I am beyond sick of the morally idiotic and intellectually disgraceful charge that Israel is somehow in the wrong in its fight to defend itself and its people against a DELCARED TERRORIST ENTITTY.
Israel is being accused being “disproportionate.” Why? Because Hamas wants its own people murdered and has found a way – by firing thousands of rockets at Israel, by using concrete that Israel gave Hamas to build homes to instead build dozens of tunnels located directly underneath hospitals, schools, mosques and crowded apartment buildings, by using their own people as human shields, by demanding that civilians sacrifice themselves and become martyrs when Israel warns them that an attack is coming while the terrorists who give the orders run away – to secure the deaths of their own people so they can blame Israel in their propaganda.
Here is what Israel would do if they were to actually BE “proportional” in their war with Muslim jihadist Hamas:
1) Israel would amend it’s constitution to include the following:
‘Palestine will exist and will continue to exist until Israel will obliterate it.’
That would of course be “proportional to the Hamas Charter which says in its preamble:
‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’
If Israel were “proportional” they would also have the equivalent of this part of Hamas’ charter –
‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)
– and so renounce any and all attempt at peace and give themselves the right to violate any true or peace accord whenever they wanted.
Israel would amend its constitution to include something “proportional” to what Hamas says in its charter:
‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)
So let’s reword that into a “proportional” statement that would become official Israeli policy in a “proportional” Israel:
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Jews fight Muslims and kill them. Then, the Muslims will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Jew, there is a Muslim hiding behind me, come and kill him.”
If Israel truly sought “proportionality,” they would add racism to the mixture by labeling Muslims as the descendants of apes and pigs. and they would teach that dogma to every single Israeli school child the way the Palestinians indoctrinate every Muslim school child in order to guarantee that the hatred will last until every single Muslim on earth is dead.
THAT’S what a “proportional” Israel would actually look like.
That’s how EVIL the United Nations is today. fwiw.
If you want a “proportional” Israel, you United Nations demoniac, then you demand that Israel amend their constitution to call for the murder of every single Muslim the way Hamas has done to Jews in its charter. Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up and realize that you are a sick, twisted, evil, diseased soul that belongs to the devil for your calls for “proportionality.”
2) A proportional Israel would have fired over 3,000 rockets into Palestinian areas and indiscriminately killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And if Hamas hadn’t spent billions of dollars trying to defend their citizens against Israeli rocket attacks the way Israel spent billions defending themselves against Palestinian rocket attacks, that would just be too damn bad, would it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if a “proportional” Israel would have killed a million Palestinians by now.
If you truly demand a “proportional” Israel and you are NOT a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, then you have called for Israel to send at least 3,000 rockets into Palestinian civilian-populated areas.
But you ARE a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, aren’t you, United Nations???
3) A “proportional” Israel would use humanitarian aid sites such as Temples, schools and hospitals to locate weapons and dig tunnels with which they could enter Palestinian territory and murder and kidnap Palestinians. Because that would be the obviously “proportional” thing for Israel to do, wouldn’t it??? At least unless you are so completely demon-possessed you don’t have a freaking clue what the real world actually looks like, it would be.
I pointed out in a recent article how the fact that the world condemns Israel for doing what it absolutely MUST against the most wicked terrorist entity on earth proves that there is a personal devil. I said that because God created men and women in His own image and He simply did not make us to be this stupid, this blind and this depraved to be so incapable of so much as a shred of moral intelligence.
There has to be a Satan and an army of demons to blind wicked fools such that they cannot see what is OBVIOUS to any soul created by God. Humanity simply cannot be this STUPID and EVIL on their own.
Satan is alive and well, and the United Nations and the existence of liberals proves it.
Tags: casualties, civilians, disproportional, disproportionality, disproportionate, Hamas, Hamas Charter, indoctrinating, indoctrination, Israel, Palestinian, proportional, schools, terrorist, UNRA
Start Thinking Right 
August 8, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Here is my reply to your earlier comment on the separation of church and state post (which seems not to “take” there). As it is already long and offers more than enough for you to chew on, I’ll not lengthen it to address your most recent comment.
Wow! You surprised me with that first point. Not often will one find someone who, when confronted with a string of citations to a sampling of the many Supreme Court cases holding that separation of church and state is a fundamental constitutional principle, nonetheless will insist (seemingly without embarrassment) that a statement that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held just that “WASN’T accurate” (shouting so in all caps no less). You even bandy about the term “lie.”
It appears perhaps that your error is not one of analysis, but rather of terminology. You seem to suppose that if the Supreme Court once held that our nation is Christian (which, as I explained earlier, it did not) and later held many times that the Constitution separates church and state that it is “inaccurate” to say that the Court “repeatedly held” that the Constitution separates church and state. Is that roughly your meaning? I’ll just say that, at least as I understand the words (and I think the dictionaries will back me up in this), if the Court has held something many times, it has “repeatedly held” that something—and that remains an accurate statement even if the Court also has said some other things that may be regarded by some, e.g., you, as inconsistent with those repeated holdings. In that case, a rational discussion starts with recognition (not denial) of the fact the Court has repeatedly held as it has and then proceeds with arguments about whether the Court’s other statements somehow contradict, overrule, etc., its repeated holdings.
While you don’t explain why, you seem to attribute some significance to the architectural treatment of the Supreme Court building. It may bear on your thinking, therefore, to know that your stated understanding, i.e., that “imagery of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity AND NOTHING ELSE decorat[es] that building,” is mistaken. While imagery of certain aspects the Bible and Judeo-Christianity pertaining to law does indeed appear, so also does imagery of other legal and philosophical influences, and moreover Christianity is not accorded any special prominence. Also, much of the imagery sometimes mistaken as religious is actually secular. All in all, review of the architectural details of the building reveals an effort to focus on concepts of law and justice and address religion only insofar as pertinent to those concepts, and avoiding unrelated displays about religion in general or any particular religion. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp http://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-know
You also apparently would make much of the Constitution’s date, which, in keeping with conventions of the time, is keyed to the Christian calendar, without actually offering any explanation why this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant. You emphatically declare that the term “our Lord” in the date refers to none other than Jesus Christ, seemingly expecting some argument to the contrary. No argument about that. The question is: So what? As I said at the outset, the founders drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing SUBSTANTIVE of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment and no-religious-test clause. Indeed, that very aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity. Imagine their surprise at all you would now make of the Constitution’s date.
You say that you “mock” me for observing that the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God. Yet you offer no argument or explanation, only your unspoken supposition that the references simply must refer to the Christian God you evidently have in mind. I, though, am hardly the only one to recognize that the Declaration’s terms are susceptible of meanings other than the one you have in mind. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304211804577504923449570972 http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2009/12/god-and-declaration-of-independence.html The founders astutely chose words that could mean different things to different people–that could fit with the thinking of Christians, Unitarians, deists, and others–so they could achieve political consensus.
You further “mock” me for explaining that meaning drawn from the Declaration cannot simply be infused into the Constitution, yet again offer no argument against my explanation nor any explanation of your own other than your allusion to “THE OBVIOUS” (again with the all caps). You seem to suggest that the Declaration and the Constitution written twelve years later were drafted and adopted by one and the same persons or institution. That, of course, is simply not the case. While the documents plainly are related as a matter of history, the people and institutions that prepared each differed. Of the 56 or so delegates who participated in the Second Continental Congress, convened by the thirteen colonies, that drafted and adopted the Declaration of Independence, seven later participated in the Constitutional Convention, convened by the Confederation Congress, that drafted and adopted the Constitution.
You say that I claimed the Bible doesn’t have all the answers, to what end is not clear. In any event, I said nothing of the sort—and never mentioned the Bible.
Finally, you again say you mock me for noting that separation of church and state does not require one to deny that laws reflect moral principles. I could content myself, as you do, to tell you that it is obvious. You also invite me to discuss the source and foundation of morality (a major philosophical subject indeed), and offer your firm conclusion that it can only be religion. You offer lots of quotations by founders associating morality and religion; that indeed was a commonly expressed belief in their times.
I think perhaps you misunderstand me and misapprehend the separation of church and state. I agree with what I take to be your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion and at odds with the Christian principle that people cannot be coerced to believe but rather must come to God voluntarily. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
August 9, 2014 at 10:45 am
dougindeap,
Okay, this is your last shot, let’s see what you’ve got. Although I immediately notice that you refuse to interact with much of what I say (which kind of makes arguing with you pointless). Anyway, I won’t return the favor and will respond to you point-by-point.
You say:
Just so you know, I’ll be bandying the term “lie” a couple more times, given how massively you misrepresent my arguments in at least a couple of places.
My response is “wow” as well. You clearly live in a freaking hole somewhere and crawl out of it to use a public library computer. Because otherwise you would know by now that the Supreme Court is pretty well discredited these days by both the right AND the damn left. I have to remind other people who DON’T live in holes in the ground that it wasn’t that long ago that a sitting president invited the Supreme Court to excoriate them and literally tell them how terribly WRONG they were in their decision with the Citizens United Case. I recall a stunned Justice Alito mouthing, “That’s not true” as Obama demonized his SCOTUS. Chief Justice John Roberts discredited his own court when he rewrote a horribly bad and unconstitutional law to make what both the Democrats, the law itself and Obama had declared was NOT a tax a “tax.” I can’t pick up my Los Angeles Times without reading one of their continuing hysterical crying jags over the Hobby Lobby case. The left literally lost their minds over it and so viciously denounced the Court it’s unreal. And you are actually so completely IGNORANT that you are “surprised” that somebody would say maybe the Supreme Court could be wrong???
Just in case anybody needs to see just how IDIOTIC your “wow I’m so surprised” garbage is, try this:
So the Damnocrat Party in California actually PASSED a ballot measure to ignore the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, and you come to me with your utterly and appallingly ignorant bewilderment that there may be somebody out there who doesn’t view the Supreme Court as a panel of gods among men.
Either you are incredibly ignorant or else you are dishonestly feigning shock reminiscent of that scene in Casablanca where a man is shocked, SHOCKED that gambling is going on in the casino. I don’t care which.
And you actually wonder why I MOCK you???? You are the POSTER BOY for Romans 1:22 because you profess yourself to be so wise when you are such a FOOL. The only thing wrong with pretty much everything you think or believe is that it stands refuted by history and by reality.
Let me educate others on what this dougindeap chump is doing here: you see, both as a Christian AND as a constitutional historical-grammatical literalist, I have grounds to hold the Supreme Court accountable to a HIGHER standard. As a “separation of church and state” turd, you have no such foundation. Government and the power of government is ALL you have. And if your government acts like a tyrant what higher power do you have to ground your complaint in? Certainly not God, ye who dismiss the founding fathers’ grounds for separation on the basis of rights that God gave man and the king was illegitimately usurping. So all you HAVE is your precious Supreme Court and whatever it decrees ought to be the FINAL WORD to the left. And it is evangelicals and conservatives ALONE who have the right to bitch about terrible SCOTUS decisions. But to be a liberal is to be a shameless hypocrite.
Anyway, I have EVERY right to condemn the Supreme Court when it fails to carry out the Constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. It’s YOU who can only have government and the raw power of the State as your highest possible authority.
You say you won’t “lengthen [your comment] to address your most recent comment.” In that comment, I brought up the FACT that “this nation under God” and ONLY under God was “dedicated to the proposition that all men were CREATED EQUAL.” Which was THE grounds for our abolition of slavery. But I shouldn’t be surprised: because I now find that you are FINE with slavery. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks had no standing in federal court and that slavery was peachy dandy in the Dred Scott decision which was merely ONE of NUMEROUS INFAMOUS DECISIONS in which the SCOTUS was so wrong it is beyond unreal. You think that a Supreme Court ruling is sacrosanct – making you NO friend of Thomas Jefferson who said the EXACT opposite thing.
Again, you won’t deal with it because you can’t, but I cite the words of Thomas Jefferson:
Jefferson PREDICTED this sort of unconstitutional and frankly fascist crap would happen!!! I doubt very much if Jefferson would have been at all surprised that his OWN words – in spite of what he clearly said – would serve as the basis by which the SCOTUS would end up “declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution” and impose a doctrine of “separation of church and state” that they invented.
The simple fact of the matter is this: if the Supreme Court refuses or fails to interpret the Constitution according to the intent provided by the founding fathers, it is an illegitimate body no matter HOW powerful it becomes. If you have the view that you can “do what you think is right and let the law catch up,” as Justice Marshall did, you are a disgrace to everything the Constitution says and you are a the greatest danger to our nation’s liberty.
This separation of church and state crap did not rear its head until 1947. That, coincidentally, was the court that FDR had illegally tried to pack which goes to show you what the left thinks of both the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That court disingenuously dragged out the words of Jefferson, stripped them out of their context, and made a ruling which I demonstrated – and which you could not touch – that defied our founding fathers and their clear intent in their founding documents. Their doctrine of separation of church and state has NOTHING to do with either our founding fathers OR the Constitution they wrote. Which is why you are forced to ignore all the ancient writings that describe what kind of nation this was supposed to be.
So you idiotically claim, “Not often will one find someone who, when confronted with a string of citations to a sampling of the many Supreme Court cases…” DUMBASS!!! It’s only been happening for over 200 years, starting at the very least with Thomas Jefferson. And given Obama and the left melting down as we speak, it’s kind of going on all around that little hole you live in when you’re not crawling out to bother me.
I rest my case that your “surprise” is frankly asinine. Other than the fact that it proves how incredibly ignorant of American history you clearly are.
So I just point that out to declare HOW DANGEROUS you are to freedom and to human dignity. Your beliefs lead necessarily to government oppression and to slavery. And I add the very slavery Lincoln brought us out of by declaring that your “separation of church and state” doctrine is vile gibberish.
And why George Washington directly implied you to be a traitor for trying to destroy the two great pillars that America is based upon.
I MOCK you, dougindeap. I said at the end of the piece you waved your hand at because it refuted you:
And how do you respond? you said, “That’s right. Because if the Supreme Court says wrong is right and night is day and good is evil and up is down, then that’s all I need.” As I pointed out, for you, the Supreme Court overrules the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence – which you declare as meaningless – the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, everything. You are EVERYTHING both Washington and Jefferson said is wrong and could go wrong with America. All we are now is whatever a Supreme Court decides we are, which is exactly where Jefferson warned when the Supreme Court illegally seized power for itself to decide the meaning of the Constitution. And when our Supreme Court doesn’t act and a lawless imperial president runs roughshod over the Congress that our SCOTUS has frankly gutted the constitutional authority of, we’re done for. Our founding documents – our Constitution – is no more important to people like you than you affirm he Declaration of Independence is meaningless to you. And ours is a nation that has drifted wildly out of control as a result.
You claim – idiotically – that I failed to provide “any explanation why this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant” that the founding fathers wrote:
You simply amazingly ignore that in fact I pointed out the FACT that the founding fathers DID NOT have to date the Constitution so. Because the “founding fathers” of the French Revolution did not. In fact, the French Revolution went the way according to you our founding fathers should have gone. They not only did not affirm “the year of our Lord” but in fact they created their own calendar to be a “separation of church and state.” And the “separation of church and state” of the French Revolution ended in an orgy of vicious bloodshed that wasn’t rivaled until the Soviet Union and the modern “separation of church and state” of state atheist communism which murdered 100 million people in peacetime.
I did that right HERE and even documented the link describing the calendar of the French Revolution.
So you flat-out LIE to claim that I failed to provide any explanation of the significance of “the year of our Lord.” I in fact provided a substantial argument. That the contemporaneous French Revolution not only refused to mention “the year of our Lord” but actually went so far as to create a calendar just to truly have “separation of church and state” makes it quite remarkable that the founders chose to work “in the year of our Lord.” Make light of that as you will, but history refutes you.
And it was patently dishonest of you to claim I hadn’t provided an argument when I did so at length.
The Constitution was “part two” of the founders’ words. Part one – the Declaration of Independence – literally grounds the entire existence of ANY nation in a Creator God and declares that the rights that aforementioned Creator God gave to humanity constitute the basis for ALL human government and that ANY government – including the United States of America – that doesn’t respect that God and those rights ought to be overthrown and replaced with one that will.
Anyone who isn’t a fool knows that.
Now, as to the Supreme Court building, I’ll give you that I overstated my case. Moses and the Ten Commandments Moses appear three times in the architectural embellishment of the Supreme Court building. Inside, Moses appears eight times in carvings that ring the Supreme Court Great Hall ceiling. It should have been more times, I suppose.
As to the language of the Declaration of Independence, I referenced the first of your sources and your “expert” declared this about “Nature’s God”:
I don’t deal well with liars. That is a LIE. And that lie disqualifies your “expert” and it disqualifies YOU. “Nature and Nature’s God” comes right out of John Locke and from Blackstone’s Legal Commentaries, which were THE legal commentaries of the day and for YEARS surrounding the founding fathers.
Let me point out the difference between my argument and yours and you and I: you don’t bother with the founding fathers and produce an “expert” who provides an “opinion” that is blatant crap. I, on the other hand, refute you with history. So let’s consider the history of the phrase “Nature and Nature’s God” and how terribly wrong you truly are:
August 20, 2014 at 11:37 am
Israel Accused Of ‘Disproportionality’ By Wicked World. This Is What Israel Would Do IF They Were Really ‘Proportional’ Fighting Hamas
Good article. And a fine rebuttal to your interlocutor above.
With regards to the War Against Terrorism, what to do you think of this fellow’s response about taking it to the bad guys:
My response to the execution by beheading of James Foley and others.
August 21, 2014 at 9:29 am
Thanks, truthunites,
My favorite sentence in your article in bold:
I was hoping the author would tell us a little more specifically what he would do. But he comes fairly close to what I’ve been calling for: in a word, a return to FIRE BOMBING.
I mentioned that just a couple of articles ago:
Ah, Vietnam. I remember it well. The military won every single battle. But it was LBJ’s Democrat War. And the Democrats surprised LBJ by viciously turning on their own president at war and demanding America be defeated.
I said a little more about it in an article I wrote last month:
We FIRE BOMBED Dresden. We killed far more Japanese with fire bombings than we did with the two atomic bombs.
The American people – according to polls – don’t want “boots on the ground” wars. I submit that a good portion of that is because 1) Democrats are traitorous cowards who undermined and backstabbled every effort to fight for YEARS now; and 2) because we have a community organizer rather than a LEADER as president. Obama has NEVER made a case for doing anything other than crawling out of our moral duties like the cowards that he is. And if a real leader were to explain that this is what we need to do and this is why we need to do it, the American people would rally behind it as they have rallied behind wars before.
But I would STILL fire bomb. Which is to say that the policy of not daring to hurt “innocent civilians” would come to an END as we returned to a policy that stated, “If you bring hell to us, rest assured we will shove it back in your face and down your throat – with a huge interest penalty.”
At this point, having voted for Barack Obama, America is a nation that has decided that it is not worth fighting for and it is not worth survival. And so come and kill us and let us bare our throats to your scimitars.
Obama came out after the news of that reporter’s beheading for all to see and said that the U.S. would be “relentless,” that we’d bring everything we have. Bullcrap. Obama went right back to GOLFING after he said that. And he couldn’t even find the resources to bring a damn TIE to the press conference, let alone anything else. This is a nation that ought to perish and is moving toward that goal.
Maybe at some future point the American people will decide otherwise, but that’s the way it is now.