Islam - Israel & NYC

Public Shooting Range
42

I have to smile at this “discussion”. It reminds me of the usual “discussions” about American Indians. MOSTLY they are painnted as this idilyc people who wandered the grasslands peacefully, only taking what they needed and respectful of the land. That’s a bunch of hooey, and so are many of the soft, kind words spoken of the Gazans.

Let us begin with the fact that the Israelis gave, free and clear Gaza to the arabs. It was a functional, beautiful area, and the Jews left it as such. The arabs didn’t need to do much more than merel move in and take up the establišmenta already created and working - and left so. ?So did the arabs do that. NOPE! They instead elected freely Hamas, a bloody terorist organization, to run and manage Gaza. This was NOT AN ACCIDENT - it was ON PURPOSE. It is what the Gazans wanted.

Let us skip the huge number of obvious provocations the Gazans placed upon Israel, what with infiltrator terorists, homicide bombers and huge numbers in toto of rockets fired at Israel. This wasn’t a conflict that Israel started; it is one they have been defending themselves from ever since Gaza was turned over to the arabs. In all this the leaders of Hamas live in absolute luxury - in Abu Dhabi. They have become worth multiple milions each.

You don’t ask where all that money came from. Instead you lament “da poo’ chill’ins” being “abused” by the IDF. In every treaty and decclaration of warfare and the moral way to fight, it is expressed stated that if the enemy consciously used the population to help and aid in the screening of its forces, such targets are no longer “protected” but legitimate targets for military action. SO when Hamas puts their command bunker directly UNDER a hospital, they should expect that hospital to be bombed into the next zip dođe. That os both legal and moral. Enemies who don’t know how to treat their own people don’t deserve the time of day.

So the question remains ?why are you so squimish about the Gazans in particular. Are you as adamant about how we bombed the Nazis into the next decade. I suspect this is hooked to the idiotic notion of the RCC that “life is sacred” Like heck it is! The OT is filled with examples of the LORD wiping out various and sundry groups. Saul, you will remember, was admonished for not following the Lord’s orders and killing the opposing King and all his tribe. Life may well be precious, to be saved and nurtured when possible, but it’s hardly sacred.

Israel fights for its life. Sometimes its actions are offensive, sometimes defensive, but note they do NOT go to war to acquire empire. Same can not be said for either the arabs or Eweropeans.

3 Likes
43

You both take a common sense/human/physical approach to what you see, dancing, no idea about the disease.

If Satan is the problem why has God not simply ended his existence and killed him?

The old territorial Israel ceased.
Covenant Israel is gathered in Christ.
A 1948 political body arose bearing the old name and occupying the old land.
Is that body Israel itself or an image representing Israel?

Israel, the geographic political embodiment, the cure, or the disease?

1 Like
44

OK. Let’s look at this from a different angle.

?Who or what is Satan. He has been described as The Great Tempter. He still fulfills that role. In this debate, he takes the stand that all who haven’t come to Christ are damned. ?Is that true. Who knows! We do know that those who have come to Christ (and live moral lives) are “saved”. But ?is there a final chance to “see the light and come to Christ”. I don’t know, so while I can state my sense firmly, I do not speak for God. No one does. Christ gave us rules to live by, but they’re really not that different than the rules he gave the Jews originally, in the first covenant.

Which brings us to Israel. Israel may be a political construct, but it is a useful political construct. ?Would there be all this strife, killing, bombing if the arabs were a peaceful bunch. But arabs are not. ?Why not - islam! We get back to that basic contention, ?just what IS islam. It is a combat ideology that was, IMM, created by Satan as a diversion from Christianity. ?How can I say that. It takes a mere brief review of the ideology to recognize the evil there. Read only the part on divorce to see all the evil typified there. That can not be God’s word or will. It must, therefore, be Satan‘s.

?How are we to treat those who actively further or attempt to further Satan’s will. With disregard to the degree such can be sustained without injury. With force for when it can not. With fire and brimstone when they actively attack us. ?How has Israel not done this. They have withstood constant and repeated assaults on their own women and children - at the hands of Hamas! This all came to a head in the Oct 7 attack, when we all saw the ferocity and beastiality of Hamas on full display. And not just Hamas, but the run-of-the-mill Gazans. ?Why should they escape retribution by the afflicted. Well, they were set up by the IDF you say. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say they were. ?What of it. Israel did NOT attack Hamas in that scenario but merely gave it the opportunity to show its true colours. And, boy, did they ever! Also let us not forget we did the same to the Japs! Pearl Harbor was a “set-up” by FDR. We may not have totaolly known just what we were unleashing, but FDR was totally all-in to get us into the European land war. The only remaining question is whether or not getting into the Euiropean Land War (WWII) was worth the effort, gold, and American lives. THAT may be up for debate, but at the time the people thought it was. Perhaps hindsight may be better.

But the Jews don’t have that issue. Hamas has actually attacking THEM - for a long time! This battle has long been declared - by Hamas. It is unfair to then “limit” Israel, who has taken the brunt of the beastial assaults by Hamas.

2 Likes
45

The distinction I’d keep sharp is between Islam as a religion, Islamism as a political program, Hamas as an armed organization, and Palestinians or Arabs as whole populations.

Collapsing all four into “Satan” makes the argument theological rather than historical, and it assigns collective guilt to people who do not share Hamas’s actions or ideology. Hamas’s crimes on October 7 were real and deliberate.

That does not make every Gazan a combatant, nor does it make every Israeli action automatically justified. “With force when necessary” still requires judging who is attacking, who is responsible, and whether the response distinguishes fighters from civilians.

That standard applies even when the enemy has behaved monstrously.

Kilroy was here

1 Like
46

NO! You are doing to the Jews exactly what they (Hamas) hoped - allowing THEM to slaughter Israelis while escaping punishment for same. That cannot stand. WE may not have a dog in this hunt, but clearly Israel does. Not allowing them to clean out that nest of vipers is simply wrong.

People have choices. They can stay, support, rebel, or move. Gazans have supported Hamas - with electoral votes, their personal actions, and the general attitude displayed. When your enemy does bestial things to you, then dances back and says, “Wait a minute! You can’t do that to us. Think of the children!” the only answer is, “YOU certainly didn’t think of either the women or children or old people when you assaulted us. This is payback!”

As we said in Nam, “Payback is a MedEvac!”

2 Likes
47

Old poem attiributed to Ben Franklin.

The Red Coats they are mighty fine’

And all their soldiers of the line.

But look at them dressed up in Red,

Perfect targets for the lead.

Without a grain of native wit

They stand close packed for us to hit.

They stood and suffered, fought and bled,

And only when too late they fled.

Helter, skelter!

Seeking the forest’s leary shelter.

“STOP” cried Washington, “Stop this flight!

Take stand behind these trees and fight!”

But panic now became their master,

They merely ran, and ran the faster!

2 Likes
48

:clap:
You’re already looking past the dance and identifying a disease underneath it. That’s why I’m having trouble understanding where we part company.

You recognize that Satan can work through men, movements and governments. You even allow the possibility that Israel could knowingly permit an attack and then use the result. But once Hamas enters the picture, you seem to stop tracing the disease and assume Israel must therefore be the cure.

I’m not asking you to excuse Hamas. I’m asking one narrower question: if Satan can use Hamas, what tells you he cannot simultaneously use Israel, its fear, anger, government, military response and even its supporters ,to accomplish a larger end?

Maybe we agree on the disease and are only disagreeing about how much of the dance it can control.

i.e. Satan is recruiting, his task, mark his people, the angels will come and sort based on the obvious marks, what should a Christian do?

Well we have our orders, when He is ready He will come with His army and the Saints will judge the world, for now though our orders are not to become infected and join the dance

“delivered to the Jews”…

?no new thing under the sun

So wait and bleed?

I’ve felt the hate rise up in me

or wait and seek?

edit: so your question to yourself might better be directed to your own insight

are you do exactly as Satan hopes?

Satan hopes you do not listen to God or His Son or any of His Sons servants that He left His authority to

porter, a doorman, holds the keys

Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope, do you think he’s a fool?

is that an endorsement, or a serious question?

1 Like
49

Perhaps it’s how you look at Israel vs how I do. Israel is an independent nation. It has the right snd responsibility to care for its own citizens. WE do not. So I believe Israel is justified to be totally irate concerning the Gazans. We do not care particularly. Let Israel do whatever Israel does. They are an ally, and to the degree we can do so without getting “involved”, we should support their time of trial. Gaza has been looking for retribution for a long, long time! As Western justice says, “Some people just need killin’”

I do not find supporting Israel in Gaza to be either wrong or unwise. Or even not in keeping with Christian values. Christians killed more than their fair share of people in the name of God; the Jews are merely doing the same. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would be for US to wipe out the Gazans; ?Did we not kill off ISIS - wholesale. It seems often to take such action to get these beasts to quit.

?Why do you think Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Qatar all suddenly are friendly with Israel. IMM it’s because they’ve all done the math and found the cost of continuing to be antagonistic to be too high. I very much doubt they’ve suddenly gotten “Christian ideals” and want to be nice to everyone. Indeed, they still fund madrasa schools around the world. I am perfectly OK wth the Jews being the big badasses of the Mideast. They’re already mostly there anyway. And we don’t have to do anything but let them loose!

3 Likes
50

The strategic math is largely right, but I’d tighten the list. The UAE has normalized relations with Israel, while Saudi Arabia has not formally done so; Qatar remains a mediator and Hamas host, and Syria is hardly “friendly” with Israel.

Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties, but their public and political posture is much more complicated. Where cooperation has grown, the drivers are practical: fear of Iran, intelligence and security ties, access to U.S. favor, trade, technology, and regime survival.

That is not a sudden conversion to Christian ideals or Israeli affection. It’s statecraft.

I also draw a hard line between destroying an armed organization and “wiping out” the population it rules over. ISIS lost its territorial caliphate, but the organization and insurgency did not vanish; treating every Gazan as Hamas is the same collective-guilt error I was warning about.

Kilroy was here

3 Likes
51

I take your point, @Kilroy . But the Gazans have EARNED their treatment as a whole, NOT some “poor population run by a dictator”. People matter. No regime lasts when the people are unwilling to tolerate it. Hamas has had no serious pushback on its policies vis a vis Israel - including Oct 7th! They have cast their lot; they get what they asked for. There is no evidence they (the population of Gaza) hold any different views from their governing body - Hamas.

1 Like
52

?Remember the people dancing in the streets on 9/11. Keep that image in mind. It is important to remember who your friends are - and who your enemies are too. :grinning_face:

3 Likes
53

So why aren’t you pissed off and angry yet?

If that were what we had I’d say hell yeah right and good luck with all that mess.

Do you even know why we’re in this war?

Better yet, how if we stuck with what you said we’d not be?

Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801:

“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”

Washington’s closely related warning in his 1796 Farewell Address was:

“’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

The official story, not legit IMO, but official

We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.

Israel was going to attack Iran → Iran would retaliate against American forces → therefore the U.S. struck Iran first.

That’s how the US operates, are you even aware the Ukraine conflict was 100% created with similar BS narrative?

It’s all lather rinse repeat as it works, the biggest asset these war mongers have is the public and main stream media, MSM tells it to your face, the language almost tells on itself.

The MSM plants in your head via “broadcasting” the news, the old farming word for scattering seed broadly across a field. It “programs” what you watch, gives you a “news feed,” and “covers” events.

Each word sounds passive and helpful until you turn it over: a broadcast plants widely, a program arranges what comes next, a feed supplies what is consumed, and a cover can hide as easily as reveal.

The public is then treated less like independent minds seeking facts than a flock being fed a prepared ration.

What is sold as simply informing the people can also be a remarkably accurate vocabulary for shaping what they see, when they see it, and what they are given to think about.

The “Chicken Little” response is part of the same problem. A person points to the mechanism of broadcasting, programming, feeding, framing and instead of examining whether the mechanism is actually operating, people often attack the observer as paranoid, conspiratorial, or hysterical.

The damn movies even tell you too!

and the long fight with your brother just to get him to see

Cause you were bred, for humanity
And sold to society
One day you’ll wake up, in the present day

1 Like
54

Caveat: If the enemy lumps you in (for whatever reason) with other nations whom they have also attacked, it is wise to coordinate with the enemies of your enemy. This doesn’t have to be a permanent alliance.

Iran has lumped America in with Israel ever since the Islamic Revolution. Marco Rubio’s statement, which you quoted, makes contextual and defensive sense as well. Since Iran was preparing to attack us, as it has done many times before, it is justified to strike first.

On interoperability, this is an advantage to allies, and avoided by enemies. When the Germans attacked the world and when the Soviets lumped us in with all the democracies of the West, we created alliances and standardized our equipment and military structures to become interoperable to a large degree. In contrast, enemies have historically intentionally created weapons in different calibers to break compatibility.

Against today’s terrorist and drone threats, digital interoperability is critical for timely interception. On the flip side, with today’s encryption technologies, there is a relatively simple process to invalidate security keys and break the connection should the US decide that it must, in some unlikely scenario, part ways with Israel. So I think overall the interoperability makes sense, given our common enemies, Israel’s intel, and the high level of trust in other equipment decisions we have regarding Israel.

3 Likes
55

lol, not sure why we’d argue this, but if we’re learning something it’s worth it.

We started with Rubio’s own sequence:

Then we add:

Except when you actually look at the major direct exchanges from 2024 through June 2025, the simple story we’ve been sold , Iran keeps attacking and Israel keeps defending itself , starts falling apart.

There were roughly five or six major Israeli actions against Iran or Iranian leadership and about three major direct Iranian attacks on Israel. More important than the count is the order: those Iranian attacks followed Israeli strikes or killings, and Iran repeatedly signaled afterward that its response was finished unless it was attacked again.

That doesn’t make Iran innocent. It means the chronology doesn’t fit the story nearly as neatly as the story fits the television.

Before 2024 much of this was shadow and proxy war, but even that isn’t uniquely Iranian. Israel has funded, armed, cultivated, or used non-state groups when useful to Israeli policy, including Syrian rebels, anti-Hamas Palestinian clans, and Iranian opposition groups. There is also documented history of Israeli policy encouraging Islamist rivals to the PLO before Hamas became today’s enemy.

And then there is us.

Proxy warfare, arming factions, building alliances, supplying both the machinery and the justification for another round of military spending , none of that is foreign to the United States. We have become extraordinarily good at it.

So maybe the more interesting question isn’t whether Iran, Israel, or some proxy is the monster we’re supposed to be angry at this week. Maybe it is why the same machine can produce the conflict, arm the participants, enter when the conflict expands, sell the public another “defensive” war, and then sell the weapons needed for the next one.

The heads change. The war machine doesn’t.

All the proof we need

image
image1920×1280 544 KB

but, w/e , war on

1 Like
56

The useful distinction is between immediate defense and the larger strategic sequence. A country can be responding defensively to a specific attack while still having helped create the conditions that made the attack likely; “defensive” describes the moment, not necessarily the whole policy.

That also applies to Iran. Iranian retaliation does not make Tehran innocent, but a retaliatory strike is not the same thing as an unprovoked opening attack.

Once that chronology is flattened, every later escalation can be marketed as the next side “defending itself. ” The harder question is whether the United States is merely reacting to these conflicts or has become invested in keeping the regional security system permanently unstable.

Arms sales, proxy relationships, intelligence partnerships, and alliance commitments give Washington reasons to manage the cycle rather than end it. That doesn’t make every war manufactured, but it does make the official moral script far too convenient to accept without examining who benefits.

Kilroy was here

1 Like
57

I understand how the whole Ukraine mess was created. Ewerope had a lot to do with that, but the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the place.

I still don’t get your point vis a vis Israel. Let us say for the sake of this debate that it is true that Israel planned an action against Persia. ?Are you trying to say we shouldn’t have intervened. ?That Persia was an innocent. Cuz there you and I will strongly disagree WE have owed Persia a goodly smack for some time. Yes we’ve done a few actions against them, but IMM we’ve never properly “paid them” for all their IED’s.

2 Likes
58

No, I’m not arguing that Persia—Iran—was innocent, or that its support for militias and attacks on Americans should be ignored. The IED campaign in Iraq is a legitimate part of the case against Tehran, and Iran has earned hard consequences for that conduct.

My point is narrower: Iran’s guilt does not automatically answer whether the United States should back every Israeli first strike, or enter every resulting war.

The questions are whether the action serves a clear American interest, whether it improves or worsens the threat, and whether we’re accepting an open-ended obligation to fight Iran on Israel’s timetable.

Kilroy was here

1 Like
59

On that point I agree. We don’t have to “join” Israel in all their military actions. We could, however, give them political support for some wider actions.

2 Likes
60

No. 100% no.

Israel has every right to look after Israel. We had no business making Israel’s fight our fight.

If Israel believed Iran threatened Israel and chose to attack Iran, then Israel should have been left to deal with the consequences of that decision. Why were American forces, American money, American weapons and ultimately American lives tied into it deeply enough that an anticipated Iranian response to an Israeli attack became justification for America attacking Iran first?

You keep asking me whether Iran is innocent. I’m not saying Iran is innocent. I’m saying it wasn’t our damn war.

Israel wants independent agency? Fine then let Israel have independent agency including responsibility for her consequences.

Had we actually followed the foreign policy principle I quoted earlier, Israel could make its decision about Iran and America could say that is your decision; good luck, but we are not joining the war, then “if” Iran attacked the US, well there you go, you got your war and reason for you war, belligerent acts on us, not by us.

As it is now, we’re the hostiles and what is the excuse?

We’re her bitch?

Have we established this 1948 Israel is Israel, no, but, care to back track through a few things?

The shortest defensible way to infer it is:

Britain had an old imperial habit of working through intermediary bodies rather than ruling everything directly. The Virginia Company is an early example: Crown authority operated through a corporation to establish and govern a colony.

Palestine shows a similar structure, although not literally the same corporate form. Under the British Mandate, Britain was charged with creating the political, administrative and economic conditions for a Jewish national home, while the Jewish Agency was formally recognized as a public body to cooperate in developing the country.

Then Britain leaves, the political body called Israel appears, and the United States recognizes it immediately in 1948.

The relationship eventually develops into extraordinary military dependence and integration; the 2016 agreement alone committed $38 billion in U.S. military assistance over ten years.

https://2017-2021.state.gov/ten-year-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-israel

Biblically, Israel had already been called a harlot. The question I’m asking is whether modern political Israel is an image a revived political representation bearing the old name and whether America has then done exactly what Revelation warns the kings against, joined itself to the woman and carried her.

Trump went farther still, the United States formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved our embassy there, despite overwhelming international objection ,

the UN vote was 128–9.

Maybe that is worth asking too, if this modern political Israel is merely an independent foreign nation whose affairs are its own, why does the United States keep using its own political weight to establish, defend and legitimize Israel’s claims for it?

At what point are we no longer Israel’s friend and instead the power carrying her as her bitch?

And, if this were but 1% what still would the conclusion be?

1 Like
61

The point is clear now: Iran’s guilt is not the deciding issue. The deciding issue is whether the United States had the authority or strategic justification to turn an Israeli war into an American war before Iran attacked us.

That is a coherent noninterventionist position. Israel can exercise independent agency, but agency without responsibility is just an alliance demanding U.S. protection while retaining freedom to set the escalation ladder.

The strongest counterpoint is that Washington may argue its forces were already defending American personnel, bases, and shipping from an Iranian response.

But that only answers the consequences of the policy; it does not answer the prior question of why we placed those forces, weapons, and commitments in the path of a war Israel chose to initiate.

Kilroy was here