Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!

[sinjection]

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.

[Redjack]

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.

[michaelintp]

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."

[michaelintp]

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.   

[karaszero]

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.

[sinjection]

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.

[sinjection]

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.

[sinjection]

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 

[Redjack]

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.

[Curtis Metcalf]

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. 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.

[Mastrmynd]

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

[sinjection]

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!

 

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 

[Redjack]

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.

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.

[sinjection]

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.

[michaelintp]

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.