“The Anguish of the Jews” by Fr. Flannery, a Catholic priest.

The idea that the Jews always “had it coming” and that there “crimes” always preceded anti-Semitism is repugnant and ignorant.

BTW….

I’m not a Jew.

I don’t think Jews never did anything wrong, even in the middle ages, in regard to Palestine or anything else for that matter.

I think if Jews were in the majority and held power like non-Jews have for so long, they most likely would have committed the same kinds of atrocities somewhere along the way against others. (For instance, Jewish history when Christians were in the minority isn’t exactly stellar…and I’m not sold on all Israeli military actions, like the recent one in Lebanon).

Sadly, these things are human nature….not gentile nature, not Jewish nature…HUMAN NATURE.

Thanks for catching that. Though you should realize that using bogus quotes is part of being “open-minded.”

His quote:

“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group… The Jewish group has thrived on opposition and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world”

Here’s the proof it’s bogus:

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/03/refusing-to-admit-obvious-sungeniss.html

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/04/jacob-michael-prophet.html

At least he left off the last sentence most anti-Semites use…one that was totally made up. But the first two sentences in his quote are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS. Read them in context and they DO NOT say what he implies.

You asserted that it was common knowledge or everyone believed (or something like that. I don’t have time to look back) that Saddam had WMDs. No they didn’t. Hence the reference to myself and others in anti-war right circles who never believed it. That is the problem with absolutist assertions. They are easily disproved.

And off course the idea of “regime change” in Iraq pre-dated the Bush administration. It was clearly articulated in the ’98 PNAC document, and it existed long before that in the minds of the neocon world domination crowd. Can’t you see that that actually HURTS your case? That 911 created a convenient pretext for a preordained war. And no all the people you mentioned did not advocate “invading Iraq.” Clinton and Dean wanted to invade Iraq before Bush did?

Did you even read the Lt Col KK articles I linked to?

By your own admission, (for whatever reason), you have no desire to respond to my comments. I don’t care what non-sensical justification you claim for your pathetic lack of argument, but the bottom line in…you have no leg to stand on.

Even ignoring the blatant crap you spew every time you return to your keyboard…the facts are:

1) You claim the Bush lied us into war.
Fact: Before Bush ever started running, Clinton and all above mentioned people were arguing for attacking Iraq.
Regardless of motive, this proves that the idea to invade Iraq and out Saddam existed before Bush announced his candadacy. You don’t have a leg to stand on here.

2) You Claim Bush manipulated info
Fact: The biggest pieces of war intelligence came from the English (Saddam has sought uranium in Nigeria) and France (Those tubes are perfect for centrifuges) respectively.

3) “I never believed it!”
Reality: Who cares?
Your some schmuck who has no war experience yet slams others who don’t as well. So who cares?
Pointing to your own opinion as basis of fact is irrelevant.
Heck, under this absolutely moronic frame of debate:
I once believed that there was a monster in my stereo (I was 6 btw), so therefore, that absolutely foolish opinion MUST be entered into the debate as FACT, because someone once believed it.

At the end of the day, you refuse to debate the issues because you know you’re trying to lie to everyone who reads your crap. In an honest debate, where you can’t just pull any nonsensical piece of crap you want out of thin air, but have to debate the facts…we both know I’ll win. You have the added disadvantage of knowing I was an anti-war guy turned pro-war by being wrong (I have no problem admitting I have the facts backwards.) So if you wish to debate facts…you’re already done. You’ve lost.

I’m sick of idiot saying they’ve debated my facts when all they’ve done is shift the debate.

You’ve been proven wrong on the issue of your article no less than three times:

1) No neo-con (Republican) has defined victory.
2. (When provided a link here, to prove to you that Bush hadindeed defines victory you:) Demanded that desk jockeys define victory.
3) (When told that most “desk jockeys” defer to WAR generals to define policy) You demanded that Limbaugh and Hannity define it,
4) (When proved with evidence that at least Hannity has defined it) You Demanded MYSELF or Dr. Jackson define victory.

And let’s not forget that absolutely stupid moment when you mocked my IC screen name. Please, you couldn’t defend your position against Terry Shiavo, stop pretending you are my debating equal.

Stop mascarading as anything other than an anti war shill.

You will be happy to learn that we will be at war with Iran soon:

http://tinyurl.com/ys8mr4

May be why the troops are supporting Ron Paul’s campaign

http://tinyurl.com/2nlrhx

Troy

Take care, Phil

But you pride yourself on being a practical and pragmatic thinker who evaluates all the facts at hand to arrive at your thoughtful conclusions unbound by excessive ideology. So Mr. Practical Man of the World, if the people are against the War in Iraq and more are jumping ship each day, how in the heck do you expect to sell a multi-generational War against Islam? Persuasion? A coup? Pray for more terrorism to reignite war fever? And are you going to support a draft to sustain it? We clearly can not do it with the forces we have which are being strained to the breaking point.

Troy, you don’t understand since you are a novice at the arguing with Phil business so let me clue you in. Phil’s opinions are the gold standard, you see. The worth of other opinions is measured by their distance from or proximity to Phil’s opinion. (That makes a non-interventionist like me a blithering idiot.) Hence, if you want to know what victory means read what Phil has said about it. Don’t bother yourself with the pesky opinions of others who have written books on the subject, just see what Phil “Sci-Fi” Jackson has said, and that is all you need to know.

Best regards,

Phil

Where have you answered the question? Is really this the answer?

“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”

I made my decision not to read you after reading your above quoted logic. If that is what passes for wisdom what is the point?

The title of Dan Philip’s article was War Hawks Need to Define “Victory”. Why have you still not answered the question?

Thanks once again for posting Phil. Is the family still in town?

Troy