Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Israeli Invasion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 469961" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>WP or Willy Peter(as I'm old school) dates back to WW1 and has been traditionally a very good smoke agent for smoke screens. The picture with the article first posted IMO doesn't look like WP because the yellow color indicates a higher sulfur content. My guess or assumption since they had no actual photo of a Gaza WP explosion, the newsroom pulled the first photo to attach to the story.</p><p></p><p>The photo is irrelevant because no such photo evidence at this point is needed for proof. The story is founded on Israeli admission that they used WP in Gaza. To quote an Israeli gov't official from story itself:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your point of the photo being factually incorrect is valid and most likely correct as well but it doesn't undercut the fact that WP was used. Now the debate will center on "in what manner" which will swirl the debate of legality or not. The Geneva Convention prohibits WP use on civilians and in civilian areas as does Art. 1 of Protocol 3 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm</span></a> and this is where the debate will now center. Was the purpose for smoke or was the smoke a decoy and the real idea was incendiary? I'm sure this will get hotly debated as this goes forward.</p><p></p><p>I wanna address something going forward that not only sez where I'm coming from in the age old conflict of Jew verses Muslim but it also gets to the heart of why I think our presence in the Middle East will be fruitless in the end no matter how great a job we do. Old Testament Jewish Law as well as Talmudic Law does not distinguish women and children ie civilians in warfare when jewish peoples oppose non-jewish peoples in war. Their law is clear that all will be slaughtered as "YHWH" commanded them to do. You do not have to look far at all to find such beliefs common even among christian ranks. Here's just one quick example:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20050427101143/http://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter19.htm" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20050427101143/http://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter19.htm</a></strong></p><p></p><p>Going further at the link, Ismaelites were firstborn but they've even rationalized an answer to offset that problem too.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the rational for the Christian to now dis-inherit the Jew as the sons of YHWH and therefore jewish Kingdom is meaningless. And at the conclusion at the link, now in the fullness of time and as Israel takes possession of her promise from YHWH, she will obey YHWH and cleanse the land in order to obey.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oddly enough muslim law which also springs from the same Abrahamic source contends the same thing when is comes to purifying the land of non-beleivers. In this part of the world you are literally dealing with the same religious laws and foundations on each side at the fundamental level but the difference is one believes Moses the great anchor of law and the other believes it to be Mohammad. I say let these 2 brothers fight it out now and be done with it and the winner inherits their father Abraham's promise in Gen. 15.</p><p></p><p><strong>"Show no mercy unto them"</strong> sure seems to fit the bill but in all honesty the muslims show the same towards others outside their faith so I say it's a family tradition!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Will the UN and other international bodies now challenge religious dogma as they move forward looking for solutions to peace? This could get real interesting IMO. I wonder sometimes if Marx wasn't right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>For the record I happen to know the author of the link above and while I could have posted vastly more provocative material say from a John Hagee or other christian Zionist voice, I choose Dr. North because he is moderate by far in belief in these areas (his post-millennial views don't necessiate the need of a new jewish state to fulfill prophetic needs of coming Kingdom) but yet he still displays a strong root problem even in moderation in trying to resolve a solution in the Middle East IMO although the point of the linked article was not for that purpose. I posted to show the attitude of people that compounds the whole problem in the first place as it relates to dogma and doctrine.</p><p></p><p>You can change all the conditions of the region you like but at the heart of the conflict are millenia old religious dogmas that most likely only death itself will ever break. Although I don't conclude in the same manner in areas of christian thought as Dr. North and his late father-n-law Dr. RJ Rushdoony, I know both men, read many of their works and respect them both very highly. It was Rushdoony himself who in the early 80's who first exposed me to Mises and libertarian ideas but then I walked further to the obvious end of the road and found Rothbard and anarchism. I believe North has to some degree done the same.</p><p></p><p>Our only choice is to get out of the middle of this fight completely, back neither side in any way, shape or form and when the death and destruction becomes severe enough on both sides, maybe then they can work it out as literal brothers should! There in lie the road to peace in the Middle East.</p><p></p><p>JMHO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 469961, member: 2189"] WP or Willy Peter(as I'm old school) dates back to WW1 and has been traditionally a very good smoke agent for smoke screens. The picture with the article first posted IMO doesn't look like WP because the yellow color indicates a higher sulfur content. My guess or assumption since they had no actual photo of a Gaza WP explosion, the newsroom pulled the first photo to attach to the story. The photo is irrelevant because no such photo evidence at this point is needed for proof. The story is founded on Israeli admission that they used WP in Gaza. To quote an Israeli gov't official from story itself: Your point of the photo being factually incorrect is valid and most likely correct as well but it doesn't undercut the fact that WP was used. Now the debate will center on "in what manner" which will swirl the debate of legality or not. The Geneva Convention prohibits WP use on civilians and in civilian areas as does Art. 1 of Protocol 3 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [URL='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm'][COLOR=red]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm[/COLOR][/URL] and this is where the debate will now center. Was the purpose for smoke or was the smoke a decoy and the real idea was incendiary? I'm sure this will get hotly debated as this goes forward. I wanna address something going forward that not only sez where I'm coming from in the age old conflict of Jew verses Muslim but it also gets to the heart of why I think our presence in the Middle East will be fruitless in the end no matter how great a job we do. Old Testament Jewish Law as well as Talmudic Law does not distinguish women and children ie civilians in warfare when jewish peoples oppose non-jewish peoples in war. Their law is clear that all will be slaughtered as "YHWH" commanded them to do. You do not have to look far at all to find such beliefs common even among christian ranks. Here's just one quick example: [B][url]https://web.archive.org/web/20050427101143/http://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter19.htm[/url][/B] Going further at the link, Ismaelites were firstborn but they've even rationalized an answer to offset that problem too. This is the rational for the Christian to now dis-inherit the Jew as the sons of YHWH and therefore jewish Kingdom is meaningless. And at the conclusion at the link, now in the fullness of time and as Israel takes possession of her promise from YHWH, she will obey YHWH and cleanse the land in order to obey. Oddly enough muslim law which also springs from the same Abrahamic source contends the same thing when is comes to purifying the land of non-beleivers. In this part of the world you are literally dealing with the same religious laws and foundations on each side at the fundamental level but the difference is one believes Moses the great anchor of law and the other believes it to be Mohammad. I say let these 2 brothers fight it out now and be done with it and the winner inherits their father Abraham's promise in Gen. 15. [B]"Show no mercy unto them"[/B] sure seems to fit the bill but in all honesty the muslims show the same towards others outside their faith so I say it's a family tradition! :happy-very: Will the UN and other international bodies now challenge religious dogma as they move forward looking for solutions to peace? This could get real interesting IMO. I wonder sometimes if Marx wasn't right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses! :wink2: For the record I happen to know the author of the link above and while I could have posted vastly more provocative material say from a John Hagee or other christian Zionist voice, I choose Dr. North because he is moderate by far in belief in these areas (his post-millennial views don't necessiate the need of a new jewish state to fulfill prophetic needs of coming Kingdom) but yet he still displays a strong root problem even in moderation in trying to resolve a solution in the Middle East IMO although the point of the linked article was not for that purpose. I posted to show the attitude of people that compounds the whole problem in the first place as it relates to dogma and doctrine. You can change all the conditions of the region you like but at the heart of the conflict are millenia old religious dogmas that most likely only death itself will ever break. Although I don't conclude in the same manner in areas of christian thought as Dr. North and his late father-n-law Dr. RJ Rushdoony, I know both men, read many of their works and respect them both very highly. It was Rushdoony himself who in the early 80's who first exposed me to Mises and libertarian ideas but then I walked further to the obvious end of the road and found Rothbard and anarchism. I believe North has to some degree done the same. Our only choice is to get out of the middle of this fight completely, back neither side in any way, shape or form and when the death and destruction becomes severe enough on both sides, maybe then they can work it out as literal brothers should! There in lie the road to peace in the Middle East. JMHO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Israeli Invasion
Top