Seth

Spot-on!

Seth

You folks really, truly go around in this "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy" existence where you accept the enemy that wants to murder you and your family as a "nice person" and those that are the enemy for what he is as "h**ers."

I could care less about the obtuseness of "progressives," until they use their power in the government to inflict the same danger on those of us who know better that they do on themselves.

JohnCorrespondent

There's that "Israel" again. I didn't see any reply to my questions about "Israel" the other time you (or whoever it was) brought it up, a few days ago.

JohnCorrespondent

Why me? (You need to be more specific about why you said that.) What are _you_, some kind of super-something?

No; I already said I didn't serve in the military (either in this thread or another recent one in OPP). Do you have a real point to make about that? If so, what is it? Something to do with the ability to "figure out" things?


That was _my_ point. Earlier the Rangers and ... had been brought up by someone (you?) in the context of knowing or understanding something about Somalia. My point about that was that they were not in a position to understand the culture. And now you've supported my point.

Looks like I "figured out" something right that time.

I didn't know those other things about the civil wars etc.; thanks for the history lesson; but it doesn't seem to change anything about this discussion.

Yes, trained to k**l when necessary. What I said is that they had to be ready to k**l. Did you think I was denigrating their training to k**l? As long as there exist soldiers with lethal weapons, there is the assumption that sometimes k*****g is necessary, and I did not contradict that. They know how to k**l, but, as you have said, they aren't trained to know the culture.


Oh, I, the fool, because you misinterpreted what I said and got worked up about it?


Oh now I see; you're the fool in your misinterpretation above, while I'm to be the fool (you think) on the topic of "purging" experience of "strife".

Like there's nothing to be learned from strife? Like she should forget her experiences (wh**ever they are -- maybe we don't even know what they are) and culture and what happened to the people around her? There presumably _are_ things to be learned from wh**ever her experiences were -- maybe even some valuable lessons -- which might be relevant wherever the U.S. sends Rangers or other armed forces (which is a lot of places, because the U.S. sends armed forces to so many places around the world). She may have experience of what it's like when Rangers or other armed U.S. forces come in. Or wh**ever.

Or even if there aren't valuable lessons in experience, that still doesn't mean the experience is disqualifying for serving in Congress or even for "assimilating" (wh**ever you actually mean by that).

You weren't very specific about just what you think her disqualifying experience was, you only said "formative years of her life in an environment of such strife". So, you think that would disqualify her to serve in the U.S. Congress. I don't think that way. To look at Omar, and to listen to her, one perceives her as a rather competent person -- what one might expect of someone elected to Congress -- actually, better than I would expect of most people elected to Congress. Maybe she's just a strong person -- ever think of that? Maybe wh**ever her experiences have been in Somalia, they haven't destroyed her, and here she is, a strong competent person. I wonder how your reasoning would treat U.S. soldiers who have had bad experiences -- would you assume that their bad experiences must have made them too defective to serve in Congress? No matter how good they may appear, you would assume that something must be wrong with them, because of their bad experiences?

Are you assuming that bad experiences would make a person unfit? Some particular _kind_ of bad experiences? Unfit for what?

She did get elected to the U.S. Congress; and most of us never manage that feat. She has the confidence of the U.S. citizens in her district. When I heard one of her speeches on the radio, I, a U.S. American (about 4th generation through all grandparents), found her a better representative of my thinking than half the other Congresspeople are.

All that; and you choose to say she hasn't "assimilated". As if there's something called "assimilation" which is somehow more important, or more relevant, than wh**ever else she's done or been or is.


Oh, like soldiers bring home their bad war experiences? Which is worse stuff to bring with oneself? Should experienced veterans like John Kerry or the late John McCain, having served in the military and experienced war, be somehow denigrated because they _remember_ and learn from their experiences (the "s**t" they've been through)? Or is it just some _other_ kind of people who should be denigrated for remembering past experience?

Or shall only people who _haven't_ had bad experiences from a war-torn country (like George W. Bush and Donald Trump) be deemed fit for high office (_they_ don't have any such "s**t" to bring with them)?

Besides all that, we may not know as much about Omar as you seem to think you do. I've assumed she's Muslim because of how she dresses, but to me that's not an issue. "Muslim" is just a member of a particular religion (Islam). We've assumed she had some kind of experiences which you call "s**t"; and possibly you know more about her experiences than I do; but I'd wait to see what she says (if anything) about her own experience; I might not trust your understanding of it.

Because she's from Somalia? Or because she left Somalia?

Do you know the difference between Sharia and Sunni? Does it matter to you whether a person's one or the other? I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about a religious group.

You say she's "undoubtedly" "anti-Semitic". Why would you assume that of her? Is there any _reason_ why a person of her circumstances would be anti-Semitic? Or do you think that she's one of a kind of people who get "anti" something by random chance, no reason to it at all? Would they all be "anti" everything or just "anti" random things or just "anti" Semitic?

Why would anyone ever be anti-Semitic? Haven't the Semites been well-behaved throughout their history (actually, they haven't always, but that much could be said of almost any group)?

You would never be anti any group, would you.

And why did you bring up "anti-Semitic" in this context, the context of whether Omar's fit to be a U.S. Congressperson?


You have something against Muslims? You think something about Omar, because she's Muslim? What is it, and what is your logical process about it?

What's your religion? Let's say it's Orthodox Jew or Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist Christian. If Omar were Southern Baptist Christian, _then_ would she have freaking business bringing that Southern Baptist Christian influence into our government?

Seth

You know, you "come off" as though an intelligent person, then "ask" a lot of questions that cause you to appear as though your mind is completely blank, requesting replies that insinuate you have zero ability to do even the most basic research on your own.

That in itself would indicate that you're really not all that interested in the other party's input, rather you're simply into impressing yourself with a plethora of extremely long winded posts expecting others to dev**e lengthy periods of time replying to questions whose answers not only won't convince you of anything, but about which you truly couldn't care less.

It's all about your self gratification, not about any genuine exchange of ideas or information. Some might even dare call it your version of an ego trip, or perhaps the actual reality is that no one in your off-line existence pays much attention to you, so this is your way of getting attention.

If the latter is the case, it would put you in the same category of poster as Kevyn or Woodguru, whom no one ever visits or invites to anything, so they come to OPP for attention.

Often you request that people rehash information that's been disseminated here on this forum over and over, until repetition becomes very tiresome.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OK, doc, wh**ever you say. I hope you won't mind if I cancel all future therapy sessions, the few we've had in the past have not been effective in the least, I'm still an American who loves this country and your attempts to change that ain't working. What you are missing here is that I have no intention of changing, so bill me and burn my file.

JohnCorrespondent

No, actually I thought you were a dummy for repeating the same old mistaken tropes about "Israel", which are repeated so many times by so many people without justification.

(I guess it showed, that I suspected that you were a dummy on the topic; if so, that might be my fault; learning to interact with much different ideas without offending people is a difficult sk**l and I don't always get it right.)

But, supposing you might _not_ be a dummy on the matter, I was giving you the chance to explain it. After all, there might be something you could tell me I didn't already know. Of course, what I expected to happen was that your justification would be poor (but I was still wondering what it was), and then I expected to attack it (politely), which is what OPP (One Political Plaza) is all about: ideas and opposing ideas.

I've already heard & read information about Israel over the years; it's just that my understanding doesn't match wh**ever you said or implied about Israel.

Instead of asking questions, I could just put forth what _I_ think, _without_ interacting with you or anybody. But that's no better than asking questions.

I think you're mostly annoyed because I don't hew to the same party line that you're on _and_ because I say or ask things about it. Go ahead and be annoyed; if I give up on you then I've got other things I can do.

You also mention or reference the length of my posts; they mostly have to be that long to reply to all the extra things you bring up; you keep expanding the range of topics. It is true, though, that sometimes I write overlong -- knowing what to leave out is yet another difficult sk**l.

Well, at least I _did_ reply to things you brought up. I count that as a point in my favor; my responses to your posts were personalized to what you said or asked.

Don't feel you have to reply if you don't want to. I don't mind. Earlier I had hoped to get your answer about Israel but I'm willing to let that go for now.

I read the rest of your post (below) but did not study it.

Seth

Have you ever been in the middle east? Have you ever been to Israel? No, that's right, all you have is second hand "information," obtained no doubt via biased sources, which is par for the course when one attends CAIR meetings.

JohnCorrespondent

So far no-one has mentioned this error:

I erroneously wrote:

"Do you know the difference between Sharia and Sunni? Does it matter to you whether a person's one or the other?"

I should have left off those two sentences or composed them better. I got the various Muslim things mixed up.

Seth

"Do you know the difference between Sharia and Sunni?" pretty much sums up that you have no clue what you're talking about.

It's an apples and oranges thing, like asking "Do you know the difference between a Cajun and the Napoleonic Code?"

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, no kidding. Lots of Muslim things.

JohnCorrespondent

No I have never been in the middle east (& therefore never been to Israel, either). So you guessed that right, but it's true of most U.S. people, so it could have been an easy guess.

Yes, my information about it is "second hand" but that's true of the vast majority of people in the U.S. I'll get to the "second hand" information shortly.

You've probably seen the theory that everyone is biased. I'd say that some are "more biased" (or "biased in a worse way") than others.

You mentioned CAIR in connection with bias. (Rhetorical question:) What would one get from attending CAIR meetings? (CAIR = Council on American-Islamic Relations; I looked it up just now to be
sure of which acronym this is.) One would get some experience hearing Muslims speak, and probably mingle with a few Muslims. That's okay, of course. Everyone should do that before saying much about them. Also at a CAIR meeting, since Muslims are the most likely speakers addressing the group, one could expect there to be some Muslim bias, perhaps a "pro-Muslim" bias. There's no surprise in that.

It's pretty easy to find groups all over the U.S. with an "anti-Muslim" bias. Hang around Christians (for example) long enough (I have) and you'll probably hear them say something anti-Muslim and also anti-all-religions-except-Christianity, and what they say is both biased and unfounded. That might be okay if they're just positive about Christianity and civil about the rest.

Not to mention a pro-Christian, and a pro-Israelite, and a pro-Israeli bias. Probably a pro-Jewish bias also.

Well, this very thread we're in sometimes (often?) (almost always?) has posts that degenerate into an anti-Muslim bias. (People should object to that.)

The people who have associated much with Christians or Jews or Israelis, but none or almost none with Palestinians, should guess that their information is probably _biased_ in a pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian way. I probably wouldn't have been much interested (until I read the horrific accounts in Joshua (in the Bible) about the _earlier_ time) except that I just happened to hear a lot of news from Palestine on the radio for a while (via a radio station that's in the U.S.) (during commutes to or from work, in my car).

At the only CAIR meeting I've attended, they taught a technique for dealing with harassment. It was the main topic of that meeting, and why I chose to attend it. I wish I had learned such a thing before I entered high school; it might have been valuable to me then. At the CAIR meeting they had us practice the technique in small groups, which is a good thing, and I participated, but I'm not very good at such things so it was not easy. Still I'm glad I attended and learned _about_ the technique, even though I'll probably never be good at it.

Years earlier, I also attended a different kind of meeting which had other ideas about dealing with harassment and also read part of a book about it, but that meeting and that book had nothing (even less than that CAIR meeting I attended) to do with any religion, and they did not cover this technique that CAIR was showing us.

It makes sense that CAIR would speak on such a topic, since Muslims are sometimes harassed in America. Maybe a lot.

Now about that second-hand information about the Middle East and about Israel:

It seemed to me that one hears from Jews, and about Jews, all the time (therefore one might be receiving a Jewish bias), but hardly ever hears much about Palestinians. So I mentioned to a Jewish friend (who happened to be from Iran, so that friend was _not_ from Israel but he was a Jew) (Iran, as most people know, is not mostly Jewish, it's mostly other things; but it does have some Jews) that I wished I could meet some Palestinians to round out my experience. So he (a naturally friendly person who has a wide array of contacts) arranged for me to have lunch with a Palestinian-American, which I then did, and heard him describe the situation in Palestine which is where he grew up.

You may have heard of boats sailing to Gaza. I've been to a couple of talks by people who have been to Gaza that way. Two of them are Israeli-Americans (and I've talked with one of them a few times). As well as their personal testimonies (involving, among several other things, a couple of arrests by Israelis) two of them had personally recorded (so this was first-hand information for them, but technically second-hand information for me since I wasn't physically there in Palestine) lengthy video and sound footage (including, among several other things, a couple of incidents involving gunfire from Israelis) which a group of us watched and heard.

Also there were a couple of books. You're probably not interested in the fiction one (though realistic, and written by someone familiar with the territory, having spent a lot of time there). So I'll turn to the non-fiction one. It is a chronicle of a reporter spending much time in Palestine, including one chapter with much detail of one Palestinian candidacy for President (of Palestine of course). I read the book and have met that author (briefly).

As mentioned above, I used to listen to a radio show that often included news from another reporter in Palestine; after hearing about Palestine so many times in that way, I began to develop an interest in it, and then all these other things (about Palestine) that I've mentioned came later.

There was also a movie, maybe an hour long, called "Five Broken Cameras" about life in Palestine, shot (recorded) in Palestine, and I was in a group that watched that.

I guess that's mostly it; all of it second-hand (even the video and sound footage, since I didn't record it in Palestine myself) (and, even speaking with the person who had grown up in Palestine, since I wasn't physically in Palestine), but maybe about as thorough, and close to first-hand, as second-hand could be expected to get for a typical American.

I also think the Bible is relevant, especially the Book of Joshua (the conquest of Palestine by Israelites) and of course, being of Christian ethnicity and attending church many times, I've heard Christians talk about Israel and Palestine from Biblical times, for example honoring the Battle of Jericho (Joshua 6).

In addition to Joshua, I also find Judges 2:1-2 relevant (angel of Lord berating Israelites for not damaging (and/or shunning) Palestinians ("inhabitants of this land") as thoroughly as the Jewish God wished).

I had thought there was more than enough ethnicide, genocide, and infanticide; and also more than enough l**ting; and also more than enough k*****g of Palestinian-owned animals; but apparently the Jewish (and Christian) God wasn't satisfied -- considering it not enough.

I think most Christians interpret these things in the Bible much differently from how I do.

One of the Jewish people in the street demonstrations told me that it seemed that maybe the Israelites should have completely k**led ALL the Palestinians (or "inhabitants of this land") when they had the chance (when, according to the Jewish-Christian holy book, God authorized the genocide). He said it something like, "The Jews missed their chance; if they had completely k**led all those people then, when they had the chance, then there'd be no problem with them now." Maybe we should not judge him harshly for that; maybe he was simply posing a theory.

(Interestingly, in the above paragraph, I conscientiously felt I had to insert "inhabitants of this land" (words copied from Joshua 2:2) rather than relying only on the term "Palestinians", because I had learned from the street (pro-Z*****t street demonstrators) that some people claim that there's no such thing as "Palestinians", and they also claim that "Palestine" doesn't exist! So, since then, I sometimes ask, Does Israel really exist? Is there really such a thing as Israelis?)

My perspective could (presumably) easily be biased in a pro-Palestinian direction, since almost all my sources (except for the Bible, and all that Christian church-going) have had information primarily from Palestine and about Palestine, the kind of perspective a Palestinian might have, and I've spent very little time talking with Israelis except for the two Israeli-Americans who brought much news and video and sound from Palestine, and I can't even say I've talked with them a _lot_, just a little here and there.

Have you been to Israel? to Palestine (which part?), and/or to other parts of the Middle East? What was your first-hand experience in those places? How did you happen to go there, and what kind of guide (if any) did you have? (The kind of guide might have great significance.)

Seth

I've been to Israel three times, once at 17 as a member of Hashomer H'atzair, but didn't work on the Kibbutz because I already had plans to enter the U.S. Coast Guard, instead spending time with family in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and twice since 2000 in a consulting capacity. I actually learned at least as much as I imparted, not bad for a few weeks' work.

I also worked in Pakistan and northern Iraq, each briefly, on "more than just consulting" jobs. I found Pakistan a s**thole, and you can keep Iraq.

Back to Israel, the fact of the matter is that the "Palestinian" leadership is the only reason the "Palestinians" don't have the statehood they didn't even have to begin with. Every time it's been on the table, their corrupt leaders sabotaged negotiations via terrorism or other means. They want the whole enchilada (assuming, of course, that you can get a hallal enchilada someplace), which they're not going to get.

With all the money that flows to them via UNWRA (the UN Works & Relief Agency), a refugee fund that was created only to resettle "Palestinian" refugees, the number of "refugees" in the late 1940s has multiplied into the millions because most of the money "flows" into the numbered accounts of their fearless leaders (Remember when Arafat died and his wife inherited hundreds of millions in a Swiss account? Where do you suppose that came from?) or into weapons and explosives.

A large number of UNWRA personnel are members of Hamas and other militant organizations, and they have no ambitions toward a peaceful solution, only continued violence until they have entirely exterminated or otherwise emptied the region of Jews.

I linked an article in a former reply to you regarding the demonstrations in Gaza and the brutal crackdown by Hamas, who constitute the government there. There are no human rights in Gaza and Hamas presides over broken infrastructure and rampant unemployment, only because they want no peace with Israel and the Jews and are concerned only with making war.

The kerfuffle over "peaceful" "Palestinian" protesters being shot by Israeli soldiers during the hostilities over President Trump moving our embassy to Jerusalem was heavily misreported, again by biased media -- Hamas tangos were using people as human shields in an attempt to get over or through the wall carrying weapons and explosive devices, and later even Hamas admitted that most of those k**led were their own "fighters."

As I posted previously, I know some "Palestinians" in San Francisco who told me years ago that they had only left their homes and come to America because of the oppressive existence over there caused by their leaders' corruption and violence -- they all said that they"d been treated just fine by the Jews, it was their own leadership they had problems with.

One primary reason their leaders, especially Hamas, prefer squalor and poverty for their people and strive to maintain those conditions is because it's those very environs that more easily enable terrorist recruitment; if everyone leads contented lives, candidates for jihad are somewhat thin on the ground.

Unfortunately, modern world media being what it is and the fact that the UN Human Rights Commission is stocked with members from countries whose governments wouldn't know a human right if it walked up and introduced itself, most of the "news" and "information" that comes out of the region is profoundly biased against Israel and much of it is based on "Palestinian" generated anti-Israel propaganda.

As for CAIR, a large part of their operations deals with blocking U.S. and local law enforcement efforts to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism -- they use legal action in many cases, intimidation in others. And, several of CAIR's members have in past been deported for various types of involvement with Hamas, including raising funds for their terrorist operations.

DM

Wouldn't it be wonderful in this day and age that the REAL STORY FOR A CHANGE WILL COME OUT.
Hoping that Barr with his anger he expressed yesterday will get the HONEST STORY OUT AND NO ONE
PROTECTED. No matter what they find, the world SHOULD know the story, just because emails are
gone, people paid to keep quiet, or people suddenly disappeared because of what they knew. May
the honest people, the victims and get their just reward and all of this stuff hidden and protected will
for all of us know what was hidden for so many years for these SEXUAL ADDICTIONS that run all
through our world. Pray that Barr has a full rein to do his work and we will know the t***h. How about
Smollett...protected because the OBAMA'S got involved? Where is THAT game of deception going and
will we know that whole story? Why aren't the shootings in Chicago on the headlines every weekend?
The stories are hidden as OBAMA lives in Chicago? WHY...AND WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO ASK WHY
AND GET SOME ANSWERS.

JohnCorrespondent

You think you recognize enemies better than I do.

Do you also think that you recognize friends better than I do?

The thinking in your reply post would be okay (maybe, I suppose) as long as you (individually or collectively) don't start any unnecessary wars, nor unnecessarily damage anyone on smaller scales.

I'm not familiar with the oats and ivy nursery rhyme or wh**ever it is, but I interpret it as an attempt to cast "us folks" as too naive. You also use "nice" to similar effect (though not applied directly to us folks, in that instance).

One thing I don't think I've seen yet: a violent person, or one who supports a lot of k*****g or violence, however obtuse or wrong s/he may be, depicted as a "naive" person. Wrong or arrogant, maybe, but not "naive". S/he may actually _be_ naive but will not be called naive.

As a boy growing up among boys, two of the things I learned were that, (1) among boys, "nice" applied to a boy is (often) derogatory, and (2) one must prepare for violence (either to support a future war or to stand up to other boys -- good arguments are sometimes not enough). Fortunately my last incident of violence, thus far, was before I turned 18, after which time one can get a bad record for it as an adult (except when directing the violence toward an authoritatively marked enemy). One must still always be ready for violence, anyway, until death, which itself is sort of violent also. But (incidentally) some men think a different way; I met one who said he had not learned to fight, and wasn't interested in learning how, because there would probably be no more than about 3 times he'd be faced with violence in his life, and he could just lose those and get on with the rest of his life, without wasting his time learning about violence.