Israel vs Palestinians

#24,601
#24,601
Rasputin_Vol said:
If the end result is that a portion of the passengers ended up getting captured by the Nazis and killed, then what would you call it?

You can play the word games and try to slice and dice meanings all you want, but look at the end result. How is that end result any different than what you clowns claim that The Ottomans would have done?
Click to expand...

Lmfao. The same guy who opposes taking in refugees is now attempting comparing denying refugees to murder because “look at the end result”.

So should the US have taken more Jewish refugees? Is that something you support?
 
#24,602
#24,602
OrangeTsar said:
You can pretty muck pick ANY other group on planet Earth and you will find some period in which they have displayed antisemitism. It is a worldwide contagion and every society has been infected with it. The US in the early 20th Century had a bad case. WWII pushed it into remission; but it has had a major resurgence lately.
Click to expand...
The most dangerous place in the world for Jews in 2024 is in Israel. And again, anti-Zionism, not antisemitism is the issue. And again, Arabs are Semites, so stop using that Zionist propaganda term "antisemitism".

OrangeTsar said:
At a spiritual level, I firmly believe people hate Israel because Satan hates Israel because they are a special people set apart by God himself. That is why antisemitism has lasted so long and why it will continue to plague mankind until Christ returns. Mankind are merely pawns in a larger battle.
Click to expand...
That was true until The Resurrection and 69/70 AD.
 
#24,603
#24,603
Rasputin_Vol said:
The most dangerous place in the world for Jews in 2024 is in Israel. And again, anti-Zionism, not antisemitism is the issue. And again, Arabs are Semites, so stop using that Zionist propaganda term "antisemitism".


That was true until The Resurrection and 69/70 AD.
Click to expand...
No, God made an ETERNAL covenant with Abraham and Isaac and their descendants. God NEVER goes back on a covenant, even when WE break faith with Him.
According to the Apostle Paul; Christ came to reconcile both Jew and Gentile to the Father to become one family. He never disowned Israel, even when Israel didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah. God had a plan from the beginning of time and He never changed it. He knew that Israel would not always follow Him but He chose them anyway. Are we to claim that our puny “wisdom” is greater than HIS?

From Psalms 105:
“He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, and confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.”

There is not expiration date; not “but” clause. God does not lie and he does not break His promises.
 
#24,604
#24,604
OrangeTsar said:
No, God made an ETERNAL covenant with Abraham and Isaac and their descendants. God NEVER goes back on a covenant, even when WE break faith with Him.
According to the Apostle Paul; Christ came to reconcile both Jew and Gentile to the Father to become one family. He never disowned Israel, even when Israel didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah. God had a plan from the beginning of time and He never changed it. He knew that Israel would not always follow Him but He chose them anyway. Are we to claim that our puny “wisdom” is greater than HIS?
Click to expand...
You just said it, not me. Jew AND Gentile. So there is no "special" people.
 
#24,605
#24,605
OrangeTsar said:
No, God made an ETERNAL covenant with Abraham and Isaac and their descendants. God NEVER goes back on a covenant, even when WE break faith with Him.
According to the Apostle Paul; Christ came to reconcile both Jew and Gentile to the Father to become one family. He never disowned Israel, even when Israel didn’t recognize Jesus as Messiah. God had a plan from the beginning of time and He never changed it. He knew that Israel would not always follow Him but He chose them anyway. Are we to claim that our puny “wisdom” is greater than HIS?
Click to expand...
Is Paul the Apostle in error?

OrangeTsar said:
From Psalms 105:
“He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, and confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.”

There is not expiration date; not “but” clause. God does not lie and he does not break His promises.
Click to expand...
OK, I will roll with that. Then are you a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Or are you a Gentile?
 
#24,606
#24,606
Vol8188 said:
Lmfao. The same guy who opposes taking in refugees is now attempting comparing denying refugees to murder because “look at the end result”.

So should the US have taken more Jewish refugees? Is that something you support?
Click to expand...
"We know that if we don't let you in, there's a high chance you'll be captured by those who want to kill you. But we're not going to let you in. Don't take it as being hostile or anything like that."
Were you one of the cops who returned the naked bleeding kid to Jeffrey Dahmer?
LMFAO indeed.
 
#24,607
#24,607
EasternVol said:
"We know that if we don't let you in, there's a high chance you'll be captured by those who want to kill you. But we're not going to let you in. Don't take it as being hostile or anything like that."
Were you one of the cops who returned the naked bleeding kid to Jeffrey Dahmer?
LMFAO indeed.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming the US is now responsible for the death of any refugee they refuse to take in? Is that your new dumb standard?

Obviously sending people to the UK and France is the same as sending them to Dahmer…..
 
#24,608
#24,608
Vol8188 said:
Lmfao. The same guy who opposes taking in refugees is now attempting comparing denying refugees to murder because “look at the end result”.

So should the US have taken more Jewish refugees? Is that something you support?
Click to expand...
Well, I'll let you answer:

1. Let the refugees in
2. Send Americans to Europe to fight and die to liberate them
3. Mind our own business and enforce our immigration laws

Which of those 3 options would have been the correct call and would have NOT had lingering repercussions decades later?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#24,609
#24,609
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, I'll let you answer:

1. Let the refugees in
2. Send Americans to Europe to fight and die to liberate them
3. Mind our own business and enforce our immigration laws

Which of those 3 options would have been the correct call and would have NOT had lingering repercussions decades later?
Click to expand...

Lmfao so you agree with not letting them in?
 
#24,610
#24,610
Vol8188 said:
Are you claiming the US is now responsible for the death of any refugee they refuse to take in? Is that your new dumb standard?

Obviously sending people to the UK and France is the same as sending them to Dahmer…..
Click to expand...
Straw man, as is expected from you.
 
#24,612
#24,612
EasternVol said:
"We know that if we don't let you in, there's a high chance you'll be captured by those who want to kill you. But we're not going to let you in. Don't take it as being hostile or anything like that."
Were you one of the cops who returned the naked bleeding kid to Jeffrey Dahmer?
LMFAO indeed.
Click to expand...

Lmfao you make this nonsense post and then you like the post from your buddy suggesting we shouldn’t have taken them in?

Which is it?
 
#24,615
#24,615
Vol8188 said:
Lmfao so you agree with not letting them in?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Do you have an issue with enforcing immigration laws? We have the luxury of being separated by two oceans from Europe and Asia? Why the hell are we supposed to/obligated to bring in more people when our first priority should be to take care of American citizens?
 
#24,616
#24,616
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes.

Do you have an issue with enforcing immigration laws? We have the luxury of being separated by two oceans from Europe and Asia? Why the hell are we supposed to/obligated to bring in more people when our first priority should be to take care of American citizens?
Click to expand...

They why post numerous times about the “end result”, if you really didn’t care about the “end result”?
 
#24,619
#24,619
Vol8188 said:
They why post numerous times about the “end result”, if you really didn’t care about the “end result”?
Click to expand...
Because I'm highlighting the issue. The American govt wanted to sacrifice Americans to fight OVER THERE for them, but did NOT want to bring the people OVER HERE!!!

Do you see the difference now?
 
#24,623
#24,623
Rasputin_Vol said:
Because I'm highlighting the issue. The American govt wanted to sacrifice Americans to fight OVER THERE for them, but did NOT want to bring the people OVER HERE!!!

Do you see the difference now?
Click to expand...

No, I just see more nonsense arguments from you.

“How evil! They didn’t bring them in…but also they shouldn’t have!”

Accepting nor denying this one group of refugees had nothing to do with the decision to go into WWII.
 
#24,625
#24,625
Vol8188 said:
No, I just see more nonsense arguments from you.

“How evil! They didn’t bring them in…but also they shouldn’t have!”

Accepting nor denying this one group of refugees had nothing to do with the decision to go into WWII.
Click to expand...
So the alternative was to sacrifice American lives halfway across the globe instead of minding our business.

And you still don't get it.

European problems were not our problems.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top