauranteurs were pouring expensive French wine down sewer drains. Finally under mounting pressure from Cheney, Rumsfeld and quite probably Dr. Rice, Powell relented and addressed the UN with "facts" that he might say he believed, but deep down, probably did not. Stupid Sec Ruimsfeld wanted his own "rock star" Cheney,Powell,Schwartzkopf legacy. You remember how jovially he conducted his press conferences during "shock and awe"...when Bush was sputtering, "Mission Accomplished". Colin Powell, who during "Desert Storm" told then Sec of Defense Cheney and others, "You break it, you own it." - something to that effect - saw the GWB Administration leading the nation and her young soldiers into the quagmire Powell knew would be there. Disheartened and disgusted, I'm sure it was the main reason why Secretary Powell resigned and now supports Barack Obama.

Quote
As for Condoleezza Rice, the only reason she's still around is because she's a Bush bootlicker who'll only tell him what he wants to hear.

 :D Well Damon, I can't say she is one way or the other. What I do know is that Condoleeza Rice is a brilliant and highly-accomplished black American woman who if a poll of the most influential black American women were held today, should probably be second only to Oprah...but knowing how media conscious we are at times, there would probably be actresses and rappers ahead of her. And I think we do have to agree that Condoleeza Rice now holds a cabinet level position that far exceeds any held by a black man or woman in a Democratic President's cabinet.

Quote
Lynn Swann may be a popular former Steeler, but he was an awful candidate.  I saw an interview with him prior to the election, and his answer to almost every question was "I don't know."  These were questions about issues he should've had some opinion on.

Damon, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but look at who the U.S. elected for two terms as President. GWB wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either. It was said that while Gov. of Texas, Bush knew next to nothing about Iraq and couldn't have cared less about it. I recently saw a replay of a private interview candidate Bush gave to some newsman who was asking him about foreign policy facts and he chuckled, snorted and proved to be ignorant of most of the answers to questions put to him. When questions about his military service and past run-ins with law enforcement were brought up, Bush simply said, "I'm not going to deal with it." and went on about his bumbling Bush business.

But what Bush had going for him was this. He was appealing to "the angry white male", some of the same so-called under-educated sort said to now be supporting Mrs. Clinton. Lynn Swann didn't fare very well with that demographic. Obama has yet to prove consistent strength when it comes to capturing that demographic. Clinton's got that demographic in her purse along with older white women, younger white feminists and the latino vote of which has been said, is loathe to vote for a black candidate. This being the case, I have to go with what Gov. Rendell's statement and the historical evidence of the "Tom Bradley effect". I don't want to, but at the moment there isn't any evidence suggesting that things have changed that much.

And you know, Obama's opponents will always have the Rev. Wright "boogeyman" to pull out, along with Obama's if not muslim, then white people-America-hating "unashamedly black" religion. Who knows? There may have been many votes cast by whites thinking, "Obama's not really black anyway. He did come out of a white woman afterall." I have heard some people say this on those radio talk shows.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 01:57:38 am
Yes. We saved the world, genius. (I fixed it for you  :) ) So did the Brits. So did the Russians. The one statement doesn't obviate the others.

Yawn.

So when I neglect to mention the Poles, the Gypsies, the Homosexuals and other victims of the Holocaust which the U.S. is in large part responsible for allowing to occur, then I am only concerned about the Jews and have no feeling, no compassion, no interest in mentioning the suffering of the others. You accuse me of this even though I have said time and again that human suffering is human suffering, period. Unlike you, I don't ascribe to the "me first! me first!" "get in line" approach. The suffering of all must be addressed and eliminated.

But here you are with your hysterical and now hypocritical "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD". You didn't mention the Allies or the Soviets in your initial bluster. You were only concerned about what the U.S. did, how the U.S. revamped her economy, how the U.S. "did this" and "did that". It is only last night and one time previous to your most recent bore fest of a post (which I didn't read, but only skimmed and then discarded), when I reminded you that the U.S. didn't save the world by itself that you conceded the Brits and the Soviets "saved the world, too."

Excerpt from reply #86:

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD. (Red, for Redjack)

  Oh, so melodramatic. The U.S. played a large part in saving the world, this is true. Do not forget about our Russian ally. Without their withering assault on germany, forcing her to fight a war on two fronts, the Eastern front being the most damaging because the Russians weren't playing. The U.S. was able to do its part in saving the war with our Russian and British allies.  (Blue, for true blue sinjection)  :)



So, when I don't always mention the others who suffered the Holocaust beside the Jews, I'm not concerned about the suffering of those others even though I've always said human suffering is human suffering. But conversely, you are expected to believe that I should assume that when you say "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD", that you were not just talking about what the U.S. did, but you were also crediting the Allies and the Soviets whom you never mentioned until I reminded you that they too participated in putting down the third reich. The word "we" - "we" being the U.S. - appears in your statement no fewer than six times. No mention of the Soviets. No mention of the Brits. Only a mention that "We did not get in early..." "...we joined in..." "we turned the tide..." and then, the most hysterical part of your histrionics "...and, oh yes, SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD."  :o :)  You used the word "we" so many times - "we" being the U.S." - who might have guessed that when you said "we", you were including the Britains and the Soviets? Einstein maybe?

Geesh Maurice. I swear, whenever I see a post contributed by you in the future, I will run, not walk in the other direction as fast as my optic nerves will carry me.  :)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 02:18:51 am
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Mike, I wish I could ask these questions in a way that would better convey my meaning. Wasn't Menachem Begin considered a terrorist? Wasn't the Igrun recognized as a terrorist organization? Once the State of Israel was established and supported by the U.S. and Great Britain, Menachem Begin became a respected Prime Minister. Begin, Jimmy Carter and the great Anwar Sadat were hailed as great peacemakers. Begin walked in Sadat's funeral procession following his assassination.

Now, it's my understanding that Hamas won the right to represent the Palestinian vote because the Palestinian voter chose Hamas over the Fatah faction. Hamas said it would work toward making life better for the Palestinian people and would participate in talks with Israel. The U.S., Israel and the Fatah were not happy with the new station of Hamas. Fatah actually skirmished with Hamas early on if I'm not mistaken. Why is it that after Hamas achieved their political victory, Israel, the U.S. and Fatah chose to discomfort them rather than exploring how their new responsibilities would affect how they act?

The PLO and Arafat once pledged to destroy Israel but when convinced it was easier said than done, Arafat turned to talks and negotiations. It seems to me that Hamas has been denied that opportunity to do so.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 03:04:21 am
We all know what the original topic of the thread was, it didn't get derailed until over the top judgement calls were made and in the spirit of parity I brought up the holocaust, I don't didn't list a # of facts to support my statements I used common sense to put together different scenarios that would require mike to step up and be honest about his beliefsof right and wrong, for me he failed. For the record I felt bad anytime I have seen pictures of holocaust victims but NEVER as bad as the pictures of lynchings,whippings ( the keloids were at least 6 inches high) of slaves. I have an Aunt who is now in her 80s if you had a conversation with her concerning the holocaust she would be at the point of crying hysterically, and she would say over and over again how horrible that was; oh those poor souls had it rough you know that real earnest sort of empathy all humans should have towards one another, but if you said that the middle passage was horrific, and described some of the atrocities that happened she went cold there was a disconnect from that reality. I will never minimize the hell my ancestors endured in this country by elevating the pain of others just so THEY can feel special. What was that saying? I want to be pro human but all humans aint pro black
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 03:11:16 am
I don't think powell could honestly keep lying to himself. He failed on many levels and he got what he deserved in the end....embarrassed he was smarter than his boss, but dumb because he CHOSE to follow Bush
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 03:21:56 am
For the record I felt bad anytime I have seen pictures of holocaust victims but NEVER as bad as the pictures of lynchings,whippings ( the keloids were at least 6 inches high) of slaves.

When I see the pictures of the lynchings, recall the horrors of slavery, recall the horrors of the Reconstruction...of one incident in particular when a pregnant wife on the verge of giving birth, is made to watch her husband lynched before she is then lynched herself. During her death throes, she gives spontaneous birth to the infant. When it falls to the ground, its skull is immediately crushed beneath a klansman's boot. When I see pictures of people who are no more than living skeletons peering blankly out at the world with deeply set haunted eyes, when I see the picture of a man about to be executed, kneeling at a ditch already filled with mounds of the dead, the ss trooper's gun held inches from his head, the man about to be murdered looking directly at the camera which gives the startling effect that he is looking directly into the viewer's eyes, when I see little girls of the various ethnic, religious groups butchered by the nazis, wearing pretty dresses, being forced to smile before being murdered days or perhaps hours later, I am devastated. I was devastated when I saw pictures of South African soldiers blasting away youthful lives of the black children who threw stones at them. I was devastated when I saw pictures of Congolese men, their arms ending in pointed stumps at their wrists, standing around a mound of dismembered human hands rising to the level of their thighs. As a black man, I too am particularly sensitive to the suffering of black people. As a human being, a human being who loves animals as well, I hurt whenever I see the suffering of any human or beast.

That's just the way I am.





Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 03:28:56 am
I understand you man, it disturbs me that animals have more rights than some humans. It is dangerous for black people to minimize the sufferings of their ancestors.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 03:29:03 am
I don't think powell could honestly keep lying to himself. He failed on many levels and he got what he deserved in the end....embarrassed he was smarter than his boss, but dumb because he CHOSE to follow Bush

Easy to say, but what might any of us have done in his position? The nation had recently suffered a devastating terrorist attack on our soil. There was the urgent desire to locate and punish the responsible parties. And Colin Powell, American hero, American champion, conqueror of Iraq during "Desert Storm", U.S. Secretary of State, is at odds with the administration he represents in that capacity over a war he didn't want to fight the first time, with very good reason, and is in the position desperately trying to avert that which he was able to prevent happening in "Desert Storm". The nation needed to be unified. Colin Powell was faced with a very difficult dilemna, present a united front even at the cost of reputation, personal conscience and tremendous loss of life or resign, be labeled a traitor while watching Condoleeza Rice address the UN in his place doing the exact same thing he was made to do.

I'm not saying what Colin Powell did was right. I'm saying that I wouldn't want to judge him.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 03:32:07 am
I understand you man, it disturbs me that animals have more rights than some humans. It is dangerous for black people to minimize the sufferings of their ancestors.

If that's what you believe I'm saying, then I'm afraid you don't understand me at all. There is no reason to treat any animal inhumanely. And what makes you think I was minimizing the sufferings of black people when I related the abominable attrocity of the lynching of the man, his pregnant wife and the brutal end of life for the child she birthed during her death throes?

I can be sensitive to the suffering of human beings and not minimize the suffering of my people.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 03:38:27 am
I was a soldier in the sand box during the first DS, maybe it is just me but I wouldn't follow a fool ( no matter the rank) to my death. Powell was a general officer, he was automatically empowered as the most combat tested, experienced mind in the room especially when the room is filled with people who lacked the balls to wear a uniform. The way that he stayed the course with the Bush Admins flawed rhetoric disgusts me he could have been more forceful in his disagreements, bush wouldn't have had the guts to go toe to toe with powell in the public eye, he could only hope to discredit him in some way and he needed to Back door powell to do it....enter C Rice
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 03:42:50 am
No I do understand you I don't advocate brutality to animals in fact I believe they are the last noble spirits living on this planet, it is not their behavior which is destroying the planet it's ours. I was not implying that you were unable to feel black suffering in any way
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 03:49:15 am
I was a soldier in the sand box during the first DS, maybe it is just me but I wouldn't follow a fool ( no matter the rank) to my death.

I thank you for your service.

Quote
Powell was a general officer, he was automatically empowered as the most combat tested, experienced mind in the room especially when the room is filled with people who lacked the balls to wear a uniform. The way that he stayed the course with the Bush Admins flawed rhetoric disgusts me he could have been more forceful in his disagreements, bush wouldn't have had the guts to go toe to toe with powell in the public eye, he could only hope to discredit him in some way and he needed to Back door powell to do it....enter C Rice

Did Powell truly "stay the course" with the lies which were being told by the Bush administration? If so, then why did it seem Powell was at odds with the administration? I remember France and Germany supporting Powell's position that was at that time, one that evinced no desire to rush into war with Iraq. Bush wasn't alone. He had Rumsfeld, Cheney who had backing them, a nation filled with bloodlust and who at that time, possibly remembering how "easily" the U.S. "defeated" the Iraqis in "Desert Storm", war against Iraq would be nothing more than a cakewalk. Sec Powell served two tours in Vietnam. He knows the hardships of a soldier's life. He knows what it is to die on the battlefield. Powell could have done many things. In the end, Powell did what he believed what was in the best interests of a nation hellbent on "fighting a war against terror". The only thing I can say is, I'm very happy that I was not Sec. Powell and I do wish the man well.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 03:50:40 am
No I do understand you I don't advocate brutality to animals in fact I believe they are the last noble spirits living on this planet, it is not their behavior which is destroying the planet it's ours. I was not implying that you were unable to feel black suffering in any way

Then please, accept my most sincere apologies karaszero. I was mistaken.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 04:04:29 am
From the start of this version of DS the General Officers with the exception of two ( one of whom was my former commander) Gens. Shinseki and Sheehan remained quiet and subservient to their civilian bosses, they were more concerned with saving their careers than the truth. The lack of integrity/leadership shown by these general officers led to the abuses at Abu Gharaib and Gitmo and the subsequent sh**cannings of low rankining reserve enlisted men/women. Powell is generally recognized as a soldiers' officer ( one who shows concern for his men) he was there at DS, he knew the numbers didn't add up but he still played the good soldier and followed his orders to the letter. Apology accepted. I am always uncomfortable being thanked for my participation during DS I was a soldier ,I signed a contract knowing full well that I could see action and I accepted that as part of the obligation, I just wish that the country at large used the sacrifices of the young men/women dying in this war today as tthe STARTING point for dialogue on race relations in this country
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 08:53:12 am
On another topic ... I don't know how the Nazi Holocaust came up ... I certainly didn't raise it.  The extermination of the Jews of Europe was a horrible thing.  The Slave trade was a horrible thing of greater magnitude.  Perhaps the Holocaust is given greater emphasis because it was more recent, or perhaps because as you mentioned nobody before then believed there could be assembly-line mass murder in the 20th Century, or maybe because of an ethnocentric bias (as in "How could 'civilized' Europeans do such a thing?"), and yes maybe because the victims, while Jews, were white. 

Getting back to horrors.  The Cambodian genocide was horrible. The genocide in Rwanda was horrible.  What is taking place in Africa today is horrible.  As to this latter example, Jewish organizations and Jews in leadership positions of non-Jewish organizations are far more active in condemning the genocide in Africa today, and in trying to alleviate the suffering, than any other ethnic group in America, bar none.  Jews have traditionally been "over-represented" (vis a vis our % of the population) in movements fighting for social justice, combating genocide, and alleviation of global suffering.
Part of the reason may be because of our own cultural "memory" of the Holocaust.  Many Jews, even American Jews, lost family and friends.  Many Jews in America today are the children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Holocaust survivors.  If the memory of the Holocaust as spurred American Jews to fight for justice and work to help the oppressed elsewhere, that is something to praise, not to minimize.


Mike, have you ever heard of Gerhart Reigner?

[Remarkable Nonsense about the Holocaust
Gerhart Riegner Recalls Attempts to Alert World to Holocaust
GENEVA (AP) -- In August 1942, he tried to alert the West about the Nazi plan to annihilate Europe's Jews. No one responded.

Now, more than half a century later, Gerhart Riegner says the world is still unwilling to accept reports of brutality and mass killings. And worse, he says, the world is still reluctant to act.

"News of the extermination of Jews was so awful that people didn't believe it. Even people who did know were very reluctant to do anything.

"It's the same today," Riegner said, in reference to recent horrors like the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated half million people were killed.

Riegner, 87, spoke to a small group of journalists recently about his newly published memoirs, which he wrote to show how difficult it was to get the public to accept the truth.

The 680-page book, "Ne Jamais Desperer," (Never Give Up Hope), describes his life as a World Jewish Congress official, including the dispatch of the now-famous "Riegner cable," which contained his early account of the systematic killing that became known as the Holocaust.

He maintains that many of the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps could have been saved if the United States and Britain had acted when he sounded the alarm.

Although there had been earlier reports of deportations and slayings of Jews, Riegner's telegram was the first authoritative word that the Nazis actually had a coordinated extermination plan.

"Never did I feel so strongly the sense of abandonment, powerlessness and loneliness as when I sent messages of disaster and horror to the free world and no one believed me," Riegner wrote.]

http://www.historiography-project.org/nonsense/19990111Riegner.html

The "Holocaust": white germans attempted to exterminate white Jews, other groups of "undesirables" who were white as well. No doubt that had hitler been successful to the point of nazi world domination, he would have turned his murderous ambitions to the Black peoples of the world. Asiatic Japanese did essentially the same thing to their Asiatic cousins, the Chinese, that the white Germans did to the white Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, infirm, mentally deficient, POW and whomever else fell into their clutches. The Rwandan Genocide, a black majority's massacre of a black minority and those moderates within the oppressive majority who attempted to assist the persecuted black minority. Today as a brilliant young black American born of a Kenyan father and a white American mother runs an historical campaign for the Presidency of the U.S., in Kenya itself, there is brutal fighting born of political strife between the Kikuyu tribe and the Luo minority leading to extreme violence and death. Blacks killing blacks. A ruthless majority murdering a hapless minority. People with power to destroy, destroying the people without the means to protect themselves.

The Jews "white skin" didn't help them much when they sought safe refuge from the nazis in this country and other western European nations. There are many white people today who will tell you to your face that the holocaust never happened. Why? I would venture a guess that their hatred of Jews and the others who perished alongside them would be among those reasons why they would deny the event. 

Jews founded the NAACP. Some white people have said the Jews did so to advance a program of encouraging racial interaction and race mixing intended to dilute the "pure white" majority. Some black people have said the Jews did so to exploit black people, to impede our progress for justice and equality and if necessary, to use blacks as human shields in the event hostilities once again threaten their group. Nobody's perfect. There are good Jews; there are bad Jews, just as there exists the good and the bad in all races and creeds of mankind.

Someone said, we shouldn't get into the whose persecution is worse discussion because it is counterproductive. The person was correct. It is when human beings stop being limited by skin color, culture, nationality, class and the other societal constructs dividing us and begin to respond to each other as fellow citizens of the world, that true progress toward a better world for all can be made. This time may never come. It certainly won't come if too many of us cling to the "my suffering was/is worse than your suffering so you need to get in line behind me" attitude.

I could say more because as Clubber Lang told Rocky Balboa; "I gotta lotta mo!" "I gotta lotta mo!"  :D

In the interests of keeping this thread on topic, this post will see my final words regarding this issue.




Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 30, 2008, 08:59:29 am
*looks at sin*
Are you sure?
I mean...i know you have to have blackberry arthritis by now without all that knowledge u've been typin'.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 30, 2008, 09:03:31 am
Yes. We saved the world, genius. (I fixed it for you  :) ) So did the Brits. So did the Russians. The one statement doesn't obviate the others.

Yawn.

So when I neglect to mention the Poles, the Gypsies, the Homosexuals and other victims of the Holocaust which the U.S. is in large part responsible for allowing to occur, then I am only concerned about the Jews and have no feeling, no compassion, no interest in mentioning the suffering of the others. You accuse me of this even though I have said time and again that human suffering is human suffering, period. Unlike you, I don't ascribe to the "me first! me first!" "get in line" approach. The suffering of all must be addressed and eliminated.

But here you are with your hysterical and now hypocritical "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD". You didn't mention the Allies or the Soviets in your initial bluster. You were only concerned about what the U.S. did, how the U.S. revamped her economy, how the U.S. "did this" and "did that". It is only last night and one time previous to your most recent bore fest of a post (which I didn't read, but only skimmed and then discarded), when I reminded you that the U.S. didn't save the world by itself that you conceded the Brits and the Soviets "saved the world, too."

Excerpt from reply #86:

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD. (Red, for Redjack)

  Oh, so melodramatic. The U.S. played a large part in saving the world, this is true. Do not forget about our Russian ally. Without their withering assault on germany, forcing her to fight a war on two fronts, the Eastern front being the most damaging because the Russians weren't playing. The U.S. was able to do its part in saving the war with our Russian and British allies.  (Blue, for true blue sinjection)  :)



So, when I don't always mention the others who suffered the Holocaust beside the Jews, I'm not concerned about the suffering of those others even though I've always said human suffering is human suffering. But conversely, you are expected to believe that I should assume that when you say "...oh yes, and SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD", that you were not just talking about what the U.S. did, but you were also crediting the Allies and the Soviets whom you never mentioned until I reminded you that they too participated in putting down the third reich. The word "we" - "we" being the U.S. - appears in your statement no fewer than six times. No mention of the Soviets. No mention of the Brits. Only a mention that "We did not get in early..." "...we joined in..." "we turned the tide..." and then, the most hysterical part of your histrionics "...and, oh yes, SAVED THE F*CKING WORLD."  :o :)  You used the word "we" so many times - "we" being the U.S." - who might have guessed that when you said "we", you were including the Britains and the Soviets? Einstein maybe?

Geesh Maurice. I swear, whenever I see a post contributed by you in the future, I will run, not walk in the other direction as fast as my optic nerves will carry me.  :)

Yeah. You're still reading the posts, still stupid and still a hypocrite and, of course, still wildly off the mark. It was the Russian winter and Hitler's refusal to listen to his generals when they told him it would be best to hold back until it ended that did the Nazis in on the eastern front. Not the "withering" Russian attack. Have you ever actually met WW2? Prat.

If the US had not entered the war, Hitler would have won. Simple. Everybody knew it then and everybody who studies the war accepts it as true now. That is undisputed by all serious historians. Another thing that is undisputed is, while it was not easy for the nazis to take Europe, they would have found taking the US impossible for a number of reasons. The likely outcome of the war would have been a 3 way power split between an isolationist US, Nazi Europe and Soviet Russia.

The reason Churchill wanted us in the war was our massive reserves of manpower and, despite the rigors of the Depression, our massive manufacturing and agricultural architectures. And it was those things that not only turned the tide of the war but left the US as the dominant economic power in the aftermath of the conflict. We were the only modern nation that hadn't been bombed, shot or gassed to the brink of oblivion.

No US in WW2, the Nazis win. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that counts as saving the f*cking world.

You cited the Paperclip Project (presuming you even know what that is) as some sort of tangential example of America's "guilt" without acknowledging 1) that it came after the fact that birthed your little tirade 2) that the Russians AND the US picked over the remnants of the Nazi science community in order, not to get to space as you said (idiot) but to keep our military superiority over the USSR.

And, of course, this point of "hypocrisy" is the thing you latch onto because the rest of your argument is gone. Oh, and fixing typos. The only reason America's actual contribution to the war was cited in the first place was your persistent and completely ahistorical assertion that we bear any percentage of responsibility for the Nazi treatment of ANY concentration camp victims (though, of course, you did no research into any of the others who were turned away and never mentioned any of them in any of your comments until I brought them up). We do not. We did not. We are the primary reason there are any survivors at all.

Once again you are both incapable of walking a straight line in a debate and of accepting facts as facts. You only accept those things that support your ridiculous assertion. In fact you seem not to know about a significant number of contravening facts and patterns of documented behavior that would have kept you from stumbling into the dark as you have. That is delusional, bunky.

And fairly pathetic.

Now you claim you won't ever read any more of my posts. Not only is that a lie (you essentially said the same thing already and yet you persist) but it is indicative of YOUR problem as it relates to your ability to learn.

I have presented FACTS, to refute your assertion. What you gave back was increasingly scattered and insulting gibberish. You only drew quotes from sources that had an ax to grind about the issue and, when I blew holes in those, jumped around from era to era to try to find further "support," even though the US treatment of CUBA i the 50s and beyond has no bearing on something it did in the 40s. By contrast I simply took raw unfiltered numbers, the actual dates and the actual context and presented them.

You LOSE. You are WRONG. Your assertion is CRAP. It is UNSUPPORTED. You have no idea what you're talking about which makes you a fool when you persist in the face of NEW FACTUAL DATA from someone who does. You called what I said sophistry. I suggest you look that word up.  You'll find that it applies to you.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 30, 2008, 09:04:37 am
*ding*ding*ding*
we've gone 15 rounds.
now we go to the fighter judges for the scoring...
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: sinjection on March 30, 2008, 09:04:56 am
*looks at sin*
Are you sure?
I mean...i know you have to have blackberry arthritis by now without all that knowledge u've been typin'.

 :D

Quite sure, dear brother.

The sinjection correction program is complete.

And hey, I believe that you may have helped me become an "Honorary Wakandan" with this, my response to you marking my 1,000 post.

Let's see if I made it  ;)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Mastrmynd on March 30, 2008, 09:09:09 am
welcome to the family.
I'll summon your very own Royal Bathers!
Also, do you prefer Rose Petals or Tulips to grace your foot path?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on March 30, 2008, 09:58:34 am
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia   :P).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...???   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)


I know you're being humorous here Mike but your getting dangerously close to "slippery slope" territory here. Speech against Israel doesn't equal Blood Libel.:)

As usual, context is everything.

If the main thrust of Rev. Wright's sermons in 20 years of preaching were the Middle East and its environs in the present day, he'd of bored his congregation out the door ages ago.

I'm fairly certain Wright's views on Israel and its policies didn't come up all that often. If you don't speak on what is actually relevent to your congregation you won't have one for long. On close inspection of those infamous Youtube segments you'll note that most of the congregation is just politely sitting and listening with no patictular interest.

Wright spoke out in opposition to what he saw as a wave of hypocracy coming from 9/11. As a practical matter it probaby doesn't come up all that often. And again, as  has been noted repeatedly, this guy wasn't going to be advising Obama on foreign policy so the idea that Obama's staff needed to vet Obama's Pastor's personal politics is bizarre.

Especally in light of the fact that in any honest discussion of the matter many of Wright's views are not uncommon in the Black Community and should come as a shock to no-one. 

     
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 10:25:59 am
Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue friday night. tavis smiley was one of the guest panelist and he raised the point that Rev Wright was also a former Marine who served his country. The Pat buchanan comments were also addressed, this was a very good show You guys should look for the replay
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on March 30, 2008, 11:58:33 am
Real Time with Bill Maher addressed this issue friday night. tavis smiley was one of the guest panelist and he raised the point that Rev Wright was also a former Marine who served his country. The Pat buchanan comments were also addressed, this was a very good show You guys should look for the replay

I saw the show Friday night and they were spot on about the contrast between Rev. Wright's comments and those of Pat Buchanan.  This media double standard's nothing new.  I'm sick and tired of this bait and switching...focus on Obama and the issues.  Rev. Wright is a none issue...the economy is the issue. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 12:07:49 pm
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Mike, I wish I could ask these questions in a way that would better convey my meaning. Wasn't Menachem Begin considered a terrorist? Wasn't the Igrun recognized as a terrorist organization? Once the State of Israel was established and supported by the U.S. and Great Britain, Menachem Begin became a respected Prime Minister. Begin, Jimmy Carter and the great Anwar Sadat were hailed as great peacemakers. Begin walked in Sadat's funeral procession following his assassination.

Now, it's my understanding that Hamas won the right to represent the Palestinian vote because the Palestinian voter chose Hamas over the Fatah faction. Hamas said it would work toward making life better for the Palestinian people and would participate in talks with Israel. The U.S., Israel and the Fatah were not happy with the new station of Hamas. Fatah actually skirmished with Hamas early on if I'm not mistaken. Why is it that after Hamas achieved their political victory, Israel, the U.S. and Fatah chose to discomfort them rather than exploring how their new responsibilities would affect how they act?

The PLO and Arafat once pledged to destroy Israel but when convinced it was easier said than done, Arafat turned to talks and negotiations. It seems to me that Hamas has been denied that opportunity to do so.


Menachem Begin's Irgun targeted British military targets.  The most notable example of Irgun “terrorism” is the bombing of the King David Hotel.  However, that hotel served as the British HQ in Palestine.  Begin claims in his autobiography that the Irgun telephoned the British HQ and warned them that the bombing was imminent and that the hotel should be evacuated.  He claims that the British disregarded the warning.  Historians, however, dispute whether the message really got through.

Regarding past negotiations with the Palestinians – most of the process represented concessions by Israel – of land and administrative rights to the Palestinian Authority, providing funding, and providing weaponry (some of which was later turned against Israelis).  Thus it is no surprise that in those stages of the “Peace Process” the P.A. led by Arafat was willing to “take” what was offered.  However, as I noted above, when the time came to actually make peace, Arafat refused.

Moving to the present, Hamas without question targets civilians for terrorist attack. It is troubling that Pastor Wright would disseminate sweet-sounding Hamas propaganda tailored for American ears – though even there the author makes reference to the Palestinian return to all of what is now Israel.  The truth of Hamas is very different from the picture portrayed by Barak Obama’s church.  I’ve provided a pretty extensive summary below of Hamas’ activities, its history and ideology.  I'm sorry that it is so long, but I don't know how else to convey the information. 

Hamas Showers Deadly Rockets into Israeli Cities

Hamas and its proxies have launched more than 1,000 rockets at Israel since the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.  These rockets purposefully target vulnerable southern Israeli cities such as Sderot and nearby environs, landing in or near private homes, schools, colleges, and daycare and recreation centers. In March 2008, Hamas stepped up the intensity and effectiveness of these attacks, using more powerful and longer range Grad (Katyusha-like) missiles to hit the city of Ashkelon.  Israeli military officials have noted that some of these missiles have components that likely were manufactured in Iran and they warn that Hamas artillery may soon be able to reach well inside Israel, threatening millions of Israeli civilians.

These attacks have already killed at least 12 Israeli civilians, and wounded scores more, including children.  On February 27, a rocket killed Roni Yihye, a 47-year old student and the father of four children, while he was on the campus of Sapir College, on the outskirts of Sderot.   On that day alone, 40 rockets were launched from Gaza.   Israeli hospitals are dealing with numerous children badly injured in these attacks.  On February 9, Osher Twito, 8, and his brother Rami, 19, were seriously injured when they were at an ATM withdrawing money to buy a birthday present for their father.  One of Osher's legs had to be amputated as a result of his injuries.

The psychological damage of these near-hourly attacks cannot be minimized.  When the alarm is sounded, no matter where they are or what they are doing - - taking a shower, shopping for food, going to work - - residents have 15 seconds to reach shelter or risk being killed or injured.  In Sderot, mental health professionals have documented the trauma experienced by children and adults alike, many of whom endure nightmares, panic attacks, and are afraid of going about their daily lives for fear of being caught unprotected during a missile strike.  For the children in Sderot, the trauma is most intense.  They are more accustomed to daily siren alarms and the regular rush to a bomb shelter than to an innocent play date with friends. 

Israel's Actions to Defend Its Population

There is no doubt Israel has the right and responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.  Yet, Israel has shown tremendous restraint in the face of this deadly onslaught. The IDF has tried to stop the attacks through a variety of legitimate military measures designed to comply with the norms of international humanitarian law.  Sadly, none has succeeded in stopping the lethal rockets purposefully aimed at Israeli civilians going about their daily routines.  Israel also has an obligation to ensure that its military operations are designed to minimize the harm to civilians -- a task made all the more difficult when Hamas places its rocket launchers next to homes, schools and hospitals.  In spite of the constant rocket attacks, some targeting the crossings from Israel into Gaza, the crossings remain open and active for the delivery of goods for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated in his report to the Cabinet on March 2, "It must be noted that the State of Israel defends its residents in the south and . . . nothing will deter us from continuing to defend our residents.  Nobody has the right to preach morality to the State of Israel for taking basic action to defend itself and prevent hundreds of thousands of residents of the south from continuing to be exposed to incessant firing that disrupts their lives."

As Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on March 3 in a briefing to the diplomatic corps, "It's a terrible loss for a mother when a child dies during a terror attack or an Israeli attack. For the families, it's the same horrible pain and grief. But it's not the same when it comes to the moral judgment. It's not a matter of suffering; it's a matter of taking the right stand. And while the terrorists are targeting Israeli civilians directly, deliberately, without a real cause, the Israeli soldiers are trying to target specifically the places from which we are being attacked. And during these operations, civilians are also paying the price. But it's like in your own neighborhoods. Just imagine a situation on your street, in your backyard, in your neighbor's backyard, where somebody launches rockets. It's not normal. I'm sure that you would say that you are not willing to accept it. And if you have children you would say, "Not in my neighborhood; I'm not going to put my children at risk."

Israel made clear with its 2005 disengagement that it has no desire to rule the Gaza Strip.  At that time, Israel unilaterally uprooted 8,000 settlers from their homes and removed its military installations.  It was hoped that the Palestinians would use the Israeli withdrawal as an opportunity to build a responsible and effective governing infrastructure.  Unfortunately, soon after, the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas seized control of the territory and turned it into a launching pad for terrorism and extremism.

At the November 2007 Annapolis Conference, Israel and the Palestinian Authority committed to serious negotiations, including on final-status issues, with the support of the international community.  Hamas' unceasing attacks seek to sabotage efforts for peace, and provoke a crisis that will cripple the negotiating process.
 
History and Ideology of Hamas

Hamas is an Islamic extremist terrorist organization based in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that calls for the eradication of Israel. The groups are responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks since the early 1990s, including deadly suicide attacks in Israeli population centers, causing the death of thousands of civilians. Their terrorist operations continue today.

Hamas (the Arabic acronym for Harakat Al-Muqawama Islamiya fi Filistin, or the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine) was established in 1988 by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, then a preacher with the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza. Its ultimate goal is the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state ruled by Islamic theocratic law in place of the State of Israel. Hamas’ covenant, issued in 1988, is replete with anti-Semitism, and echoes the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and charges Jews with an international conspiracy to gain control of the world. In Hamas' world-view, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine; the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel. As its covenant proclaims, "The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust... It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it... Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..." To this end, the leaders of Hamas have traditionally denounced compromise with Israel as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause, although recently some Hamas officials have softened their stances, calling for a temporary Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders as a stepping stone for the “liberation” of all of “Palestine.”

Funding for the group has traditionally come from Iran, Muslim charities around the world and sympathetic sources in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia.

Hamas is both a terrorist organization and a mass social, political and religious movement. It operates schools, medical clinics and youth groups. The division of Hamas into military and political/ social wings has led many observers to erroneously assume that the social wing of Hamas is completely separate from its military wing. However, funds raised for the social programs of Hamas free up other funds for the military wing. Moreover, Hamas' military wing utilizes the organization's social wing for indoctrination and recruitment. The social, cultural, religious and educational institutions of Hamas are well-known venues for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred and serve as recruitment centers for suicide bombers.

Since 1994, Hamas has been the main organization perpetrating terrorist attacks in major Israeli cities with targets including shopping malls, cafes, buses and hotels. Its most deadly attacks include the March 2002 suicide bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya, killing 30 and injuring 140 during their Passover seder; the August 2001 suicide bombing of the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem killing 15 and injuring 130; and the June 2001 suicide bombing at the Dolphinarium, nightclub in Tel Aviv, killing 21 and injuring 120, most of them youths.

In the years of the Oslo process Hamas positioned itself as the main opposition to the Palestinian Authority and its negotiations with Israel. From 2000-2004, however, many of their terrorist operations were approved by and coordinated with the Palestinian Authority. Since his election, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has attempted to induce these groups to cease their terrorist operations, and although Hamas officially agreed to a cease-fire, they have conducted some attacks. Hamas entered the Palestinian political arena and secured nearly half of the municipal seats up for grabs in the January 2005 Palestinian elections.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 12:13:09 pm
Also, if anyone really wants to get a realistic picture of the "fresh views" really expressed by Hamas leaders, here are some representative comments:

Hamas in Their Own Words
   
"…the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: 'I kill, therefore I am' … Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."
Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)

"This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our nation was tested by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation… Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine… Make us victorious over the community of infidels… Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies… Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them."
Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, April 20, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)
 
"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. . . So be assured doctor Ayman, and all those who love Palestine like yourself, that Hamas is still the group you knew when it was founded and it will never abandon its path."
(Hamas statement in response to criticism by Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, March 12, 2007)
 
"[The Tel Aviv suicide bombing] is an an act of self defense . . . [it is] a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people."
(Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman, April 17, 2006)
 
"[Hamas will] never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was founded on our land."
(Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader, February 3, 2006, Al-Hayyat al-Jedida)
 
"[Hamas] will not change a single word in its covenant [which is calling for the destruction of Israel]."
(Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader, after casting his vote in the Gaza Strip, January 25, 2006, Ha'aretz)
 
"They have tried to pressure Hamas to abandon resistance and to abandon arms. They tried to pressure Hamas to abandon its strategic choice in Palestine, all of Palestine. They tried to pressure Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. But they failed… We say Hamas will not change its constant principles."
(Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Reuters)

"The constants and the strategy of Hamas do not change according to circumstances. Hamas will stay faithful to jihad, to resistance, to guns, to Palestine and to Jerusalem."
(Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006, Gulf Daily News, Bahrain)

"Hamas is not hostile to Jews because they are Jews. We are hostile to them because they occupied our land and expelled our people…. We did not say we want to throw the Jews in the sea or feed them to sharks. We just said that there is a land called occupied Palestine. It was burglarized and it needs to be returned to the Palestinian people."
(Ismail Hanieh, Hamas leader, January 18, 2006, AP)

"We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land. . . . We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up."
(Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday)

"The program [of Hamas-backed list to legislative council] sets out the details and means for its implementation over the next four years, while the [Hamas] charter talks about vision and strategy…The movement is adhering to the constants and strategies outlined in the [Hamas] charter."
(Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu-Zuhri, explains to Al-Sharq al-Awsat that there is no contradiction between Hamas' platform for the election and its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, January 13, 2006, BBC Monitoring)

"The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators… We are not a copy of the Taliban... Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom….
"We are part of Allah's promise that Islam will enter Palestine and every home in the world, with a revelation of the power of Allah the Omnipotent, and a revelation of the inferiority of the infidels. Hamas is leading this plan in Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 territories, and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading it everywhere else. This is part of Allah's predestination."
(Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, interview in Arabic with elaph.com, October 11, 2005, MEMRI)

"The vanquishing of the enemy in Gaza does not mean that this stage has ended. We still have Jerusalem and the pure West Bank. We will not rest until we liberate all our land, all our Palestine. We do not distinguish between what was occupied in the 1940s and what was occupied in the 1960s. Our Jihad continues, and we still have a long way to go. We will continue until the very last usurper is driven out of our land."
(Sheik Nizar Rayan, Hamas "political" leader, at a rally in Gaza, Al-Jazeera TV on September 16, 2005, MEMRI)

"We stand here on our liberated land, near the armistice borders. We remember when Sharon said that Netzarim is like Tel Aviv. Hamas has said, via the lion of Palestine [Rantisi], that Gaza is like Tel Aviv. The promise that has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled in the future, oh Sharon, is the promise of Allah, and the promise of Hamas. Behold, Palestine is being liberated, Allah willing…
 
"We have come here in multitudes to proclaim that Hirbiya and Ashkelon will be taken by the mujahideen. We have come here to say that the weapons of the resistance that you see here will remain, Allah willing, so that we can liberate Palestine – all of Palestine – from the Sea to the River, whether they like it or not."
(Mushir al-Masri, Hamas spokesman, at a rally in Gaza, Al-Jazeera TV on September 16, 2005, MEMRI)

"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God, and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon."
(Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi (killed in April 2004) at a rally in Gaza, March 28, 2004, AP)

"The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American Administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime. All the Muslims of the world will be honored to join in on the retaliation for this crime." 
(Hamas statement issued after the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, Chicago Tribune, March 25, 2004)

"We have never targeted an American target or American interests despite its hostility. Until now we did not. I am talking about now. In the future, God knows."
(Musa Abu Marzuq, Hamas leader, interview with Reuters, March 25, 2004)
 
''She [first Hamas woman suicide bomber] is not going to be the last because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.''
(Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, at funeral of Reem Raiyshi, who murdered 4 people, January 15, 2004, AP)

"By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews…
"You will have no security except outside the homeland Palestine…. We have Allah on our side, and we have the sons of the Arab and Islamic nation on our side."
(Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas leader, June 10, 2003, interview with Al-Jazeera, Jerusalem Post)

"America is implementing Zionist Israeli policy to serve the Zionist project in Palestine. The battle America is undertaking is designed to allow Israel to remain in the Palestinian homeland….
"Zionist Israeli and Jewish policy is to strike every power emerging in the Arab and Muslim world… Any country that develops power threatening to this entity (Israel), they want to smash it."
(Sheik Ahmed Yassin (killed in March 2004), January 30, 2003, Teheran Times)

"Suicide attacks and jihad reinforce national unity in the ranks….Our voice is one of struggle, of jihad and of suicide….Iraq could win if it equipped its citizens with explosive belts and turned them into human bombs."
(Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview with the Muslim website Alskifa, January 10, 2003, translated by Israel Defense Forces)

"We reject this US domination and this frantic war. From our side, we concentrate on striking blows to it here in Palestine, with the aim of ironing out the Jewish entity in Palestine, which is the cause of trouble in the world….

"America… always works in favor of the existence of the Israeli entity… This is mainly due to the Zionist-Christian conviction and the 70 million Americans who follow the Protestant creed, which is in favor of Jews against the Muslims. The same applies to most of Britain's population…
"Because the Israeli and American enemies are ravaging the earth; they do not believe in anything besides power. The Ummah must adopt the principle of Jihad and fighting the enemies."
(Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview with Australian Muslim youth magazine, Nida'ul Islam, June/ July 2002)

"The Movement within two months [after the intifada broke] was able to launch qualitative operations that shook the world… there are qualitative Jihad operations such as those in Natanya and Khadera. We are proud of such operations and the next days will witness better and bigger ones….
"I say that the final battle will result in our victory and that this land will reject this enemy similar to its predecessors….
"It is not a must that it would be in 2027 for it could be five years earlier or ten years later. The important thing is that the equation revolves round 2027 and the Hebrew state would end Insha'allah [God willing]."
(Sheik Ahmed Yassin, interview, Palestine-info, March 2001)

Early Hamas communiqués (distributed by Islamic Association for Palestine)

"Come to jihad, come to jihad, come to martyrdom…

"Those thirsty for Jihad all over the world. For the sake of Allah. For liberating the land of Palestine and Jerusalem….

"We declared and continue to declare now, that a Jew is a Jew… [do not trust them when they say they want peace because they act only] to serve their religion and their people."
(Hamas communiqué, March 9, 1989, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine)

"The Jews: killed the prophets…slaughtered the innocent…imprisoned our pious…NO PEACE WITH THE MURDERERS."
(Hamas communiqué, October 5, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine) 

"The Nazi Jews tried different methods…
"Let everyone know that Hamas…is only against Jews and those twisted in their manner… it realizes the Jews' methods in trying to cause hostility and friction between people…
"We should lend punches to the Jews wherever possible [to commemorate Muhammad's defeat of one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia]."
(Hamas communiqué, September 8, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine) 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 30, 2008, 12:34:06 pm
Yeah. Sure sounds like those folks over there have a lot to contend with.

Why does that matter to us, again?

And by "us" I mean Americans.




Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 30, 2008, 01:25:15 pm
it is not their behavior which is destroying the planet it's ours.

In my ongoing and probably futile campaign to curb hyperbole, I'd like to point out that we humans are not likely to destroy the planet although we may succeed in making it uninhabitable for homo sapiens and many other species. Others will fill the void.

I would also like to encourage all participants to follow karaszero's lead in exhibiting civility towards all (or continuing to do so as the case may be) -- no matter how frustrated you may find yourselves.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 30, 2008, 02:24:40 pm
thank you Curtis. I have a question though, if the planet does become uninhabitable wouldn't that be the same as destroyed?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 02:51:27 pm
thank you Curtis. I have a question though, if the planet does become uninhabitable wouldn't that be the same as destroyed?

I think that is the Curtis bizarre sense of humor ...   ;)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 02:55:33 pm
Yeah. Sure sounds like those folks over there have a lot to contend with.
Why does that matter to us, again?
And by "us" I mean Americans.

The United States is a longstanding strong ally of Israel based on shared democratic values and strategic interests including the rejection of terrorism and violence. The United States has a great interest in the stability of the Middle East, a region that is afflicted by extremists who violently oppose the U.S., Israel and democracy, rogue states with large military arsenals which include non-conventional weaponry, and other authoritarian regimes. Bolstering and supporting peace, stability and democracy in the region through relations with Israel is in America’s strategic interest. Indeed, public opinion polls have consistently demonstrated that Americans of all backgrounds support strong U.S.-Israeli relations and view Israel as a key ally of the United States.

The hatred of the United States and the West by Islamic extremist terrorists such as Osama bin Laden has little to do with U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, were there no Israeli-Palestinian conflict or were the U.S. to sever its ties with Israel, their key “grievances” against the U.S. and the West would remain.

These extremists are ideologically opposed to everything the U.S. and the West holds dear: democracy, modernism, freedom, globalism and diversity. In Al-Qaeda’s public pronouncements the U.S. is blamed for its presence on Muslim soil (the war in Iraq, stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), and for its support of “moderate Arab regimes” such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and others that they consider corrupt and anti-Muslim. Bin Laden and his supporters recognize that the U.S. and its allies in the region (including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) stand in the way of his ultimate goal: the establishment of a theocratic, unified Muslim state spanning the region. Until the U.S. launched military action against Al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden said hardly a word about the Palestinians or Israel. His attempt to champion the Palestinian cause was clearly calculated to woo support from the “Arab street,” and has no effect on his goals and plans for future terrorist attacks.

In short, Israel is on the front lines of a global struggle that affects all of us.  Like it or not, that's reality.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 30, 2008, 03:25:28 pm
Michael. Israel is not, by any definition,  a democratic country. It is an ethnic enclave whose raison d'etre is to promote and keep safe a single ethnic group. Part of the reason for the Israeli hard liners grudging acceptance of the various peace plans in recent years is that somebody over there did the math and realized they were being out bred by their Palestinian cousins. Eventually, regardless of intent, Israel would have become Palestine by default within one, perhaps two generations. IF it was a democracy. A true democracy would, faced with that prospect, simply find the means to indoctrinate the coming generations into the appropriate mindset i.e. to think of all Israelis as the same, regardless of ethnicity. But that is less preferable to an ethnocentric state than the two-state solution they've been traditionally against.

By contrast, the principle the US is founded on, E PLURIBUS UNUM (from many, one), is totally antithetical to that of Israel as it is meant to SPECIFICALLY do away with such ethnic cocooning. Ours is a tribe of the mind. Theirs is the old fashioned tribe of the blood. Ours is better.

It's not a democracy. No more than South Africa was a democracy before aparthied went away. To claim it is, is spin.

The US HAS been a long time ally of Israel and, for our pains, Israeli spies have stolen our secrets, sold our tech to our enemies, entered into open trade with countries against which we have embargoes and, on at least one occasion, attacked American military personnel. Some ally.

All of their actions are taken under the heading of what's good for the Israeli state. Which is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. They have a tough road and they have a specific goal in mind for themselves that has a lot of blocks in the way. Israel does what every nation should do: protects its own interests to the exclusion of concern for the interests of other nations.

All I have ever advocated is that the US act the same way and only do what is actually good for us rather than what gets the pockets of our politicians fat.

But I'm funny that way.


Osama bin Laden may desire a global caliphate but he's never going to get it and not because of anything Israel does or doesn't do.

As the US is learning in Iraq and as we already learned in Vietnam, it is impossible in modern times for a foreign power, however large and powerful, to control for any real length of time, a seperate coutnry that doesn't wish to be controlled.

Bin Laden is dangerous because he is insane. He and his followers will wreak havoc on various nations forever because their ultimate goal can never be realized. Our siding with Israel, hell, Israel's continued existence, matters not at all in that paradigm. Whether they stay or go, the world is not going to accept the yoke of Islamic law.

Israel has, literally, nothing to do with that.

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 03:46:38 pm
Israel certainly is a democracy.  Every adult Israeli citizen is entitled to vote, and their votes count.  There is no "ethnicity" requirement for an Israeli Jew or Israeli Arab to vote in an Israeli election.

Also, the majority of Israelis did support a two-state solution, as did the Israeli government under Prime Minister Barak, supported by President Clinton.  But unfortunately to make peace (as with other things) it takes two to tango.  In 2000 the Palestinian Leadership rejected peace and instead opted for Intifada -- effectively giving the finger to all those Israelis who wanted peace. [They gave a lot more than just the "finger" actually ... as the myriad suicide bombings, missile and rocket attacks, and the like have so gruesomely demonstrated].

Israel has long been an ally of the United States ... both during the Cold War and Now.  In some ways the considerations may have been different during the Cold War, but in some ways the considerations are very similar. 

As to spies in the U.S. ... unfortunately there are spies from several allied countries in the U.S (who from time to time get caught) and there are spies for the U.S. in several allied countries (who from time to time get caught).  As a man who understands realpolitik, I'm sure you acknowledge this.  There is no special reason to point the finger at Israel.

We fundamentally disagree as to the role Israel plays in the struggle against Radical Islam.  Many view Israel as the canary in the coal mine.  Others view it as one of the front lines of defense.  If Israel were to fall ... and don't be so naive as to suggest that it could not ... that would be a major victory to the Islamists that would have Regional and Global repercussions.

My final query is ... I wonder to what extend Barak Obama really more closely shares your sentiments, or mine?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 30, 2008, 03:56:52 pm
If Israel vanished tomorrow, nothing would change vis a vis Bin Laden's gang. He is insane and so are his people.

Your description of the Israeli participation in the peace process is predictably one-sided (therefore untrue even though everything you said is a fact. If you only tell half, you're not telling. A half truth is just a lie in better clothes.) just as your description of Israeli social dynamics is predictably rosy but, again, far short of the facts.

Personally, I don't care what Mr. Obama's opinion of Israel, the PA or Hamas is. They are irrelevant to every aspect of my life outside this conversation and the money their ridiculous squabble costs my country every year. I hope our future President is as ruthless an advocate of American interests as Israel has been of its.

That doesn't include rubber stamping the desires of any nation, Israel included.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 30, 2008, 05:28:59 pm
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia  :P).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...???   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)

I know you're being humorous here Mike but your getting dangerously close to "slippery slope" territory here. Speech against Israel doesn't equal Blood Libel.:)

As usual, context is everything.

If the main thrust of Rev. Wright's sermons in 20 years of preaching were the Middle East and its environs in the present day, he'd of bored his congregation out the door ages ago.

I'm fairly certain Wright's views on Israel and its policies didn't come up all that often. If you don't speak on what is actually relevent to your congregation you won't have one for long. On close inspection of those infamous Youtube segments you'll note that most of the congregation is just politely sitting and listening with no particular interest.

Wright spoke out in opposition to what he saw as a wave of hypocrisy coming from 9/11. As a practical matter it probaby doesn't come up all that often. And again, as  has been noted repeatedly, this guy wasn't going to be advising Obama on foreign policy so the idea that Obama's staff needed to vet Obama's Pastor's personal politics is bizarre.

Especially in light of the fact that in any honest discussion of the matter many of Wright's views are not uncommon in the Black Community and should come as a shock to no-one. 
   

But Vic, the church went way beyond "speech against Israel" fer goodness sake.  It approvingly published a rant in the Pastor's Corner by a nutjob who claims that Israel was developing a "Ethnic Bomb" to kill only Blacks and Arabs.  Nevermind that such a bomb would kill a significant segment of the Israeli Jewish Population (who are either Black or from Arab countries).  Oh brother ...!!!  While I was kidding, such a charge does indeed come perilously close to the blood libel, in that it is an absolutely insane allegation fueled by absolute bigotry.

I'm sure you are right that most of the Pastor's speeches and written work did not pertain to Israel and the Middle East, but it is also fair to say (from what I've heard) that he was not inactive in that arena either.  Barak Obama is a savvy guy.  Anyone who had taken Political Science I would realize that the (radical) views of a man a candidate characterizes as his "spiritual mentor" would eventually be raised and become the subject of public scrutiny.  By both the candidate's opponents and by those who are just trying to get a real picture of who the candidate really is.

The fact that some of the extremist views expressed by Wright might indeed be shared by some segment of the Black Community suggests to me only one thing ... that better communication is needed, to foster mutual understanding.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Sam Wilson on March 30, 2008, 06:08:45 pm
mike, what up man.  email me sometime.  (sorry to interrupt the debate)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Lion on March 30, 2008, 06:48:35 pm
*sits in recliner*

*eats popcorn*

Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on March 30, 2008, 07:37:17 pm
thank you Curtis. I have a question though, if the planet does become uninhabitable wouldn't that be the same as destroyed?

I think that is the Curtis bizarre sense of humor ...   ;)
Bizarre, Michael? Well, maybe a little...  ;)

karaszero, you're welcome. To answer your question, yes, that would be the same. Bu what I said was "uninhabitable for homo sapiens and many other species. Others (species) would fill the void." In other words, we can probably kill ourselves if we continue to work at it, but I believe life on the planet would continue. It is an experiment that I would just as soon forgo.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 31, 2008, 05:49:29 am
The incendiary rationale which condemns jeremiah wright/obama as anti-semitic,unpatriotic, and morally corrupt, ironically lacks the ability to see any fault with Israel ( I know this isn't a news flash ) Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Israel had different business interests with the Apartied South African Govt: arms sales was mentioned but we didn't include the diamond trade so I was wondering? a people who are known the world over as being Gods chosen people should ALWAYS carry themselves in a way that is deserving of that honor shouldn't they? Their actions/behavior should ALWAYS inspire others to show resilience to adversity, have a moral compass that is above suspicion and make the whole world stand up and applaud them shouldn't such a people have all of these things and more? shouldn't they? I remember in college having a debate of the accuracy of reports that the jews owned at least 5% of the slave ships during chattel slavery. For me if this is true, then what does that say about a people who profitted from the suffering of men/women/children.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Wise Son on March 31, 2008, 06:19:50 am
I'm not saying what Colin Powell did was right. I'm saying that I wouldn't want to judge him.
Oh go on, he didn't just follow Bush, he also told bare-faced lies to the UN in order to drum up support for the war, I think we can all judge him at least for that, even if it's just to decide whether he's a coward or a liar.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 31, 2008, 08:05:44 am
The incendiary rationale which condemns Jeremiah wright/obama as anti-semitic,unpatriotic, and morally corrupt, ironically lacks the ability to see any fault with Israel ( I know this isn't a news flash ) Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Israel had different business interests with the Apartied South African Govt: arms sales was mentioned but we didn't include the diamond trade so I was wondering? a people who are known the world over as being Gods chosen people should ALWAYS carry themselves in a way that is deserving of that honor shouldn't they? Their actions/behavior should ALWAYS inspire others to show resilience to adversity, have a moral compass that is above suspicion and make the whole world stand up and applaud them shouldn't such a people have all of these things and more? shouldn't they? I remember in college having a debate of the accuracy of reports that the jews owned at least 5% of the slave ships during chattel slavery. For me if this is true, then what does that say about a people who profitted from the suffering of men/women/children.

Already addressed the South Africa thing in my long post above.  Going to your other point: Five percent participation in the slave trade (even if true) taints "a People" -- c'mon.  By the same token, by that line of reasoning, all Africans are responsible for the slave trade (since many of the slaves, perhaps most, were sold by other Africans).  So what does that say about "a People" who would do such a thing.  Or you might as well taint all Muslims, since some part of the slave trade, what percent I'm not sure but in Africa it would have to be higher than 5%, was a Muslim business. What does that say about "a People" that would do such a thing? Let me make myself clear.  I'm not advocating this kind of generalization.  The truth is that in the 17th 18th and 19th Centuries, most Jews, Muslims, Africans, were just poor folk just trying to make ends meet.  So really ... what is this stuff?  How is it in any way relevant to today? 

Fast forwarding to the present.  Yep.  I have no love for Jew-haters in 2008.  Nor for those who support the suicide bombings and the like by fanatics dedicated to an tyrannical hateful genocidal agenda.  And yes, I've no love for those who knowingly disseminate propaganda in the United States to support this hateful agenda.

My purpose for starting this thread was to express my outrage that Pastor Wright would, in effect, endorse the Hamas leadership as expressing a "fresh view."  I provided you with all kinds of quotes that accurately convey what that "fresh view" really is.  Then it came to my attention that the good Reverend also disseminated crap about the Zionists making an "ethnic bomb" to kill Blacks and Arabs.  This too is outrageous.

My basic point, vis a vis Obama, is that his Pastor's statements, and Obama's less time timely denunciations, may have an adverse impact on the percentage of the American Jewish support that he'll get in the general election.  And this is from a segment of the population, mostly liberal and Democratic, that would normally be one of his strongest bases of support.  Just an observation.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 31, 2008, 08:45:43 am
You may be right. It is entirely possible that many Jewish Americans will decide not to vote for Obama based upon the actions or perceived actions of his former pastor. That' their right and it's fine. People vote or don't vote for all sorts of reasons.

But, as I said earlier, that group will not be 100% of the Jewish American population and, even if it were, there aren't enough jews in the US for their votes to sway things one way or the other. What is it, like 2% scattered throughout the union and across both parties? (less because we're only counting adults and only adults who vote and only voting adults who think Wright matters. That number is too low for anyone to care about.)

Politics is math. It's either the math of money or the math of human numbers. In both instances, Obama is proof against pretty much every special interest in the country. The majority of democrats want him. He's raising crazy amounts of money via the web and, so far he hasn't fallen into any of the traps the media wants him to.

I'm guessing the man we're discussing is the next president of the US.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Wise Son on March 31, 2008, 09:02:52 am
Mike, I do think that Pastor Wright may well be guilty of mistaking Hamas for the Palestinian people. From what I've seen of reports coming from Palestine, the Palestinians are no fans of Israel, but don't have the same kind of fundamentalist, anti-semitic bloodlust that comes through in Hamas's speeches (let alone their actions, but the terrorism vs. ANC-style militancy debate has already been entered into here, and it's not my main point). I can see that Wright's intention may have been to give voice to the Palestinian people, in a way that they don't often have an opportunity for, and Hamas are, after all, the democratically-elected representatives of the Palestinians.

However, as we've talked about before, the election of Hamas wasn't so much an endorsement of their extremism by the Palestinians, but a rejection of previous corrupt Palestinian authorities, and gratitude at the benevolent work Hamas does within Palestine. I don't think that most Palestinian civilians want to push Israel into the sea, they just want their everyday lives to get better.

Wright's giving a platform to these people does strike me as bad judgement, but not so much of anti-semitism. Knowing what we do of the man, it seems more likely that this is a good-intentioned, but poorly informed act. Wright should have sought out someone who was more interested in putting across the views of ordinary Palestinians (who no one has any real quarrel with), but seems to have ended up giving it to people more interested in their own agendas. As you've said yourself, there is a need for people to be more informed on what's going on in the area if they're going to debate it, and there's a lot of stuff that is quite hard to follow if you've only just been given the typically shallow explanations offered by the media.

From what has been said of Wright beyond the current media storm, which really does seem to be trying to box him into their narrative of 'Obama's preacher is a bigot, maybe he is too', he actually seems the kind of man to respond well to approaches from thoughtful members of the Jewish community (like your good self), who want to genuinely increase understanding of the whole issue, rather than necessarily boosting the interests of one party.

Anyway, that's just a thought.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 31, 2008, 10:36:31 am
The relevance is that YOU don't know Wright from a can of PAINT! yet you have the audacity to compare him to Farrakhan what gives you the privaledge of defining who that man is while at the same time minimalize the wrong behavior/actions/contributions Israel has made towards sufferering in this world. You then bring up jesse jacksons Hymietown remark that was made HOW long ago? and now you question the relevance of inserting old news/information into this discussion? If you want to judge people then prepare to be judged and don't start tossing around the word anti-semitic at the drop of a hat. If the greed Israel showed in owning 5% of slave ships is true, then likewise it was greed that Israel showed in dealing arms to S. Africa, as far as the diamond let me be correct here Blood Diamond trade would you consider that Good or Bad judgement or the cost of doing business? Chattel slavery didn't benefit ANY AFRICAN if they weren't taken initially then they sure as hell left eventually so whoever sold out their countrymen didn't have anyplace to hide they only postponed the inevitable. Slavery only benefitted white skinned people. Finally mike, my grandmother/her mother/siblings had to flee S. Carolina as a child because the Klan lynched her father in the street hung him up like he was a damn pinata! His crime? he was thought to be an uppity N***a because he said a white man was wrong?! If I put everything in Black and White (no pun) like you, then I would despise anyone with white skin for that direct assault on my family. Get off your high horse mike
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on March 31, 2008, 11:16:03 am
Mike, you have made the point over and over again of why you started this thread believe me we get it; you wanted to B***h and moan about two men (you don't know) who didn't pass the love Israel test, so you tossed ole jesse and farrakhan in (for good measure) to make your points. You definately are smart enough to know that these assumptions of yours wouldn't go unchallenged, but you probably didn't think of the S**t storm you would cause by making those absurd judgements. Your response to Israels' business with S. Africa was weak. First you say it is a Flashback to the 80s,then you say " It is troubling I agree, however, Israel did reverse it's course in it's relationship to that regime". So let me get this straight you were disgusted, literally sick to your stomach that Obama could be linked to someone as despicable as Rev Wright, who in turn was just as despicable as Farrakhan, who last but not least  reminded you of jesse. The last relevant point in your defense of Israel was that they were not the only ones who had business dealings with S. Africa (an attempt to minimize Israels negative actions) I want to know why didn't the thought of Israel in bed with apartheid S. Africa make you pop your cookies? Nothing obama could say would change your mind about him and you held him to a higher standard than you yourself have
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 31, 2008, 07:03:11 pm
Karaszero, please.  I don't want to get into some kind of personal dispute with you or with anyone on this forum.  They too quickly turn into a "you said this" or "you think that" sort of debate. I'm not interested in talking about myself or about any other person here. I concluded some time ago that getting into acrimonious debates on message boards is a waste of time and energy.  Look, your a good guy.  I know you have strongly held views ... and that on some major issues we disagree. 

The Barak Obama Presidential bid is interesting because, as some suggest, Obama may just be the next President of the United States.  The extent that his Presidency may impact issues important to Jews, and the degree of American Jewish support for Obama, is also interesting.  I would think even to some strong Obama supporters.

Notwithstanding my comments on this thread, there is no evidence yet of a major Jewish defection from Barak Obama.  In a Gallop poll conducted between March 1st  and March 22nd, Jewish Democratic voters only show a slight preference for Hillary Clinton (48%) over Barack Obama (43%) for the party's 2008 presidential nomination. The five-point Clinton advantage is within the margin of error for this sample of Jewish Democrats.  The following interesting article from Gallop outlines the support for Obama and Clinton by various religious groups:

Clinton, Obama Closely Matched Among Jewish Democrats
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105595/Clinton-Obama-Closely-Matched-Among-Jewish-Democrats.aspx

However, news of the Trinity Church’s dissemination of the pro-Hamas piece came out a couple of days before March 22nd, and Obama repudiated it on the 23rd.  Also, only later did the news come out of the additional piece in the Pastor’s Corner alleging that the Israelis were making an ethnic bomb to kill Blacks and Arabs.  So this poll does not really measure whether either of these revelations have had any impact on Jewish support for Obama.

Slowly this issue is hitting the Mainstream Media.  This time, in honor of Wise Son, I’ll share a March 28th article from the Times of London that touches on the subject:

Rev Jeremiah Wright lands Barack Obama in trouble again
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3636128.ece

Much earlier on this thread someone posted that the Anti-Defamation League had given a pass to Obama’s Trinity Church and his (now “former”) Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  However, in commenting on Obama’s “race speech” what the head of the ADL actually said was that Obama was “excusing and rationalizing bigotry.”

Got this info from the following article, which doesn’t really raise anything we’ve not already discussed.  Just thought I would set the record straight on the position of the ADL.

Jerusalem Post
Mar 29, 2008 22:24 | Updated Mar 30, 2008 10:19
View From America: Don't blame me, I just pray here!
By JONATHAN TOBIN http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632361818&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


edited to correct small typo
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Redjack on March 31, 2008, 07:29:11 pm
i think the segregation of jews from the mass of white people is artificial. It elevates issues that have nothing to do with the real meat of the problems addressing the nation to positions they don't deserve to occupy.

I'm surprised there aren't more Katrina questions and, tangentially, more "interest" in the fate of the displaced from that region which gets no ink at all.

Oh. Wait.

Turns out I'm not surprised.


Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 31, 2008, 07:31:44 pm
i think the segregation of jews from the mass of white people is artificial.

Hahaha, that's because you're not Jewish, Redjack!!!   ;D
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 31, 2008, 07:42:10 pm
From what has been said of Wright beyond the current media storm, which really does seem to be trying to box him into their narrative of 'Obama's preacher is a bigot, maybe he is too', he actually seems the kind of man to respond well to approaches from thoughtful members of the Jewish community (like your good self), who want to genuinely increase understanding of the whole issue, rather than necessarily boosting the interests of one party.
Anyway, that's just a thought.

Interesting thought.  Doesn't make me feel a great deal better, but it is an interesting thought.  As a general rule it is better to judge others favorably.  Certainly on a personal level.  When it comes to politics, it gets a little more complicated.  Because if there is even a chance that you are wrong ...   :-\
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: moor on March 31, 2008, 10:04:46 pm
Anybody ever thought of asking Wright what he meant?


...I'm just sayin'....


 :-[
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on March 31, 2008, 10:51:06 pm
One could ask Wright, a valid point.  Though based on the content of some of his speeches that have been made public, one can pretty reasonably surmise what his response would be.  Though in fairness, it would be interesting to hear some followup from Wright on these issues.  At this point, however, query whether the Obama campaign really wants Wright to have center stage in the Media.

This whole thing could of course play out in a way that would allow Barak Obama to ride above these rough waters.  We are still far enough before the November election that it may be the case that "Pastor Wright" will be "old news" by November, with public interest in him drained; that whenever the guy's name comes up, there will just be snortling and dismissal of him as an old crank.  That seems to be the strategy of the Obama campaign at this point, in distancing the candidate from the Pastor.  One already sees this reaction among those who are predisposed to vote for Obama, and even among those who are predisposed to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate may be.  If this is the way it plays out, there may not be a significant diminution of the traditional Jewish support for the Democratic candidate.

Only time will tell.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on April 01, 2008, 01:26:56 am
Michael, this is not a personal vendetta against you, but you simply cannot judge people based on soundbytes; objectivity has to be a productive part of any conversation. I do not have an axe to grind, however, I do have a strong desire to see just how far people are willing to go in order to reach an understanding of one another. I do disagree with sinjection in that there is no line that should exist there is injustice all over the world, the country, the city, the block, hell in homes, but in this country the line begins with the native americans
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Wise Son on April 01, 2008, 05:21:01 am
If the greed Israel showed in owning 5% of slave ships is true,
Just to be clear, Israel didn't exist at the time. What was said was that that 5% were owned by people in the Jewish community.
Chattel slavery didn't benefit ANY AFRICAN if they weren't taken initially then they sure as hell left eventually so whoever sold out their countrymen didn't have anyplace to hide they only postponed the inevitable. Slavery only benefitted white skinned people.
Well, there probably were African slave-traders who found themselves on the receiving end unexpectedly, but a lot of the work of capturing slaves was 'sub-contracted' to Africans. Of course, I think the responsibility lies with those creating the demand, especeially with the supply-belt way that they demanded fresh slaves. For a comparison, it's well known that in Nazi Concentration camps, some inmates were given positions of authority over others, but that doesn't make them somehow complicit in what was done there, IMO.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Wise Son on April 01, 2008, 05:29:29 am
However, in commenting on Obama’s “race speech” what the head of the ADL actually said was that Obama was “excusing and rationalizing bigotry.”
That doesn't seem fair, especially as the speech was basically given over the furore over the 'Goddamn America' speech, rather than anything to do with Hamas or the Italians.

I think the speech covered some of the reasons behind bigotry and racial tension, but that's not excusing it, just trying to understand it. Still, this is a comment from the head of the ADL, rather than an official ADL statement, so I don't necessarily take it as their official position.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: karaszero on April 01, 2008, 06:50:48 am
correction duly noted wise, I appreciate it!
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Catch22 on April 01, 2008, 07:05:56 am
However, in commenting on Obama’s “race speech” what the head of the ADL actually said was that Obama was “excusing and rationalizing bigotry.”
That doesn't seem fair, especially as the speech was basically given over the furore over the 'Goddamn America' speech, rather than anything to do with Hamas or the Italians.

I think the speech covered some of the reasons behind bigotry and racial tension, but that's not excusing it, just trying to understand it. Still, this is a comment from the head of the ADL, rather than an official ADL statement, so I don't necessarily take it as their official position.

Exactly, Wise.  Nowhere in that speech did he excuse or rationalize bigotry.  If anything, Obama tried his best to show what the underlying cause of bigotry in this country is...from both sides of the equation.  If the head of the ADL got anything sinister out of that speech, then I sympathize for him. 
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Battle on April 01, 2008, 07:53:30 am
One could ask Wright, a valid point.  Though based on the content of some of his speeches that have been made public, one can pretty reasonably surmise what his response would be.  Though in fairness, it would be interesting to hear some followup from Wright on these issues.  At this point, however, query whether the Obama campaign really wants Wright to have center stage in the Media.

This whole thing could of course play out in a way that would allow Barak Obama to ride above these rough waters.  We are still far enough before the November election that it may be the case that "Pastor Wright" will be "old news" by November, with public interest in him drained; that whenever the guy's name comes up, there will just be snortling and dismissal of him as an old crank.  That seems to be the strategy of the Obama campaign at this point, in distancing the candidate from the Pastor.   One already sees this reaction among those who are predisposed to vote for Obama, and even among those who are predisposed to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate may be.  If this is the way it plays out, there may not be a significant diminution of the traditional Jewish support for the Democratic candidate.

Only time will tell.


The whole debacle that surrounded Pastor Wright (which implicated Mr. Obama) was never an issue to begin with. That's why the strategy of the Obama campaign at this point, in distancing the candidate from the Pastor would be the wise option.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Vic Vega on April 01, 2008, 07:59:17 am
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia  :P).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...???   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)

I know you're being humorous here Mike but your getting dangerously close to "slippery slope" territory here. Speech against Israel doesn't equal Blood Libel.:)

As usual, context is everything.

If the main thrust of Rev. Wright's sermons in 20 years of preaching were the Middle East and its environs in the present day, he'd of bored his congregation out the door ages ago.

I'm fairly certain Wright's views on Israel and its policies didn't come up all that often. If you don't speak on what is actually relevent to your congregation you won't have one for long. On close inspection of those infamous Youtube segments you'll note that most of the congregation is just politely sitting and listening with no particular interest.

Wright spoke out in opposition to what he saw as a wave of hypocrisy coming from 9/11. As a practical matter it probaby doesn't come up all that often. And again, as has been noted repeatedly, this guy wasn't going to be advising Obama on foreign policy so the idea that Obama's staff needed to vet Obama's Pastor's personal politics is bizarre.

Especially in light of the fact that in any honest discussion of the matter many of Wright's views are not uncommon in the Black Community and should come as a shock to no-one. 
   

But Vic, the church went way beyond "speech against Israel" fer goodness sake.  It approvingly published a rant in the Pastor's Corner by a nutjob who claims that Israel was developing a "Ethnic Bomb" to kill only Blacks and Arabs.  Nevermind that such a bomb would kill a significant segment of the Israeli Jewish Population (who are either Black or from Arab countries).  Oh brother ...!!!  While I was kidding, such a charge does indeed come perilously close to the blood libel, in that it is an absolutely insane allegation fueled by absolute bigotry.

I'm sure you are right that most of the Pastor's speeches and written work did not pertain to Israel and the Middle East, but it is also fair to say (from what I've heard) that he was not inactive in that arena either.  Barak Obama is a savvy guy.  Anyone who had taken Political Science I would realize that the (radical) views of a man a candidate characterizes as his "spiritual mentor" would eventually be raised and become the subject of public scrutiny.  By both the candidate's opponents and by those who are just trying to get a real picture of who the candidate really is.

The fact that some of the extremist views expressed by Wright might indeed be shared by some segment of the Black Community suggests to me only one thing ... that better communication is needed, to foster mutual understanding.

Obama made the mistake of thinking he would be judged for comments that he actually said such as this:
"One of the reasons why so many of my supporters come from the Jewish community...is that I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct."

As opposed to being judged for the alleged views of his pastor.

As for Wright's views, let me try to put things in perspective: Every day on my way to work(I work in the Harlem area) I pass a building that formerly housed the one of Al Sharpton satellite offices and is now currently the(one of the) headquarters of the Black Israelite sect(don't ask).  I also pass kiosks manned by the New Black Panther Party and various other psuedo-nationalists hawking their wares.

I haven't even mentioned the Black Muslims who have at least one Mosque within walking distance from me.

To be blunt, I couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a brother with ideas far more extreme than Wright's. And if East Harlem is a hotbed of extremist thought, its news to me. ;) I can't imagine the South Side of Chicago being that much different.

That's why I'm mildly surprised that there is any controversy regarding this matter at all. Viewed in the context of the community he serves Wright's hardly alarming. If he IS alarming then...I agree better communication is needed.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 01, 2008, 11:35:08 pm
Chattel slavery didn't benefit ANY AFRICAN if they weren't taken initially then they sure as hell left eventually so whoever sold out their countrymen didn't have anyplace to hide they only postponed the inevitable. Slavery only benefited white skinned people.

Well, there probably were African slave-traders who found themselves on the receiving end unexpectedly, but a lot of the work of capturing slaves was 'sub-contracted' to Africans. Of course, I think the responsibility lies with those creating the demand, especially with the supply-belt way that they demanded fresh slaves. For a comparison, it's well known that in Nazi Concentration camps, some inmates were given positions of authority over others, but that doesn't make them somehow complicit in what was done there, IMO.


In order to avoid a digression and because this topic more relevant to the Black Panther Annual #1 comic book, we are discussing the slavery issue in the "Panther Politics" section of the forum, under the BP Annual #1 discussion.  In case anyone is interested.

Obama made the mistake of thinking he would be judged for comments that he actually said such as this:
"One of the reasons why so many of my supporters come from the Jewish community...is that I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct."

As opposed to being judged for the alleged views of his pastor.


Vic, I have the feeling that we are talking past each other. 

Forget we are talking about Obama for a moment.  For most politicians, wouldn't it be a mistake to just take a politician at his word, instead of looking at the views of his closest associates and advisers to gauge his credibility?  It would only make sense not to "look behind" the candidate if one believed: (1) All politicians are honest; (2) One has specific verifiable information to substantiate that in this instance this particular politician is now honestly conveying his beliefs; or (3) In one's subjective evaluation of his "character" you are sure this politician is speaking the truth.  Reginald Hudlin, for example, has expressed his positive view of Barak Obama's character, and Reginald has confidence in his ability to judge character.  I'm not as confident in my own ability to do so, as I've been duped in the past.

An issue of credibility has arisen in connection with an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under Obama's name during his first bid for elected office in 1996 when he ran for the Illinois State Senate, which liberal/left positions on every issue (including some stances that might alienate the electorate today).  See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html  First it was explained he didn't see it and that a staffer had filled it in, then a copy surfaced with his handwritten notes on it, then the explanation changes to "he didn't see the whole thing" and so on.  I don't care about the questionnaire.  This is just an example of how you can't necessarily take statements by politicians or their campaigns at face value. 

No need to remind anyone here of Hillary Clinton's recent descriptions of her arriving in Bosnia under a hail of bullets in the '90s (disproven by video of her arrival). 

Sometimes politicians don't say what is in their heart of hearts, or even what really happened.  Sometimes they say what they think will get them elected. 

Anyway guys, I think I've said all I can really say on this topic ... I'm already repeating myself.  Each of you will have to judge for yourself whether you believe or question the sincerity and honesty of each candidate for President.  For me, as to Obama, I'm really left with a big ???

As for Wright's views, let me try to put things in perspective: Every day on my way to work(I work in the Harlem area) I pass a building that formerly housed the one of Al Sharpton satellite offices and is now currently the(one of the) headquarters of the Black Israelite sect(don't ask).  I also pass kiosks manned by the New Black Panther Party and various other psuedo-nationalists hawking their wares.
I haven't even mentioned the Black Muslims who have at least one Mosque within walking distance from me.
To be blunt, I couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a brother with ideas far more extreme than Wright's. And if East Harlem is a hotbed of extremist thought, its news to me. ;) I can't imagine the South Side of Chicago being that much different.
That's why I'm mildly surprised that there is any controversy regarding this matter at all. Viewed in the context of the community he serves Wright's hardly alarming. If he IS alarming then...I agree better communication is needed.


Jeepers, I guess not very many people wear yarmulkas in your neighborhood.  :o

... Oh wait, I take it back.  The Black Israelites.   ;)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 02, 2008, 02:52:08 am
michaelintp you never were going to vote for Obama anyway per the 9/11 issue (Aren't you glad I asked you before this Wright story broke!). Yet thanks to Obama's leadership (speech) the scandal has been contained to giving non-Obama supporters something to talk about. (Some of those non-Obamas though like Bay Buchanan and Mike Smerconish have changed their tune a bit since March 18th.)

It is my firm belief that everyone in America while not violent or outrageously unfair, everyone in America is racist...We all want to dance to our own music. Of course everyone here to include you, Jesse Jackson and John Hagee deny that with their last breath but here we are with our repective gods and their representatives:

Your guy says "Wrath of god" with love for strangers.

My guy says "Wrath of god" with love for strangers.

What's so strange about that?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 02, 2008, 07:34:43 am
michaelintp you never were going to vote for Obama anyway per the 9/11 issue (Aren't you glad I asked you before this Wright story broke!).

Agreed.  Sure I'm happy you asked me.  Geepers, anyone who knows me on this forum would have guessed I wasn't voting for Obama because of those issues.  The thing is ... before all this stuff broke, I didn't question his character.  Now I'm more inclined to see him as just another smooth talking politician ... albeit a very effective smooth talker.  I'm the first to admit that maybe I'm wrong.  I don't hold such confidence in the chunk of meat between my ears.  I guess if he became President and through experience I saw that his actions matched his current words, then I would be able to form an informed positive opinion.  Maybe we'll find out.

As to ministers and wrath of G-d, I dunno.  My rabbi talks about bringing the Geula (the Messianic Era) with acts of goodness and loving kindness.

As to "everyone is a racist" ... I don't believe that is true.  But then, like I said, there have been times in the past when I've not been the best judge of character.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 02, 2008, 07:47:37 am
When America learns to deal with the Ghetto (Stole that from you guys...But you know how us guys are ;) ) She will be better prepared to deal with the Mid-East.

Excuse the edit but preachers have been preachin' the "wrath of god" since Noah (Ark, ark as Mork would say).

Do you deny that?

(Again excuse the edit)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: moor on April 02, 2008, 10:37:53 am
Jeepers, I guess not very many people wear yarmulkas in your neighborhood.  :o

... Oh wait, I take it back.  The Black Israelites.   ;)
[/quote]


That line made my day.  Zing!  Thanks, Mike :D


Carry On....
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 02, 2008, 07:37:59 pm
Excuse the edit but preachers have been preachin' the "wrath of god" since Noah (Ark, ark as Mork would say).
Do you deny that?
(Again excuse the edit)

Yeh, well, I think we've suffered enough "wraths of G-d" as it is.  That's why the group I'm most affiliated with focuses on the positive ... of the world-transformative good that can result if we do the right thing.  It is a very "Messianic" sect of Judaism, for sure.  But ya know, given the state of this world, I wouldn't mind a few miracles to turn things around.  Believe me, we need 'em. :)

Oh, and Moor, glad that my little yarmulka joke made your day.  ;D
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 02, 2008, 09:04:32 pm
So "Wrath of God" is common but YOUR group is taking and/or has taken the high road?
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 02, 2008, 11:03:51 pm
So "Wrath of God" is common but YOUR group is taking and/or has taken the high road?

High implies the other is low ... and that implication carries with it all kinds of egotistical implications. I never thought about it that way. It is just more of a hopeful road, I guess. Maybe that's why it appeals to me ... because by my nature I am not.  So by immersing myself in such a system, I strike more of a balance to counteract my natural tendencies. 

That is not to say that terrible things don't happen. We all know they do. And in Christianity, Judaism and Islam there are "End Days" notions. Though there is a respected rabbinic view that WWII was that global conflagration. However, even if one believes that the "War of Gog and Magog" is something prophesized to happen in the future, it is not inevitable. While G-d never retracts a promise for the good (since G-d is not a liar), G-d may withhold threatened punishment if we do teshuvah (repent and do good deeds)(See the story of Jonah and Nineveh).  So better to focus on the positive. The Messianic Era can come in one of two ways - one way is the Messiah coming "before his appointed time" (if we do mitzvahs, good deeds, with a dedicated heart) or, the second way, is "at his appointed time" (the final deadline, though then his coming would be prefaced with all kinds of global hardships). But he will come, because G-d promised that there will be a Geula (a Messianic Era, a time of redemption for the whole of humanity). It is only a matter of how, and when. That's up to us.

Anyway, maybe we should start a theology thread to discuss religious perspectives ... ?  I fear I'm boring everyone to death.  Um ... not that that ever stopped me before, hahahah.  ::)  But somehow this thread doesn't seem to be the place for this kind of discussion.

Edited to clarify a concept - "reward" certainly can be contingent on conduct, but a "promise for the good" is an absolute promise.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 03, 2008, 12:26:23 am
So preachers of ALL faiths use the "wrath of god" but there is a better way?

(PS: Is "g-d" pure? I mean specifically with your " - " spelling.)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 03, 2008, 08:13:11 am
So preachers of ALL faiths use the "wrath of god" but there is a better way?

(PS: Is "g-d" pure? I mean specifically with your " - " spelling.)

Well, the threat of Divine punishment can be used to modify people's behavior, to make them behave better, avoid sinful conduct, and even do good deeds. The prospect of Divine reward (in this world or in the World to Come) can also induce a person to do the right thing.  However, to a large degree one tends to be "self-focused" when one thinks in terms of personal reward and punishment.  In contrast, you can try to do the right thing not not so much to benefit yourself but to benefit vast numbers of people, because our acts can have Divine consequences far beyond ourselves. Another way to be motivated is out of love for G-d.  Knowing that the Divine commandments are so important to G-d, to avoid wrongful conduct and to do good deeds, you just do them out of love. Avoiding wrongful conduct and doing good deeds out of love for G-d to bring the Moshiach is the ultimate expression of this sentiment, because then you are "other-focused" on benefitting the whole of humanity and your motivation is wholly out of love -- both for your fellow human beings and for G-d.

Speaking in terms of "levels" it is understood that doing mitzvahs (good deeds) out of love is a "higher" level than doing good deeds or avoiding sinful conduct out of fear.  But the doing of the good deeds and the avoiding of doing wrong things, even motivated by fear of punishment or promise of personal reward, still has merit.  Because the deeds are in and of themselves are important.  But yes, the ideal is to act out of love.

As to what is G-d?  G-d is ineffable.  G-d is One. G-d is not comprised of component parts, as that would imply division. No human being can conceptualize G-d.  That is why I use the hyphen.  The Hebrew four-letter spelling of G-d's name, the Tetragrammaton, is never pronounced when one reads Hebrew.  [That word is similar to the first name of the group the J______ Witnesses].  Instead when that word appears we pronounce the word "Hashem" - which translated means "The Name."   While when thinking about G-d we think it terms of human attributes, because our minds are limited, and we think and write in the "language of man" we understand that such concepts are more to help us get along, to foster right conduct. 

So in answer to your question - preaching "God's wrath" can induce people to obey God's will.  But there is a more positive way.  To motivate people to do the right thing out of love.  To give examples in your sermons of men and women who have done so, who have had to undergo personal or collective challenges to do so, to focus on the collective good that awaits humanity, and to take personal responsibility for bringing that about.  Through good needs and acts of loving kindness.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe would say, "Just one more Mitzvah can bring Moshiach now!"  Just one more good deed can tip the scale for the good.

So yes, I guess I would say ... that that is a better way.  But hey, whatever works to get people to do good deeds is also good.  Because in reality most of us are not on such a high level that we are always motivated out of altruistic love.  Though that is the ideal.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 03, 2008, 08:21:18 am
Ok, I'll take your answer to be that ALL faiths do the "Wrath of God" thing but there is a better way to the land of "G-D".

That kinda rhymes with god damn.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: michaelintp on April 03, 2008, 08:53:37 am
Ok, I'll take your answer to be that ALL faiths do the "Wrath of God" thing but there is a better way to the land of "G-D".
That kinda rhymes with god damn.

Hard for me to become motivated by "G-d Damn."  For me personally that does not elicit the motivation to do good.  It would just make me angry and depressed.  For me personally, I would rather be motivated to do good to help others, and for my rabbi to share stories of men and women who were dedicated to doing so, dedicated to transforming the world ... even in the face of terrible hardships, persecution, and so on.  And stories of miracles that do take place in our individual lives and in the lives of others.

Sheeeesh, to get the feeling of "G-d damn" all I need to do is turn on the nightly news.  I don't need that.

I suppose it may work for others though.  Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 03, 2008, 08:59:18 am
I merely pointed out that "G-D" has a certain relationship to God Damn. In fact some people use them interchangeably.

Beyond that we agree that ALL faiths use "wrath of god" to deliver the flock to their perceived state of "G-D"
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on April 04, 2008, 07:44:07 am
I do like Candorville:

(http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/images/candorville2008036675404.gif)
Title: Re: Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!
Post by: Tanksleyd on April 04, 2008, 07:48:54 am
Curtis again with the quote of the week...Awesome!
Title: Catholic Priest defends Wright over controversy
Post by: Hypestyle on April 04, 2008, 09:09:47 am
Fox News interviews Rev. Michal Pfleger on the ongoing controversy--

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID=