• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ben Shapiro Upset That Trump Didn’t Order the Slaughter of Hundreds of People For No Reason

truthatallcost

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Neo-con never Trump hack Ben Shapiro is upset that the president didn’t order the slaughter of hundreds of people for no particular reason whatsoever.

Earlier today, Trump revealed how he blocked an attack on Iran 10 minutes before it was due to take place because killing 150 people in response to Iran shooting down a U.S. drone would not have been “proportionate”.

“On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” tweeted Trump.

Ben Shapiro responded with a tweet so utterly stupid it beggars belief.

“Disproportionate response to attacks on US assets are a good way of showing our enemies that we will mash them if they continue to escalate. The US doesn’t want war. You know who doesn’t want war even more? The ayatollahs who will find themselves quite dead if war occurs,” he stated.


Earlier today, Trump revealed how he blocked an attack on Iran 10 minutes before it was due to take place because killing 150 people in response to Iran shooting down a U.S. drone would not have been “proportionate”.

“On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” tweeted Trump.


America’s recent history of “disproportionate responses” hasn’t produced very good results.

Other “disproportionate responses”;

– Invasion of Iraq – 500,000 dead. Thousands of U.S. troops maimed and killed. 1 million Christians flee. Country ruined for generations.

– Invasion of Libya. Secular leader removed. Country overtaken by tribal gangs. Rise of ISIS. Paris massacre. Nice massacre. Manchester Arena attack. London Bridge attack. International refugee crisis. Chaotic mass immigration.

– Support for jihadist Syrian rebels. Civil war. 500,000 dead. 80% of Christians forced to flee. Worst relations with Russia since Cold War.

The responses to Shapiro’s vulgar tweet were heartening. Virtually everyone called him out for being a chickenhawk.

Perhaps now people will begin to understand that it’s never been “America first” for Shapiro, but “Israel first” – no matter what the cost in bloodshed and irreparable damage to the United States.
Ben Shapiro Upset That Trump Didn’t Order the Slaughter of Hundreds of People For No Reason – Summit News
Click to expand...

Dual-loyaties as practiced by people like Shapiro, are a particularly dangerous form of disloyalty to the country of origin. Is a drone worth 150 human lives? Should we also launch strikes against more powerful countries like China, when they behave similarly to how Iran did, or are we just interested in killing people who Benjamin Netanyahu has been prodding us to kill for 20 years, and probably can't fight back?
 
truthatallcost said:
Dual-loyaties as practiced by people like Shapiro, are a particularly dangerous form of disloyalty to the country of origin. Is a drone worth 150 human lives? Should we also launch strikes against more powerful countries like China, when they behave similarly to how Iran did, or are we just interested in killing people who Benjamin Netanyahu has been prodding us to kill for 20 years, and probably can't fight back?
Click to expand...

First off, this is a plainly anti-Semitic attack against Shapiro, even though I disagree with Shapiro, accusing Jews of “dual loyalty” (and even if true Israel is an ally and so what) is the oldest anti-Semitic trope in existence.

There are many foreign policy reasons to be tough with Iran that have nothing to do with Israel. I would think the Saudis want us to go to war with Iran more then the Israelis. The Kingdom has way more at stake in a regional balance favoring Iran then the Jewish State.

And Shapiro’s argument was not that Trump was wrong to call off the strike, but that he should be willing to be disproportionate if Force is used, which is absolutely true.
 
Harshaw said:
You and Ilhan Omar.

Antisemitic canard - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Me, Ilhan Omar, and George Washington.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796 | The American Yawp Reader



You need to review the meaning of the word 'canard'.
 
truthatallcost said:
Me, Ilhan Omar, and George Washington.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796 | The American Yawp Reader



You need to review the meaning of the word 'canard'.
Click to expand...

Washington didn't say anything about "dual loyalties" of citizens in his famous caution against international alliances, and he certainly didn't mean anything he said in the overtly anti-Semitic way you (and Omar) do.
 
truthatallcost said:
Dual-loyaties as practiced by people like Shapiro, are a particularly dangerous form of disloyalty to the country of origin. Is a drone worth 150 human lives? Should we also launch strikes against more powerful countries like China, when they behave similarly to how Iran did, or are we just interested in killing people who Benjamin Netanyahu has been prodding us to kill for 20 years, and probably can't fight back?
Click to expand...

Oh look, the local schutzstaffel wannabes are bad on the "THA EVULLL JOOOOZ" kick. I guess hating on Muslims got boring?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh look, the local schutzstaffel wannabes are bad on the "THA EVULLL JOOOOZ" kick. I guess hating on Muslims got boring?
Click to expand...

Don't worry. The Muslim allies-of-convenience will get theirs after the Jews are gotten rid of. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
Washington didn't say anything about "dual loyalties" of citizens in his famous caution against international alliances..
Click to expand...

Lol, the USA still hung Americans for treason in 1796. That's how serious the matter was. Washington didn't use the term 'dual loyalties' in his address, though- on that excruciatingly minor point, I'll have to concede to you Harshaw.


...and he certainly didn't mean anything he said in the overtly anti-Semitic way you (and Omar) do.
Click to expand...

Washington wouldn't have feared being mislabeled as an antisemite, or some other such cheap and weaponized word, since the concept of antisemitism was invented after he'd passed on. So was Israel.

Is it possible to speak out publicly against an American of Jewish ancestry who is practicing divided or dual loyalties in regards to Israel, and not be branded as an antisemite? Even Jonathan Pollard's American supporters used the term to try to obfuscate his crimes against the USA.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
First off, this is a plainly anti-Semitic attack against Shapiro, even though I disagree with Shapiro, accusing Jews of “dual loyalty” (and even if true Israel is an ally and so what) is the oldest anti-Semitic trope in existence.
Click to expand...

I can say that Sean Hannity is practicing dual or divided loyalties by clamoring for bombs to be dropped on the middle east, and not be accused of being antisemitic, but if I mention the fact that Hannity is a puppet of Mark Levin, and has no original ideas that weren't given to him by Levin, I'm probably back in canardy antisemitism-land again. I guess the key to avoiding the label of antisemitism, is to never criticize a Jewish person for anything. Which is the real intent of mislabeling people as antisemitic in the first place- shut them down without having to deal with their argument.

There are many foreign policy reasons to be tough with Iran that have nothing to do with Israel. I would think the Saudis want us to go to war with Iran more then the Israelis. The Kingdom has way more at stake in a regional balance favoring Iran then the Jewish State.
Click to expand...

The Israeli PM has urged the USA to bomb Iran on numerous occasions. He doesn't even have to lobby behind closed doors, he goes on television and does interviews where he says, 'Americans should bomb Iran for Israel'. That's been a constant theme with Bibi. So regardless of the fact that the Saudis make a useful distraction by being even worse than the Israelis, it's clear that Bibi and his supporters want the USA to destabilize Iran much in the same way we destabilized Iraq.

And Shapiro’s argument was not that Trump was wrong to call off the strike, but that he should be willing to be disproportionate if Force is used, which is absolutely true.
Click to expand...

Ben reads the Israeli daily news sources, which are lamenting the fact that Bibi couldn't pressure Trump into dropping bombs on Iran over the destroyed drone, because Trump is 'unpredictable'. Let's not pretend to not understand what Shapiro's motives were when he wrote that Tweet.
 
truthatallcost said:
Lol, the USA still hung Americans for treason in 1796. That's how serious the matter was. Washington didn't use the term 'dual loyalties' in his address, though- on that excruciatingly minor point, I'll have to concede to you Harshaw.
Click to expand...

Nor was dual loyalty what he was talking about, especially not in the evil way you use it.


Washington wouldn't have feared being mislabeled as an antisemite, or some other such cheap and weaponized word, since the concept of antisemitism was invented after he'd passed on. So was Israel.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to dignify this disgusting gaslighting of history with a counter.

Is it possible to speak out publicly against an American of Jewish ancestry who is practicing divided or dual loyalties in regards to Israel, and not be branded as an antisemite? Even Jonathan Pollard's American supporters used the term to try to obfuscate his crimes against the USA.
Click to expand...

Give NOT being a Jew-hater a try sometime and find out for yourself.
 
Nickyjo said:
Agreed, tho Omar got a bad rap and apologized for her careless remarks that smacked of historical anti-Semitic themes.
Click to expand...

She has apologized many times and then done it again many times, necessitating many more apologies. One almost thinks the apologies aren't sincere.
 
Harshaw said:
She has apologized many times and then done it again many times, necessitating many more apologies. One almost thinks the apologies aren't sincere.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but suffice to say there probably is more varied debate about Israel among Jews here and there than is considered proper by some gentiles here. That said, anti-Semitism is like an forgotten card in non-Jews’ wallets that somehow still manages to emerge from our back pockets.

Great movie from the 1960s called The Pawnbroker has a wonderful terrifying speech on the subject by Rod Steiger in the title role.
 
Nickyjo said:
Perhaps, but suffice to say there probably is more varied debate about Israel among Jews here and there than is considered proper by some gentiles here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means.

That said, anti-Semitism is like an forgotten card in non-Jews’ wallets that somehow still manages to emerge from our back pockets.
Click to expand...

There's nothing ambiguous about the OP's anti-Semitism. (Nor Omar's.)
 
truthatallcost said:
Dual-loyaties as practiced by people like Shapiro, are a particularly dangerous form of disloyalty to the country of origin. Is a drone worth 150 human lives? Should we also launch strikes against more powerful countries like China, when they behave similarly to how Iran did, or are we just interested in killing people who Benjamin Netanyahu has been prodding us to kill for 20 years, and probably can't fight back?
Click to expand...

Hey, we sort of agree. :)

Couple points to consider, however.

Israel is not all Jews, in fact it's a very small percentage of them

Ben Shapiro is not at all representative of American Jews, in fact he calls most American Jews JINOs (Jews in name only).

Jews are cool, for the most part.

Ben Shapiro is not.
 
Harshaw said:
She has apologized many times and then done it again many times, necessitating many more apologies. One almost thinks the apologies aren't sincere.
Click to expand...

Oh, Harshaw, you're such a cynic.
 
truthatallcost said:
Dual-loyaties as practiced by people like Shapiro, are a particularly dangerous form of disloyalty to the country of origin. Is a drone worth 150 human lives? Should we also launch strikes against more powerful countries like China, when they behave similarly to how Iran did, or are we just interested in killing people who Benjamin Netanyahu has been prodding us to kill for 20 years, and probably can't fight back?
Click to expand...

Breaking: diminutive man who has never been in a fistfight thinks escalation is the best way to avoid war.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Breaking: diminutive man who has never been in a fistfight thinks escalation is the best way to avoid war.
Click to expand...

Reading his op, I began doing the math. Shapiro is of combat age. He needs to join up. Seriously.
 
Is it possible to speak out publicly against an American of Jewish ancestry who is practicing divided or dual loyalties in regards to Israel, and not be branded as an antisemite? Even Jonathan Pollard's American supporters used the term to try to obfuscate his crimes against the USA.
Click to expand...

An equally good question is "Is it possible for an American Jew to speak out publicly for Israel, without being accused of divided or dual loyalties and be branded as disloyal?"

The majority of Americans support Israel, many of them fervently - far more than the 1 or 2 percent of the population that is Jewish. Among them are most religious Christians, conservatives, and agnostic secularists (which include me). None of us are accused of "dual loyalties", only Jews.

So no, it is not possible to accuse a Jew of dual loyalities without having substantive proof beyond that of our shared pro-Israel opinion as Americans. Dual loyalities has come to mean 'more loyality' to Israel than to America. Pollard, arguabley, is one of those handful of cases where that is demonstrably true. And it might be true to some orthodox Jews or even some in the JDL. But absent something more than your animonsity and suspesion against a public commentator, a Jewish conservative writer, such a weak accusation is by definition, anti-semetic.

I suggest you explore being honest with yourself - I find it far more satisfying. For example, I am anti-Islamic. I don't hide it. When a Muslim writes in defense of Islamic terrorism or Israel's enemies I ascribe it first and foremost to their loyality to Islam, more than the US and its values. I am contempious of it as a religon, and as a reactionary culture. In the correct forum, I'd be more than happy to dismiss Omar as loyal mouthpiece, with little loyalty to the US, who is just a member of a crime mob that has a religion.

I don't like Islam and I generally don't like those who hold to the Islamic faith, and I acknowledge it. Put them into a position requiring a choice, like Pollard, and theres a more than equal chance they will betray the country.

I am anti-Islam and Muslim, you are an anti-semetic. Its that simple.
 
maxparrish said:
An equally good question is "Is it possible for an American Jew to speak out publicly for Israel, without being accused of divided or dual loyalties and be branded as disloyal?"

The majority of Americans support Israel, many of them fervently - far more than the 1 or 2 percent of the population that is Jewish. Among them are most religious Christians, conservatives, and agnostic secularists (which include me). None of us are accused of "dual loyalties", only Jews.

So no, it is not possible to accuse a Jew of dual loyalities without having substantive proof beyond that of our shared pro-Israel opinion as Americans. Dual loyalities has come to mean 'more loyality' to Israel than to America. Pollard, arguabley, is one of those handful of cases where that is demonstrably true. And it might be true to some orthodox Jews or even some in the JDL. But absent something more than your animonsity and suspesion against a public commentator, a Jewish conservative writer, such an weak accusation is by definition, anti-semetic.

I suggest you explore being honest with yourself - I find it far more satisfying. I am anti-Islamic. I don't hide it. When a Muslim writes in defense of Islamic terrorism or Israel's enemies I ascribe it first and foremost to their loyality to Islam, not the US and its values. I am contempious of it as a religon, and as a reactionary culture. In the correct forum, I'd be more than happy to dismiss Omar as loyal mouthpiece, with little loyalty to the US, who is just a member of a crime mob that has a religion.

I don't like Islam, I generally don't like those who hold to the Islamic faith, and I acknowledge it. Put them into a position requiring a choice, like Pollard, and theres a more than equal chance they will betray the country.

I am anti-Islam and Muslim, you are an anti-semetic. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

Actually when it comes to Abrahamic religions, Jewish is pretty tame. They have been a hell of a lot less destructive than Christians and Muslims have been over the years. That being said, Israel is not the same thing as Jews.

Israel is a country, an ally of sorts, and a pain in the ass at times as well. But, it is not a people. Jews are a people.
 
calamity said:
Actually when it comes to Abrahamic religions, Jewish is pretty tame. They have been a hell of a lot less destructive than Christians and Muslims have been over the years. That being said, Israel is not the same thing as Jews.

Israel is a country, an ally of sorts, and a pain in the ass at times as well. But, it is not a people. Jews are a people.
Click to expand...

I am not Jewish, nor could I ever imagine being a religious Jew. However, I have a great deal of admiration for the Jewish people and more than one best friend is either Jewish or Half-Jewish. Of my two best college instructors one was Jewish, one South Korean...(never got along with WASPs).

And because I have had a special interest in intellectual history of the 20th century, and American music history … well, I can't think of any group that has enriched our lives more than that of the Jewish people.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
First off, this is a plainly anti-Semitic attack against Shapiro, even though I disagree with Shapiro, accusing Jews of “dual loyalty” (and even if true Israel is an ally and so what) is the oldest anti-Semitic trope in existence.

There are many foreign policy reasons to be tough with Iran that have nothing to do with Israel. I would think the Saudis want us to go to war with Iran more then the Israelis. The Kingdom has way more at stake in a regional balance favoring Iran then the Jewish State.

And Shapiro’s argument was not that Trump was wrong to call off the strike, but that he should be willing to be disproportionate if Force is used, which is absolutely true.
Click to expand...

We've sold plenty of weapons to the Saudis. They can fight for themselves. Why should I care about them? They're worse than Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom