Ron Paul: Israel Encouraged and Started Hamas

[Oddball]

Sorry. I'll never be able to match you in hurling insults. I'm sure you've heard thousands of them

The post I referred to is one big run-on insult of "libertudians"....Check that plank in your own eye.

 

[Oddball]

So freaking typical of the left to leave out a couple of words that skew the intent of the quote. Israel encouraged Hamas TO RISE AGAINST ARAFAT. The CIA does this stuff all the time with similar failures.

Little facts like that are lost on the binary set, who look at the world like a big melodrama.

 

[Edgetho]

The post I referred to is one big run-on insult of "libertudians"....Check that plank in your own eye.

You took a 'journo' class somewhere, huh?

I forgot how superior that makes people.

 

[Oddball]

You took a 'journo' class somewhere, huh?

I forgot how superior that makes people.

Nope...I just know deflections, derailments, strawman arguments, and insults when I see them.....Then you have the nerve to accuse others of what you're doing.

 

[Rigby5]

There's no doubt that the Zionists provoked Hamas, starting 75 years ago and it continues today.

Why does the Lamestream media always fail to mention that?

Exactly.
This goes back to the illegal immigration of the 1930s, Zionists murdering the British high command by blowing up the King David hotel, so that the British could no longer prevent Zionists from massacring hundreds of Arab villages like Deir Yassin, Zionists gunning down Folke Bernadotte the UN moderator, the millions of Arab illegally evicted, the illegal invasion of Jerusalem and West Bank by Israel in 67, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

Paleo-Conservatives were/are isolationist. Liberturdians are just idiots.

But that was back in the day when they considered the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as impenetrable walls to any invader.

We can't afford to be isolationist anymore. As much as I'd like to, we just can't.

<>To you people who think you're liberturdian. you are almost certainly not. If you were, you wouldn't be in here talking politics. Or worried about Wars, or Borders. Most modern 'libertarians' are just too afraid to choose a side.

We all can have honorable opinions that differ in these things. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on whether foreign aid is important or justified or in American interests as I don't have enough information to know all the dynamics involved. I strongly oppose giving any U.S. fund to countries that support or commit terrorism however, so there is always that conflict.

Strict Libertarianism (capital L) does think restricting immigration/migration is incompatible with their ideology, but libertarians (little 'L') or classical liberals strongly believe in regulated immigration and defending our country against invaders. And the dichotomy goes on. . .

Libertarians (capital L) are far more likely to take a neutral position between Israel and Hamas than are libertarians (little L).

 

[Foxfyre]

"Isolationist" is a pejorative term coined by the Wilsonian warmonger interventionists.....You sure you want to be playing for that team?

There are more than just two sides that can be taken here.

I go with the actual definition and not the pejorative one that some want it to be. There are good arguments to be had for and against isolationism/non-intervention. President Trump was definitely a mixed bag between isolationism and using American military/economic strength to prevent wars starting.

 

[Rigby5]

No. It happened because one madman supported by a lot of opportunists decided to become master of as much of the world as he could. As horrendous and unconscionable and indefensible as it was, an equally expansionist Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor that forced us into WWII probably inadvertently saved millions of lives.

As it was WWII was the most deadly in human history with an estimated 40 to 80 million lives lost depending on whose estimates you use.

First of all, Hitler was unknown, poor, and powerless when he was arrested and jailed for 5 years over the his failed putch in 1925 or so.
Clearly Hitler's rise was choreographed by the wealthy elite, mostly in the US, and designed to make war profits, not anything else.
Nor did Hitler cause the anger towards Jews in Germany.
That was deliberately caused by Chaim Weizmann and David ben Gurion, who wanted the Balfour Declaration and wanted Germans to hate Jews so they would emigrate to their power in Palestine.

 

[Foxfyre]

That one madman was afforded the opportunity he had because of the ridiculous Treaty of Versailles.

That was part of it. Fortunately we didn't make the same mistake after WWII.

 

[Oddball]

I go with the actual definition and not pejorative one that some want it to be.

No, you're going with a bastardized definition, changed by the very same people who stole the term "liberal" back in the 1930s, and are now claiming that men and women aren't different.

I know you've read Orwell...How is that you have a blind spot here?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you're free to use it however you please. I made no effort to insist that you use it in any way.

I was just illustrating how the dictionary/encyclopedia definitions are historically compartmentalized and very shallow.

Few people would accuse the Encyclopedia Britannica as being 'shallow'.

 

[Oddball]

That was part of it. Fortunately we didn't make the same mistake after WWII.

It was more than "part of it"....The uncalled for humiliation of the German people made the rising up of a Hitler all but inevitable.

And if the lesson was learned in WWII, how does it happen that we still have all these tribal wars all over the planet, and that Murica manages to get entangled in the lion's share of them?

 

[Rigby5]

There has not been a single legal or good war the US has been in since 1812.
They were all deliberate and based on lies.

 

[Rigby5]

It was more than "part of it"....The uncalled for humiliation of the German people made the rising up of a Hitler all but inevitable.

And if the lesson was learned in WWII, how does it happen that we still have all these tribal wars all over the planet, and that Murica manages to get entangled in the lion's share of them?

It was worse than just "humiliation".
Millions of Germans had been starved to death by the illegal food blockade of Germany.
About half of Germany was stolen, to create new countries like Poland.
All foreign investments, ships, etc., where stolen from German companies.

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, Hitler was unknown, poor, and powerless when he was arrested and jailed for 5 years over the his failed putch in 1925 or so.
Clearly Hitler's rise was choreographed by the wealthy elite, mostly in the US, and designed to make war profits, not anything else.
Nor did Hitler cause the anger towards Jews in Germany.
That was deliberately caused by Chaim Weizmann and David ben Gurion, who wanted the Balfour Declaration and wanted Germans to hate Jews so they would emigrate to their power in Palestine.

Almost nothing has a single component. The fact is Hitler chose 'communists' and Jews as the scapegoats to justify his taking power. And a complacent German population who was enjoying an improving economy simply didn't pay attention or care all that much. And because, as you pointed out, German antisemitism existed (as it did in many places elsewhere) most chose to ignore, if they didn't exactly approve, the treatment of the Jews.

It would be a fire that Hitler blamed on the communists, however, that caused him to declare martial law that he never rescinded thus making himself absolute dictator of Germany.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There has not been a single legal or good war the US has been in since 1812.
They were all deliberate and based on lies.

Wrong

They were valid and good and not based on lies

You are wrong and you know it

You consistently lie about history

 

[Foxfyre]

No, you're going with a bastardized definition, changed by the very same people who stole the term "liberal" back in the 1930s, and are now claiming that men and women aren't different.

I know you've read Orwell...How is that you have a blind spot here?

I'm a literalist Oddball. I don't allow others to define how I must define words. I know what the term isolationist is intended to mean and I believe I use it correctly.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Few people would accuse the Encyclopedia Britannica as being 'shallow'.

Well they certainly compartmentalized the term. There's no doubt about that. But the terms of controversy are both broad and complex.

But I've never been much of a collectivist anyway. The majority is almost always wrong. Seems that, historically speaking, it's trained to think only from within the confines of whatever terms of controversy are contained inside of the little box and never outside of the little box.

That's the benefit of compartmentalization, I suppose.

 

[Soupnazi630]

First of all, Hitler was unknown, poor, and powerless when he was arrested and jailed for 5 years over the his failed putch in 1925 or so.
Clearly Hitler's rise was choreographed by the wealthy elite, mostly in the US, and designed to make war profits, not anything else.
Nor did Hitler cause the anger towards Jews in Germany.
That was deliberately caused by Chaim Weizmann and David ben Gurion, who wanted the Balfour Declaration and wanted Germans to hate Jews so they would emigrate to their power in Palestine.

He was not poor or powerless when he was sent to jail. His power is evident in that he was not put to death for treason as a result of the beer hall coup

There is no evidence that his rise was choreographed by anyone nor is it cleart as you claim to ANYONE

He may nlot have caused anger but he did cause genocide

You are a liar

 

[Rigby5]

That was part of it. Fortunately we didn't make the same mistake after WWII.

We sort of did continue the same mistake.
The mistake of WWI was pretending Germany was evil so we could make war profits.
After WWII, all we did was decide to shift to Russia as the bogey man instead.
That is not really better.
We are still doing it now in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine historically is Russian.