[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Over our dead bodies’: Liberals threaten to ‘burn it all down’ if GOP replace Ginsburg before Election Day

Amish TRUMP parade included cows, horses, wagons and carriages!

Black Lives Matter Activist Wearing ‘Justice for Beonna Taylor’ Shirt Walked into a Louisville Bar and Murdered Three People

Cackling “View” hosts defend Black Lives Matter following violent ambush of police officers in Los Angeles

Gatekeeper of DC Society Sally Quinn Comes Out as Occultist, Used Hex to Kill People

Pew: 77 Percent of Catholic Democrats Support Legal Abortion

51 Far-Left Antifa Anarchists Arrested After Attacking Police

AG Barr: Coronavirus lockdowns “greatest intrusion on civil liberties” since slavery

Pelosi Admits She Attended Mass in San Francisco While the Rest of the State Was Locked Down

Trump says he will nominate a woman to the Supreme Court next week

The Promised Land ... ThaT Slipped Away --- From Obama

Maskless Joe Biden Greets Firefighters After Touting Mask Mandates

Socially-Distanced German Soccer Team Gets Thrashed 37-0 (not satire)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

"We House-Arrested Some Folks!"

John Oliver ‘honored’ in Connecticut: Mayor names sewer plant after him

FLASHBACK: Johnny Carson Rips Joe Biden for ‘Plagiarism’ 33 YEARS AGO on the ‘Tonight Show’

BLM Activist Accuses CVS Employee Who Reported Shoplifters to Police of Trying to Get Black People Killed

Edward Snowden: Joe Biden Threatened Countries Not To Give Me Asylum

Some Timely Quotes

Vocal protest: Van Morrison rebels against ‘taking our freedom’ in new anti-lockdown songs

CNN (Seriously) Claims That Covid Will Spread At Trump Rallies But Not BLM Protests

JOE BIDEN: “Guess what, if you elect me your taxes are going to be raised not cut.”

The More You Joe - Biden at his finest

‘The View’ segment with Maryland Republican Kimberly Klacik ends abruptly after she says host Joy Behar ‘paraded around in blackface’

“Hail Satan”: After terrorizing churches, BLM witchcraft exposed

Women Know Things That Men Don't.

Cop Fired for Cowering in Fear as Gunman Slaughtered Children Gets Rehired, with Full Back Pay

As Netflix Defends “Cuties” Movie, Netflix Star Arrested for Producing Child Porn

Ex-Arlington officer indicted for killing woman while trying to shoot dog

Coffee shop owner arrested for speaking against harassment caused by Tucson council’s anti-mask “wall of shame”

Thanks, Fox News, for reminding us of the Soros role in creating America's riot-coddling DAs (Fox doesn't want Sorros name sullied by Gingrich)

Black Lives Matter Mob Surround Man's Home, Police Reportedly Arrest Man For 'Brandishing' Gun

Fox News Panel Melts Down After Gingrich Exposes George Soros As Financier Of BLM/Antifa Riots

Trump: ‘Joe Biden Thinks Kamala Harris Is President’

Florida Sheriff's Predictive Policing Program Is Protecting Residents From Unkempt Lawns, Missing Mailbox Numbers

ppeals Court Says Address Mistakes On Warrants Are Mostly Harmless, Not Worth Getting Excited About

Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally Matt Vespa Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 | Posted: Sep 16, 2020 6:00 AM Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally

Southern Baptists want to change their name to "Great Commission Baptists" because the word "Southern" is triggering (Not satire)

Trump accepts invitation for fourth debate moderated by Joe Rogan

Oregon Homeowners Warn Looters Amid Wildfire: ‘You Loot, We Shoot’

Michael Moore Jumps the Shark

Applied BLM Ideology: Los Angeles County Deputies Shot

Academy Awards: Hold On, We’re Going Completely Woke!

CNN Sets Up Fence to Defend Atlanta HQ While Hosts Carry Water for Rioters

Drunk Idiots Fly Down Highway In Tesla On Autopilot With No One In Driver's Seat

Arson Arrests Being Made Across the West Coast – Multiple Fires Identified as Arson – 27 People Killed, Dozens Missing….

The US & Its Constitution Have 2 Months Left

‘Where we at?’: SWAT Gets Lost, Throws Grenade Into Innocent Elderly Man’s Home as He Watches TV

Pennsylvania restaurant apologizes for offensive sign that sparked protest


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

WORLD WAR III
See other WORLD WAR III Articles

Title: isn't time we put a stop to this?
Source: news.com.au
URL Source: http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/n ... 18ce7d1547f0159b7b2a4e3fe15fb2
Published: Sep 14, 2017
Author: paraclete
Post Date: 2017-09-14 21:50:41 by paraclete
Keywords: missile
Views: 1685
Comments: 39

AIR raid sirens blared across Japan again today. Another North Korean missile streaked over the island nation’s skies.

As startled citizens streamed into bunkers and shelters, Japan’s government went to great lengths to inform and reassure the public that it was doing everything possible to protect them.

Truth is, there is very little the Japanese military can do.

The launch was detected at 6.59am Japanese Standard Time. At 7.06am, the ballistic missile overflew the heavily populated island of Hokkaido. It was in Japanese air space for less than two minutes before it fell into the ocean some 2000km to the east at 7.16am.

Early reports indicate it was in the air for a total of just 17 minutes, during which it reached an altitude of 770km and flew a total of 3700km. This is characteristic of the nuclear-capable HS-12 intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM).

So why did Japan’s much-hyped interceptor missiles not attempt to take it down? They probably can’t.

ACTION STATIONS

The North Korean missile was detected within seconds of its launch. US early warning satellites have been keeping a close watch on North Korea for some time now. And there’s an extensive network of radars in South Korea, the Sea of Japan and Japan itself on standby for just such an event.

It would have taken just minutes to activate Japan’s automatic public alert system, with messages flashing up on mobile phones and recorded voices blaring over radios and televisions.

Every movement of the missile would have been precisely tracked. Computers would have been rapidly number-crunching

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

I have had enough of this, I'm sure other have too, it is about time someone wacked Kim up the side of the head and said cut it out Dufus. There is supposed to be a war on terror going one, not very newsworthy these days since the US isn't leading, but isn't this terror? Just because he hasn't actually killed anyone doesn't mean it isn't terror. Clinton bombed Al Qaeda, Bush bombed the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama bombed the shit out of Gaddaffi, and here we have Kim [playing it like he can do anything he wants

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: paraclete (#0)

Ignore him. He's shooting fireworks. He wants attention. Don't give it to him.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-14   22:05:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Ignore him.

That doesn't seem to work

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-15   0:02:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: paraclete (#2)

It's been floated that some NK history should be appreciated. Namely for the years 1950-1953.

It is said that during the Korean war, the US bombed the crap out of NK, that after the first year, US pilots were complaining that it was out of targets. But of course they kept going for another 2 years. Supposedly there was no building more than one story high still standing in NK by the time the cease fire took hold, and the number of civilian casualties in NK was astounding.

If so.... the Kim Un Jong, or whatever his name is, may well have some political clout from the masses in pursuing nuke weapons. They may well see having nukes as either a chance for payback or, more hopefully, a deterrent of possible future aggression from the USA. That the US has, in recent memory, destroyed a number of countries like Iraq, Libya and such doesn't exactly serve well to lend credibility to any assurances that USA would NEVER do that to North Korea. It would seem that NK has already experienced total ruin at the hands of the USA, and also seen the same fate befall other countries much more recently.

Perhaps if the US hadn't destroyed the smaller countries it has in recent memory, NK's nuke program wouldn't be as high a priority as it is. In that light, it may be argued that NK's nuke program is an indirect result of US militarized foreign policy.

Not that NK is necessarily right in all it's doing or that it's motives are purely defensive (but hopefully they are). But if we are to make sense of NK intent, we do need to know where they are coming from.

Of course it goes without saying that if NK launches any missile attack, it will be bombed back to 1953. And that is something they clearly must understand.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   1:13:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)

But if we are to make sense of NK intent, we do need to know where they are coming from.

It is called paranoia, and all countries that have been attacked suffer from it, this is why the US behaves as it does, it is why Russia behaves as it does, and it is undoutibly why NK behaves as it does.

There is an irrational fear and of course attacking NK with sanctions only reinforces their paranoia. A long time ago the US had the same problem with China.

A peace can be brokered if all the players have goodwill. There is nothing to gain from the path being followed at the moment

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-15   6:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: paraclete (#2)

Ignore him.

That doesn't seem to work

It does. Kim shoots fireworks. He hasn't shot one into a city. If he does that, declare war, invade and take him out. Until he does it, ignore him. Violate his airspace. Board his ships at sea and find things on them and impound them. Fly drones over North Korea that people can see. Piss him off by disregarding North Korean sovereignty and seizing their property where it's easy to get.

Launch constant cyberhacks that make the North Korean use of computers problematic.

Steal money from North Korean bank accounts.

Essentially, anything that is outside of North Korea - take it. Take the private property of North Korean officials and their families and never give it back. Take it and spend it. Treat North Korea and North Koreans as having no property rights, no privacy rights, and North Korea as having no sovereignty.

Treat North Korea the way that the American police treat little people.

Instead of playing THEIR game and huffing and puffing, treat them as a law enforcement situation within America - criminals have no sovereignty and no rights, so stop according North Korea the pretense of things like borders, etc.

This will make L'il Kim VERY VERY MAD. He's lawless, so deal with him lawlessly. It's fun to do so, and easy - the world is ours - and it inflicts terrible costs on him. Essentially, steal the North Korean's property wherever it is in the world, just like we take drug lords' stuff, without trial, without procedure - just use our superior technology to TAKE IT, and never give it back.

L'il Kim can only respond with war, in which case HE took the step, and you kill him and fight the war.

Don't let HIM provoke US to expenditures and huffing and puffing. Just take the North Korean's shit and harass them with drones and hacks and thefts and seizing ships and private back accounts.

He's an aggressive criminal. It isn't criminal when the cops lie and take stuff and break it. We're the cops, so we can do whatever the fuck we want to North Korean property, and ignore North Korean rights. Kim was educated in the West. Many North Korean officials and power people have children in the West, which means that there are private money streams for elite families all over the place. Steal it all.

He's lawless. We're lawful - because the cops don't have to play by the same rules. Who says we're the cops? We do. We control the rest of the world. We have the power to do it. And might makes right.

That's how you deal with it. What you don't do is gear up and spend money on a shadow war that is at Kim's discretion. You just steal all of the North Korean property in the world outside of North Korea and you keep it. And you fly drones all over their country and force them to go postal over the violation of their airspace. Not good drones - cheap drones, stuff we can lose all the time.

Drive the North Koreans mad with rage. If they attack, murder them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   7:03:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Drive the North Koreans mad with rage.

That is already being done. That is the problem. We need to get out of the rest of the worlds business and take care of our own. First we don't have the funds to keep this ignorance up. I think it is ignorance gone to seed to keep spending our tax dollars for this bullshit.

I do not go to church every time the doors are opened, but I love Jesus Christ. I am only human and fail Him daily. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified on a cross, died for my sins and rose from the dead and that He loves us dearly, and is faithful to forgive us of our sins. But He says that if you deny me in front of your friends I will deny you in front of my Father. Can I get an Amen!

U don't know me  posted on  2017-09-15   7:15:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: paraclete (#4)

There is something to be gained if North Korea is goaded into war and we conquer all gen and reunify North Korea. One of the few remaining places that militarily defy American hegemony will have been eliminated, essentially reducing our problems to Islam. Korea will be greatly expanded as a nation, and a modern democracy will be on the very borders of Red China. These are all big wins for us. It is in American geostrategic interest to resolve the Korean stress point with a reunified Korea under American protection.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   7:33:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: U don't know me (#6)

I do too - think it's madness. That's why I elected Trump. But Trump was not able to hold the line against the militaristic Right. So since we're not going to stick to our knitting and tend our own garden, we may as well go postal and attempt to complete the conquest of the world. Then we'll have peace under a global American imperium.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   7:36:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

Nut case talk.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-15   8:11:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)

Nut case talk.

Who are you to judge?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   8:41:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

This will make L'il Kim VERY VERY MAD. He's lawless, so deal with him lawlessly. It's fun to do so, and easy - the world is ours - and it inflicts terrible costs on him. Essentially, steal the North Korean's property wherever it is in the world, just like we take drug lords' stuff, without trial, without procedure - just use our superior technology to TAKE IT, and never give it back.

What you are doing is casually calling for war against NK. All the things leading up to this, such as sanctions, seizures, drone flyovers and such are deliberately provocative of war, and once war has started, destroy the country and call it a day.

There are 2 things very wrong with this:

1) China is aligned with NK, so if the US deliberately provokes NK into war, then China may not let NK go down alone. On the other hand, China has stated that if NK starts a war, then they WILL let NK go down alone. So all the steps you advocate may compromise China's promise of non-intervention.

2) If NK is goaded into striking first, and are made angry enough by subjecting them to all the provocations you suggest, they may well strike first by launching nuclear weapons. While they may only be able to strike one or two cities in SK or Japan before they are wiped out with a nuke counterstrike, the cost of the victory to those countries will hardly be written off with consolation about NK being "unified" assuming SK would be happy to assume control of the former NK after it has been turned into a radioactive wasteland with millions of radiation sickened refugees, not to mention dealing with their own devastation from a nuke they were hit by. And that is assuming China does NOT get involved.

The object here is to not have nukes used, especially by NK but also not to use it on them as that would be bad for us, especially SK.

Your provocative suggestion is, quite frankly, about the worst suggestion one could make.

It is far better to accept NK as a nuke power, formally end the NK war, give a single obvious warning that any nuke attack from them will result in annihilation, and strengthen economic ties to the country. NK's economy is some 1/40th of SK's. By strengthening economic ties, they will lose their isolation and that will create a basis for political change in the country.

Give them a reason to live and they won't want to die.

No, it's not a perfect solution, but... there is no perfect solution.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   10:54:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

Who are you to judge?

He's is absolutely right. It is nut-case talk.

You want to invade the whole world and declare the USA the king of the planet? You want the USA to be the first empire in history to succeed in subjugating the entire globe?

You actually think a country with 5% of the world population is going to succeed in such an endeavor while 2 major nuclear powers sit idly by and let it happen? We can't even freakin take over the desolate country of Afghanistan run by a people armed with nothing more than rifles for crying out loud.

What are you smoking today?

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   11:01:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Ignore him. He's shooting fireworks. He wants attention. Don't give it to him.

Speculation from a psychotic.

rlk  posted on  2017-09-15   14:01:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)

the cost of the victory to those countries will hardly be written off with consolation about NK being "unified

It's like World War II: the British, Russians, Germans, French, Japanese and Chinese paid the brunt of the cost. The American standard of living rose dramatically any we emerged the colossus astride the world.

The last world war MADE US the world hegemon, but we didn't follow up by crushing the remaining resistance, so it regrouped.

North Korea is giving us the opportunity to let them provoke the end to themselves, forces China to either put up before they can win, or to back down, meaning we win without a fight. Either way we win.

If NK tries go nuclear, there's a good chance we can knock their stuff down before any real damage is done. If we don't quite succeed, well, the poor Japanese and South Koreans will take a nuke hit. Japan took two in the last war, and they're doing fine. So they'll cry, clean up, rebuild, and move on.

If they actually get off a nuke at the US and, say, take out San Francisco, that will be pretty terrible, but it will also mean 2 million or so fewer left wing Democrat voters. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Bottom line is, we win, we win, we win, or we win. The only way we lose is if we give Kim the recognition and guarantees he wants.

The rewards of war, long-term, are much greater for us than the costs of war, so we should not be in a panic to prevent it. If Kim wants to die in a war of his making, then just answer him tit-for-tat with the territorial violations and disrespectful actions. Eventually he will be shown to be the toothless bully he really is.

Or he'll go postal and we'll have the chance to clean up one of the loose ends of the Cold War, and convert a Tie into a permanent victory.

People always die in war - you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, apres tout.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   14:01:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)

You want to invade the whole world and declare the USA the king of the planet? You want the USA to be the first empire in history to succeed in subjugating the entire globe?

You actually think a country with 5% of the world population is going to succeed in such an endeavor while 2 major nuclear powers sit idly by and let it happen? We can't even freakin take over the desolate country of Afghanistan run by a people armed with nothing more than rifles for crying out loud.

We already rule the world. There are outliers beyond our grasp, currently. The rest of the world is part of the global economic and financial system, which has us as the linchpin.

When faced with a little malignant growth like L'il Kim, it is best not to humor him - lest that encourage the other malcontents. Far better to engineer his downfall.

In for a penny, in for a pound. I not only want the USA to be the first world conqueror in history, but I want us to do it well, so that we are also the last.

The only nuclear power that's really a threat is Russia. Which is why we should be bending over backwards to make a formal alliance with Russia, not alienanting them.

The number two nuclear power is France. They're an ally who will never launch on the US.

Britain is number three, and ditto.

China is number four. They're not capable of MAD. They're capable of doing some damage, mostly to US allies. If they were to decide to go to nuclear war on us, it would be the end of them. We'd have some death and destruction, which we would clean up and recover from over time. They'd be gone as a nation and a threat.

We COULD take over Afghanistan rather easily, if we were willing to do what it takes.

Biological weapons placed in the right place will decimate the population without our lifting a finger, other than to administer the antidote vaccine to whomever submits.

It is true that you cannot convert them to Whitehall democracy. But we certainly CAN kill them all. Rather than breaking ourselves in a pointless endless war, we maybe ought to get on it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   14:09:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

Do understand that your sentiments expressed here are, no doubt, much in line with Kim Jong Un's himself. Only difference is the country you are cheering on.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   14:15:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)

Do understand that your sentiments expressed here are, no doubt, much in line with Kim Jong Un's himself. Only difference is the country you are cheering on.

No, his sentiments are not really the same. His are the sentiments of a little tribal chieftain of a little tribe in a rather depressing corner of the world.

Mine are the sentiments of the heir of four great conquering empires: the French, the Spanish, the Dutch and the English - who rolled out of their home continent over all of the others, recombined into a new empire here in America that broke all of the old European ones and recombined their best and brightest, or most earnest, in a new and stronger empire in a brave New World.

World War II brought all of those empires together in the end under the hegemony of the new one, and since World War II it has been a matter of halting the spread of opposed ideas and expanding the empire further through economic conquest.

Korea was nothing and still is on its own account. South Korea, alone, BECAME a great economic power BECAUSE it was taken into the Pax Americana.

So L'il Kim can dream of being some sort of ridiculous god-emperor eastern tribal potentate, but I think like a scion of the race that has steadily and progressively conquered and civilized the world since Clovis accepted baptism in 486 AD.

The difference is the difference between the English, Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese in the Americas, and all of the OTHER non-Indian races here. All of the rest are immigrants into our land, but WE five are conquerors who TOOK this land, by force, successfully, and made it into our lands - into which others are permitted to come if they adopt our ways, our languages, etc.

We're not immigrants - we are conquerors.

North Korea's leader is not a conqueror. He's an Indian chief. That he and we both understand the utility of force in accomplishing our goals is where we are the same. Everything after that is different. His goal is small beer, small-minded, desperate, defensive and ultimately ridiculous. Nobody - including the Koreans - needs a god-emperor, which is effectively what the Kims are trying to be. That's old technology that didn't work.

Even the North Koreans - the ones who survive the war - will be better off part of the global economic system.

L'il Kim does not care about the well being of his future subjects. But we care about the well being even of our future subjects and current enemies.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, we may have to destroy the village in order to save it. But we have developed a professional level of expertise at doing that over the past 1500 years, and 1000 years before that if you understand that we are the continuation of the Roman spirit (particularly when we are in our Catholic form). None of these thoughts, none of the system of conquest and then changing the conquered subjects, eventually, into co-equal citizens and participants and supporters of the Empire - none of that has ever existed among the Indian tribes, who only look inward to themselves and their own narrow dreams and jealousies.

Kim Jong Un is, in the final analysis, not at all the same as me. His ridiculous little tribal country is in no sense an equal to or a peer of the American Empire, or the French, Spanish, British, Portuguese or Dutch Empires before it.

Successful empire is not on Kim's mind. He's a piss-ant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   14:29:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

You completely missed my point. But..... okay.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   14:57:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Pinguinite (#18)

No I got it. I object to the notion that nations, peoples, cultures and leaders are equal. They are anything but.

The legal fiction that all are equal before the law is useful for maintaining the comity of civil society. Even it isn't true, it is best that we act as though it is.

But the notion that nations are, or ought to be, equal is absurd.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   15:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)

Oh, wait, maybe your point as that Kim Jong Un and I are both thugs with a mind for murder to get our way. Nah. He is. I'm not.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   15:20:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

Oh, wait, maybe your point as that Kim Jong Un and I are both thugs with a mind for murder to get our way. Nah. He is. I'm not.

Bingo!

Kim may be a tyrant, but may well just the same harbor patriotic loyalty to the country he rules. If he simply enjoyed the lush life of tyrants, then he could enjoy that, perhaps even better if he wasn't subjecting his country to sanctions by promoting a nuke weapon program.

But he's not, so it seems he may well be moving forward with nuke weapons because he's a patriotic North Korean with a thoroughly indoctrinated mindset about how the USA laid waste to his country and killed many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of his people.

And honestly, Vic, if he has the same patriotic strength to NK as you do to the USA, seeing moral justification in laying waste to enemies, then the NK crisis is indeed a serious crisis. Perhaps it's not an exaggeration to say that we may actually be better off with Kim running NK than we would be with you.

Given your past conversations, I don't understand how your moral code could stand the light of day. That's my honest take. You claim to be a Christian, I think, and yet it seems you are an American first, and a Christian perhaps second, or maybe even fifth or tenth. Not that it's any of my business, or even something I'd want to discuss. I would simply point out that what you have written on this thread does indeed paint you as having the same mentality as a despotic thug, as you see fit to lay waste to entire countries and peoples in the name of... well.... whatever. And no, a simple denial is not convincing in the least.

As the old cliche goes, sometimes people fight what they hate so much they eventually become what they hate.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-15   16:40:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)

but may well just the same harbor patriotic loyalty to the country he rules.

With me it is not a matter of patriotic ardor, but a consideration of the best interest of people.

It is better for the people of the various nations of Europe that all of Europe was swept into a supranational state. It is better for the residents of each of the American states that the states are not as sovereign as they once were.

Long-term peace - which usually requires a war that ends in decisive victory for one side and the crushing out of the other, ends up being more beneficial, over time, for the people on BOTH sides.

The Germans are better off today than they ever would have been had the Third Reich actually have WON the war. The Japanese are better off to have been crushed in 1945 than if they had continued with their ancient lunacy.

Military expenditures are incredibly expensive, and they impoverish all sides. When everybody is swept into an Empire, the huge wastefulness of maintaining vast military forces is significantly reduced.

Rome at the time of the Republic had something on the order of 120 legions to guard against this enemy and that, this rebellious city state and that. But once Rome conquered the whole Mediterranean, the army decreased in size by over 2/3rds. The Pax Romana was maintained from Britain to the Euphrates, and from the Danube to the Sahara, with just 33 legions, for centuries.

Imperial victory resulted in a massive reduction in military spending, which in turn meant spending on other things of benefit to commerce and, ultimately, people: roads, sewers, aqueducts.

British people are better off as part of a demilitarized union with France, Holland, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Italy and all those Commonwealth countries than the British - or any piece of the Commonwealth - or any of those other countries ever were.

To GET THERE, Europe had to burn itself completely to the ground and be swept into the American Empire.

It's not the fact that the Empire is American. Had the British conquered the world, or had Napoleon won in Russia, or had the Spanish Armada not been swept away by a hurricane - any of the civilized Western powers that had a shot at the general conquest of Europe and, after that, the World - would have produced a worldwide imperial system that would leave people around the world generally better off than they otherwise would be, simply because of the inherent economic growth effects of stable, peaceful, large imperial markets.

America is simply the country that won the race. The other top contenders for the prize were probably Rome, France, Spain and Britain. It's not surprising that English, Spanish and French are the dominant world languages: they had successful world empires. In the end, all three came under American leadership, and that has been good for all of us, not just the Americans.

The issue with L'il Kim is that he's an aggressive murderous thug whose OBJECTIVE is to have a population kowtowing to him on his knees NO MATTER WHAT the consequences.

If he wins, darkness settles in forever.

One cannot look at the Pax Americana, which embraces Europe, Japan, the Americas in general, the old British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch Empires (for the most part) and argue that people within the Empire are in darkness. They are collectively better off than at any time in human history.

If North Korea has to be broken, and is, then after the trauma, it begins to rise to status of the South, just like Germany became free like the West, and rich, and East Germany and Poland are rising rapidly to the imperial norm now that they, too, have been swept into the Empire.

By and large, one world government under Western principles is better for all mankind. The outcome of the historical game is that the flag at the top of the highest pole is the Stars and Stripes, but had it been the Union Jack or the French tricolor or the lilies of the Bourbons it really wouldn't have made much of a difference.

On the other hand, the crescent and star, or the hammer and sickle, or the swastika all would have greatly diminished the happiness and health of the collective whole.

America, Britain, France, Spain, Holland - doesn't really make a difference. The differences are only cosmetic. All are part of one sprawling amalgamated Western Empire that is finished with internal war - and THAT is the secret to the economic success of MOST of the people within the system.

Systems built on different principles are quite a bit worse, because those principles are inferior morally and in terms of economics and commerce.

In every generation our ancestors have had to fight a particular ideological threat.

In mine, it has been the Cold War - the relentless press of Communism as the alternative world view to the Western one. The West, in the period since World War I, has NEVER been the aggressor, not ever. Rather, the West has settled down to internal peace and commerce. It has been aggressive imperialists of the old style who have disturbed the peace: German conquerors first, then Soviet-led Communists.

The Cold War against the USSR was long and hard, but it had to be won, and it was. However, the Cold War against Communist dictatorship was not COMPLETELY won. Red China is still Communist, and fascistic and aggressive. North Korea is still a Stalinist state. The Castros still rule Cuba. Left wing thuggery has broken Venezuela. The West is not perfect, but the alternative is a lot worse.

Faced with people who are willing to kill - and Kim has killed millions - the truth is that you have to be willing to kill the killers. This is not "Being the same" as they are, morally. It is justice. We have the right given by God to kill killers, and the sooner we get to the business of doing it, the fewer people have to die.

By leaving Kim in power, MILLIONS have been starved to death in North Korea by their own leader. He doesn't care. I DO care, and just as in the case of Auschwitz, as a Christian, I categorically reject as blind and stupid any sort of moral equivalence between ME, who doesn't want to see ANYBODY killed, and Hitler, or Kim Jong Un, who routinely starve and kill millions as an avenue to power.

He doesn't have the right to kill North Korean people in his quest for power. But because he DOES, God automatically gives me the right, and the full moral license, to go kill him and his killers BECAUSE of what he does.

If North Koreans don't want to join the world system, I don't care. The Swiss don't join the EU, I'm not for invading Switzerland. But when leaders start murdering my cousins - for all humans are cousins - in their quest for power, the the absolute commandment of God: the man who sheds blood - by man shall his blood be shed - HE is the criminal, I AM the justiciar who calls to shed his blood as PUNISHMENT for what he does.

This is Christian. It is perfectly Christian. It is obedient to God. It is seeking justice.

A knock on effect of killing the killers is that the surviving people, once freed, can join the larger world system and have a good shot at decent lives.

I don't have the right to kill the North Korean government because I am an American. I have the right to kill them because they kill people in droves in their quest for power in North Korea. Nobody has the right to do that.

Hitler did not have the right to Kill Jews, and Kim Jong Un doesn't have the right to kill North Koreans. Because they DO that - and nothing more - gives us the absolute right - as men of God - to go in and kill them. That's justice.

Now, truth is, most men are not nearly as focused on morality as I am. They need OTHER inducements to be willing to risk their lives to see justice done and peace restored. For THOSE men, the flag, the culture, the national anthem, personal advancement, economic wealth - these are the blandishments offered by the expansion of the Empire. Their numbers and efforts are needed to get rid of Kim, and so they are called upon, by what interests them, to get them on board. IF men could be motivated to action simply by calling for the good, then we could stop there. But they can't be. The Americans, for example, stayed out of World War II until the Japanese and Germans attacked them. It would have been best to have gone in immediately, before France fell, and ended the charade. But Americans, by and large, were too self-interested for that. So more had to die. It would have been best had slavery been abolished because it was wrong, back at the founding of the country. But men were comfortable in their evil. Eventually it was uprooted, at much greater loss and death and suffering, because men were allowed to remain quietly in their evils.

I do not become what I hate.

I see in the unwillingness to attack and uproot evil mere cowardice. I see the people who don't want to fight the killer Kim as the same thing as the Americans who were not themselves slaves, and so were indifferent to slaveowners holding them, or the Americans who were content to let Hitler devour the world as long as he didn't bother us.

That's not good enough.

But faced with cowardice which forces inaction, what is there to do? Rage at it. That's what I do: I rage at it, just as the abolitionists raged at slavery during all of the long years of evil, lazy and cowardly American indifference to the subject; I rage at it just as the pro-lifers rage today at a system that consigns 2 million babies a year to the garbage bin for the sexual convenience of incontinent people. I rage at it just as the free peoples of Europe, and any strategist with half a brain, raged at American lack of interest in helping the free peoples of the world in 1939, 1940 and 1941. If you want to equate me to Kim Jong Un, that's ok. Others on this website equate me to a thrall of Satan because of my religion. Addle-headed people abound here - and as time goes on I lose the interest in being particularly clear or sequential in my argumentation, because nobody here gives a shit anyway.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   17:55:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: paraclete (#0)

Just turn NK into a no fly zone. If it takes off whether a plane or missile, it will be shot down.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-09-15   17:56:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: paraclete (#0)

Why not fly a missile over North Korea? Just for testing purposes.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-15   18:15:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#7) (Edited)

There is something to be gained if North Korea is goaded into war and we conquer all gen and reunify North Korea.

That is problematic, China doesn't want a western democracy on its borders, this is why Kim gets away with what he does. Freeing NK is not worth one life if they don't want to be free

I see NK a little like the Scotland of the second century. Wild, rebellious and definately not into the hegemony of the day. Best thing to do is use the Hadrian/Trump solution and build a wall. Then Kim can be assured that no one is going to invade NK. Let him trade with China and be exploited by them. The hermit kingdom can go back to doing what it does well, living in the past

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-15   19:07:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite (#24)

Why not fly a missile over North Korea? Just for testing purposes.

well SK sort of did something like that the other day, carried out its own missile test. The issue with flying a missile over NK is where is it going to land and where is it coming from? NK has been careful about the flight path of their missiles. B1 bombers obviously upset Kim so more B1 flights is an option

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-15   19:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: paraclete (#25)

Freeing NK is not worth one life if they don't want to be free

I don't know whether or not want to be free in the Western sense, but I do know that they don't want to be murdered, that families of political prisoners do not want to watch their children die in biological experiments by the regime.

And it is worth a lot of lives to end that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-15   20:30:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

And it is worth a lot of lives to end that.

So let's recount some memorable moments

600,000 lives to end slavery on the American continent

25 million (military) to rid the world of the Nazi and the Axis powers, 60 million counting civilians

what is the possible count of ridding the korean peninsula of NK?

22 million NK 20 Million SK ??? Japanese ??? Chinese ??? Americans

It is ok to think in these terms because the war won't be fought on american soil, no the price is too high for a people who will not fight for themselves

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-15   21:39:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: paraclete (#26)

The issue with flying a missile over NK is where is it going to land and where is it coming from?

Japan could fire a cruise missile from a ship and program it to fly over Pyongyang then back out to sea. Just as a test.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-16   9:53:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: paraclete (#28)

If they get nukes, the war will be on American soil if they choose to launch it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-16   16:54:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30) (Edited)

If they get nukes, the war will be on American soil if they choose to launch it.

pure paranoia and exactly what Kim wants you to think. I keep saying this is the mouse that roared, Kim probably watched an old Peter Sellars movie and decided to try it on.

One of the most insignificant nations on Earth has the most powerful military in a tizzy because there is nothing they can do without becoming the greatest pyrrhria for being responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocents.

Noone want to revisit the 50's and that almost forgotten war of attrition. No one wants to see the korean peninsula in ruins again. You can bet China doesn't want to loose another half a million shoring up a corrupt regime, that is why they told Kim he is on his own if he fired the first shot, pity Mao hadn't told his grandfather the same thing

paraclete  posted on  2017-09-16   22:45:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

- and as time goes on I lose the interest in being particularly clear or sequential in my argumentation, because nobody here gives a shit anyway.

Well, I'm feeling generous today and am happy to give a load of crap of my own to this discussion, which of course I mean in the most positive and uplifting way.

You bring up a line of thinking that is interesting and to me worth discussing. It would seem you argue that it is a valid Christian moral cause for world domination in the name of bettering society with a strong economy and high standard of living.

But could anyone subscribing to Christianity rationally argue that God has a desire that His children be provided with a comfortable home, car and full amenities like washing machines and so on? Could you explain how having full physical comforts of a quality standard of living actually satisfies God more than a family living in a hut in a jungle washing clothes on a rock by the creek?

And after doing that, explain how and why God would command Christians to take up arms and wage wars, killing some people in order to bring these comforts to the survivors and their offspring, as though a high standard of living is a moral good exceeding the moral evil of waging elective wars?

I'm not going to presume your position is representative of what most Christian's would say. In fact, I know it's not. But still, Christianity does have the shortcoming of not well explaining what the hell we are doing on earth. Christians don't really have any idea why we are here. To be fair, this is a shortcoming shared by perhaps all major religions.

I've made reference to it before, to you and others. But the Michael Newton model (as I call it) does have the advantage of providing a rational and pragmatic reason why we are here on earth. It includes the reason why there is tragedy and hardship. And under this model, which I subscribe to for it's shear completeness in explaining, well, everything, it is not important that people have modern conveniences of a high standard of living, and it is certainly wrong for any person to decide to start a war to "help" the country they are attacking.

So, no, I would not agree with your premise at all. It makes zero sense from both a Christian and non-Christian perspective.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-17   4:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Pinguinite (#32)

The view of conquering the world to better it cannot be squared with Christ. He said to let the wheat and the tares grow together and then, at the harvest, bundle up the tares and throw them into the fire.

Jesus' principles of violence cannot be squared with modern statecraft, just as God's principles of economics cannot be squared with either capitalism or communism.

If there were not slavery and no Third Reich, it would be considerably easier to shrug one's shoulders at the various evils of rulers, as was done with the various medieval kings. Truth is, I can't justify the American Revolution on Christian terms, or even on Yahwistic terms.

I can justify fighting the Third Reich (we didn't have to), or the Civil War (didn't have to do that either) on Yahwistic terms - "he who sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed", and "he who steals a man shall be put to death" - but Jesus goes further than that, and even on Yahwistic terms God did not authorize anybody to kill other people to get the guilty - which is what collateral damage in war is.

To have fought World War II on Yahwistic terms would have meant to concentrate airpower right on the field of battle, and never bombed cities, and it would have meant only torpedoing warships, not merchant ships.

Had we limited ourselves in this way, we may have still won the war. But the enemy was certainly never going to that.

And so the application of Biblical Christianity to warfare essentially leaves you unable to wage it. You pretty much have to turn the other cheek and let the North Koreas and Third Reichs do as they will. You certainly could never revolt against the Crown. America would still be British...maybe. This assumes that the British and other Europeans were also never going to really behave like Christ called for. That is a safe assumption.

Biblical Christianity essentially demands that you submit, obey, and that you will be rewarded in the next life. That's how it got written down. Whether Jesus meant that exactly or not, that's what is written, if you parse it out.

And that would mean, well, it's difficult to say what it would mean. I expect that if that were the salient feature of Christiantiy that the religion would have died out in the Roman Empire like Mithraism did. People are simply not going to permit themselves to be invaded, oppressed, killed. They're not going to let themselves be enslaved forever even if God tells them to.

So you have pointed to a "seam" in Christianity and Yahwist religion. God forbade killing - not just murder, but killing, except as punishment for crime. That would mean no tax revolts. It would have meant that when the Dutch ship rolled up offering to sell the first slave in Virginia, the Virginians would have hauled off the captain and guards on that Dutch ship and executed them, and freed the slave.

Nothing like that remotely ever happened. Biblical Christianity breaks down when it comes to warfare, because it essentially forbids it for everybody but Jews entering Canaan to take it from the Canaanites.

Now, to be clear: Christianity doesn't break down LOGICALLY - God was clear: you can only kill as punishment for murder (and, in Israel, certain other crimes), and then only if you follow procedures that are certain not to convict the innocent. There isn't enough wiggle room in that for war, so men have always been on their own in that regard, if they are going to fight wars.

Wars of defense are easier to justify, but wars of offense are unjustifiable. But who ever calls a war of offense a war of offense? When America launched war on Britain in the Revolution, the Americans styled it as defending themselves.

Human logic and self-justification is endlessly adaptable.

Given that Biblical lacuna, God had to reveal more than is in the Bible, and he did, via the Holy Spirit, through the Catholic Church. Just War Doctrine is God's answer to the problem heretofore discussed.

Would an offensive war against North Korea to stop them from getting nuclear weapons and attacking America be a just war? Under the traditional doctrine, no. Nor would a war to invade a country that was building a doomsday device to wipe out humanity. Under Just War doctrine as it currently exists, we have to wait until North Korea takes out San Francisco or Seoul or Sydney before we go in and end their regime. And likewise, we would have to wait until the Doomsday Device makers actually used it.

Once again, at least in the latter case, the practical human desire and need to survive would override our concepts of what God wants and cause us to move pre-emptively. When God's apparently demands become ridiculous because of changing circumstances, we generally change God's demands - we reinterpret what we think God said (remembering all the time that we are reading books written by men long dead who are telling us "God said").

I am thinking here of the dilemma of the Jews, who were told flatly by God to rest on the Sabbath, that it was a death penalty offense not to. God made no exception in his repetition of the commandments for war, and so the Jews, when fighting the Babylonians and the Assyrians, actually took the Sabbath off. Of course, therefore, the enemy attacked on the Sabbath, and the Jews died in their houses. They REALLY BELIEVED that God would destroy the enemy for defiling the Sabbath. Instead, God let Israel be destroyed, the Hebrews be slaughtered, and only a remnant be dragged off to Babylon as slaves. That "wait for the afterlife for your reward - even if it means you and your family dying in the here and now" is a commandment that men are going to break. No, Lord, I will fight the people who are coming to kill me and my family.

That's why God sent us the Just War doctrine through the Church. But that doesn't work all that well either. To stop Hitler, you march in when he remilitarized the Rhineland in violation of treaty. You don't wait until he builds up the ability to unleash hell.

There is another way to look at all of this, and it is the way that I look at it. We are awash in sin. Simple masturbation is a deadly sin, no different from murder. Masturbation and murder and every other sin can be forgiven by God, and besides all of that "Turn the other cheek" business I spoke of above, Jesus ALSO said that if you forgive you shall be forgiven. If you forgive everything, you shall be forgiven everything. So, if we truly believe that we have to go to war to save ourselves and take out an evil - such as the American Revolutionaries - then assuming that we're wrong, that we have gone and murdered many contrary to God's will - then as long as we forgive everybody everything then we too will be forgiven our crimes and sins by God.

So that, in the end, is really what I believe. You try to be as peaceful as you can be, and you try to turn the other cheek, but when threats become existential, you do what you think you have to do, and then you are magnanimous and forgiving in the peace afterwards. You commit the sin because you have to - you have been forced into a corner of sin or die. You DON'T do like the Hebrews did and die in your house with your family because it's the Sabbath. You break the Sabbath and atone for the sin later.

You don't let the bullies win because of Christianity. You sin, and then you turn to the other key of Christianity - forgiveness - and you rely on God's understanding and forgiveness. Attempts to formulate this into a doctrine whereby you are JUSTIFIED in killing doesn't really work in a lot of circumstances. So you choose to either submit and die - and expect God to reward you as promised - or you decide to sin as necessary, win - and expect God to forgive you as promised.

Faced with the choice of submitting to bullies (turn the other cheek) and taking out the bullies (shedding blood - a sin), I prefer to sin, and then ask for God's forgiveness for doing what I needed to do. No different from masturbation, really, on a cosmic scale.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-17   9:16:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

To have fought World War II on Yahwistic terms would have meant to concentrate airpower right on the field of battle, and never bombed cities, and it would have meant only torpedoing warships, not merchant ships.

Not true. With you it is never clear if it is a lie or ignorance.

2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?

18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt;

19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.

20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.

21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.

22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.

24 And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.

25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God.

26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-17   9:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

You don't let the bullies win because of Christianity. You sin, and then you turn to the other key of Christianity - forgiveness - and

You are basically saying the Bible gives you a license to sin. You can premeditate your sin planning on asking for forgiveness later. That isn't scriptural. That is Vicks warped view and nothing else.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-17   9:39:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

Given that Biblical lacuna, God had to reveal more than is in the Bible, and he did, via the Holy Spirit, through the Catholic Church. Just War Doctrine is God's answer to the problem heretofore discussed.

You are full of it. Document is deceiver.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-17   9:44:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)

You blind ignorant fool. Stop quoting law you do not understand.

Go back to the beginning of the Law and READ IT (for once). TO WHOM is God speaking?

YOU?

No!

READ IT!

He is speaking, specifically, to circumcised Hebrews, in the desert, and their circumcised lineal heirs.

ARE YOU a circumcised Hebrew in the desert at Sinai? Are you a descenant of them? Are you a Jew?

No?

Then you're quoting words that NEVER APPLIED TO YOU and NEVER WILL.

You REALLY THINK that the Mosaic Covenant applies to you and all mankind? That's why you quote it.

What a stupid jackass you are. Go back to the beginning of that law and see TO WHOM THE CONVENANT APPLIES.

You don't even need to do that - it's right here IN THIS TEXT THAT YOU HAVE QUOTED "When you come into the land..."

That's not YOU, that's THEM.

Now, if you go back and read what I wrote you will see that I carved out an exception for the Jews going into Israel. All of that violent language and warfare that is in the Torah was God's commandment TO THEM (only) for that purpose (only). YHWH did not authorize any other people in the world to behave that way. Only the Hebrews, and only when entering into the land of Canaan, to take it.

And that is what I SAID.

You have a literacy problem, obviously, You read the Bible but you don't understand what it says, and then you come after me with Bible quotes saying that I'm wrong, when I actually referred to that very matter, of the Hebrews coming into Canaan, in what I wrote, that you sought to "refute" with what you wrote.

You are making Christians look like fools. You're too stubborn to realize it, but you are. You should actually read the Bible again, carefully, before you start trying to wield it as a weapon. You're cutting off your nose with your own sword.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-17   10:17:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

Nope you're wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-17   16:13:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)

No, Vicomte13 is correct.

http://biblehub.com/kjv/amos/9.htm

goldilucky  posted on  2017-09-19   13:33:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com