VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
Subject: Re: Jesus?


Author:
Mark7
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 00:09:09 06/27/02 Thu
In reply to: JeffF 's message, "Jesus?" on 07:59:23 06/26/02 Wed
 Pilat from Pont wanted to execute Barnabas, the Zealot, because Barnabas was a more immediate threat to Roman authority (which was the only thing Romans cared about together with collecting taxes).

It was the priests of the temple who insisted on Jesus' execution, because Jesus interfered with the money changing and the business that was conducted in the temple.

Pilat repeatedly "washed his hands" of the blood of Jesus. This reference has been interpreted by most Biblical scholars to mean that the guilt associated with the Jesus execution was to be the responsibility of those asking for the execution (the Priest Temples).

It's the same catch 22 any war criminal faces - who is the guilty for the crime? The soldier who kills at order, or the general who gives the order?

In case of Sharon, it is the soldier in the Christian militia who kills women and children in a Muslim refugee camp. In case of Arafat, it is Arafat, even when for acts committed while he was cut off and without any security means.

But these are all semantics. The Bible can and will be interpreted in any way the reader wants to interpret it. It is a life story so broad, that it offers support for any position, including genocide (all those Moabites and Amonites). I'm just mentioning it, because unlike many other, I did read the Bible from one end to the other, and I also am one of the few who read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", Lenin's thesis and Keynes theory. I guess that's what guys do at night when they don't get laid.

I do agree with you about Clinton's answer to an investigation. Mitterand of France told reporters just what you and I wish Clinton would have told Ken Starr (back off buster!).

But Clinton was raised Southern Babtist, which means he has a mixture of guilt for sex plus a belief that sex is the root of all evil.

I also agree about Bush not having a plan. Planning is not his strong point. Bush's strong point is to play the role of the Clint Eastwood in foreign policy. MOst of our compatriots imagine that foreign policy is conducted in the manner in wich Eastwood deals with "punks" in Dirty Harry.

Problem is, Punks like Sharon are stronger than Bush, and Punks like Osama and Arafat prove to be smarter than Bush (not trying to say that Arafat or Osama are smart).

So the conclusion is we, the American People lose.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Smarts


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 07:41:26 06/27/02 Thu
Arafat is smart in a certain way. He knows how to survive. It's amazing how many times he's been able to do that -survive and stay in power. You say that an Israeli leader who makes peace is most likely to be assasinated by his own side. That may be true, but Arafat too is always most in danger from his own side - from those like Hamas, or Islamic Jihad or states like Iraq, who don't think he should be talking at all. The problem is when your main goal is survival, you can't show brave leadership.

As for Clinton, the Rhodes Scholar, he is intelligent in a way, but with no sense, and few principles. Monica bothers me far less than Hilary's secret Healthcare task force, filegate, the unecessary deaths at Waco and a number of other more important scandals. I think the basic problem is that Arkansas, good old buddy system of politics that it was was used to corruption and people looking the other way. Again, I say a lack of Washington experience hurt Clinton. He thought it would work the way it worked when you were Governor and it doesn't.

As for Bush, what's annoying is his indifference to what he doesn't know. To be a good President, you have to be willing to study the world and the issues involved and the same goes for domestic issues. There are too many times when the President lets his advisors tell him what to think about an issue. I have no idea whether I would vote for him for reelection, until I see what the other choice will be.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Jesus?


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 23:38:34 06/27/02 Thu
I repeat. I think the problem with peacemaker being killed by their own is not a Jewish problem. It is a religious fundamentalist problem.

Pacifists were killed in cold blood in the US in the 60s by people claiming to be "Christians".

Fundamentalists of all religions, Born Agains, Muslims and Jewish are all more likely to kill peacemakers among their ranks in the name of God.

As for George W. Bush, there is one thing far more dangerous than his stupidity in combination with his arrogance.

The worst thing about George W. Bush is that he truly hates democracy and all things democratic. He was elected by a minority proclaimed King George 2nd by the Supreme Court (last time a George 2 rulled America we had the Boston tea party).

Most of his acts as president have to do with distroying equal protection under the law. He is trying to establish state religion (this idiotic mixture of bad Judaism and fake Christianity called Evangelism that is neither old testament nor New testament).

He tries now to establish this KGB style security system called the "HOmeland" security with powers to intrude into anybody's life and distroy it at the ruler command.

The Homeland security office will add no security, but will bring back the 50s wich hunts for reds. Only international justice for the common man can add justice in the present world.

Bush had a historic opportunity to define the terrorist from the freedom fighter. But he refused. He prefered to take the coward's choice - He declared all his personal undesirables as terrorists, thus placing all Americans in danger and alienating most of the civilized world.

To this day, Bush will not have the courage to give us an objective definition of who is a terrorist, a definition that would describe the terrorist in uniform as well as the one without a uniform.

We don't know how the Kosovo liberation Army is different than the Palestinian Liberation Army, or how the Chechen and Kashmir resistance is different than the Palestinian resistance or the Colombian leftist guerrilla.

We don't know why we aid the Columbian right wing paramilitaries in terrorising peasants, and we stumble on the Russian military campain in Chechnia or the Kashmir conflict depending on the daily CIA confusion of the day.

G.W.Bush has a born disdain for democracy, a deep hate and disdain for democratic values that is shared by all those born in priviledge.

He will alter America forever in favor of America's worst instincts: Greed, Racism and Religious Intolerance.

The administration Bush presides over is the imbodiment of these three bad American instincts (look at Cheney & Co).

Give the bastard and his Christian Coalition friends a second term and he'll Talibanize America in a Born Again Jimmy Swaggart fashion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Can't tell


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:05:44 06/28/02 Fri
Do you like the President? LOL
As to whether he will be reelected, that's in large part up to what alternative the Democrats provide.

The Boston Tea Party was against George III, not the second.

I repeat - a terrorist is somebody who INTENTIONALLY attacks civilians for political gain.

We aid Columbia because our drug was has little common sense to it and this is part of the drug war.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: International Terrorists


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 16:46:03 06/29/02 Sat
You are right about George 3. God save us of another George 3. Thank God baby Bush has only daughters and Americans don't elect women to the highest office.

I understand your definition for International terrorists. I don't believe this is the official Bush stance on the issue, hoever:

Would the Christian militias and their leader, Ariel Sharon terrorists for killing women and children in Sabra and Chatilla?

Or the definition of terrorist does not apply to Sharon?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: International Terrorists


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 09:51:16 06/30/02 Sun
There is no doubt in my mind that the massacres in the Lebanon camps were deliberate killings of the civilians there, which makes them terrorist acts, so that Hadad and others who were responsible would by my definiton be terrorists.
As for Sharon, if he was involved, than under the definition, it would be a criminal act. I don't think a distinction can be made between ordinary people involved and top ranking people. Nuremberg made that clear, even if they were inconsistent in the actual verdicts. I'm aware of the Belgium indictment against Sharon, but as I've stated here before, I'm also aware that Sharon won his libel case against Time Magazine which had said he was involved. So far, it remians unproven. If it ever does prove to be a fact, I have no problem saying in that case he should be arrested. I'm not going to defend Sabra and Chattilla. It's not defensible. Nor am I going to pretend there have never been Jewish terrorists. That would be silly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: East Germany Case


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 22:53:13 07/02/02 Tue
In 1991 or so, there was a highly publicized case about 4 East German border guards who shot and killed fellow East Germans trying to escape communism by going over the Berlin wall.

The border guards were found guilty and charged to some 5 or 6 years of prison, although it was clear they were acting under orders and they were draftees with no choice with respect to their military service.

Having been both an East European draftee, and someone who escaped communism in a similar fashion, I found this as one of the greatest travestee of justice.

While these men were going to jail for things they were forced in doing at the age of 19 or 20, the bastard Erik Honeker was allowed to flee to Chile (the land of Pinochet!!!!! go figure) and die peacefully.

I guess communist dictator and capitalist dictator can get along very well thank you, as long as they murder their opposition.

Back to Israel - I see confiscation and demolition of Palestinian homes as an act of terrorism. Also terrorism is to shoot at ambulances who try to help the wonded on a battlefield. The Israeli state seems to be guilty as hell, and Bush hasn't bombed Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

ON the contrary, we gave them more weapons and "unconditional support" so they can do more of the same in the name of the "war on terror".

Very hypocritical in my oppinion - but also very fundamentalist conservative worthy of a Bush adminisration.
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.