• 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

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...

How on earth is Omar not loyal the the United States?
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not sure what that means.

++ What I meant is that I have heard significant criticism of Israel from Jewish friends here and read about criticism of Israeli policies from within the country that might have those expressing them labeled as anti-Semites. It was joked by Jewish friends I knew years ago in NYC that there is more open debate about Israeli policies in the Knesset than in the Senate.

There's nothing ambiguous about the OP's anti-Semitism. (Nor Omar's.)
Click to expand...

True of the “dual loyalties” guy. But Omar has a background and a constituency that no doubt influence her. Still, she cannot afford to be careless with tweets and comments. From what I have read, both her Jewish and Muslim constituents have both defended and criticized her. We are in a hypersensitive polity, as Joe Biden is finding out. (The one who seems immune is Trump.)
 
Nickyjo said:
True of the “dual loyalties” guy. But Omar has a background and a constituency that no doubt influence her. Still, she cannot afford to be careless with tweets and comments. From what I have read, both her Jewish and Muslim constituents have both defended and criticized her. We are in a hypersensitive polity, as Joe Biden is finding out. (The one who seems immune is Trump.)
Click to expand...

There's no ambiguity with Omar.
 
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...

Problem: many on the right view anyone from an Islamic nation that has (or had) dual citizenship as dangerous to the US...some even go so far as to say that any Muslim in the US, even if they are a citizen and/or born here cannot be Americans because Islam is not compatible with the Constitution. And let us not forget that Israel DOES run intel ops in our country and there is some evidence that they may have been able to get their hands on some of our enriched uranium and steal it.

But I agree with your Saudi statement; Iran and the Saudis are having their own religious proxy wars over who the true prophet of Islam is...much in the way that Protestants and Catholics fought each other for a few centuries. Also, the Saudis buy most of our hardware and training for their forces...

SIDE NOTE: let us not give Trump credit for being a merciful being for stopping a strike that HE had ordered to begin with. You did not mention this, but there are those reading this who might feel that Trump is a good person for calling off an attack.
 
I love it when even the no nonsense racial profiling ain't racist Trayvon Martin shoulda gotten shot read some posts and go 'yah, that's a bit too racist even for me'. Lol, gives me hope for the world. You know, knowing there is some sense that some folks really are out there.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, really.



Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
So now we know what a human life is worth to Shapiro: $1,333,333 each.

Which is more value than I thought he'd express.
 
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...

If George Washington were alive today, he would be called an anti-semite.

There is no topic which will turn so-called conservatives into flaming SJWs as quickly as the Jewish Question.
 
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...

Acknowledging or discussing the ethical dilemma a person in government faces when he holds dual citizenship is inappropriate? Egads! Only in the mind of a compromised Israeli who would rather not discuss the dilemma.
 
Actually, he did order their deaths. He just didn't know it when he ordered it because he didn't bother gathering any intelligence before giving the order. He just saw something on Fox, got mad as intended, and ordered it. Only later did his aides talk him down in light of the likely casualty count. Naturally, he spun this as his decision, and publicly patted himself on the back for making it.



Not only does this signal irresolution to our foes (ie, Obama's "red line" in Syria), but it signals incompetence. He didn't even bother considering intelligence before giving the order, and yet again the adults in the room had to talk him down.
 
Harshaw said:
Nor was dual loyalty what he was talking about, [/b]especially not in the evil way you use it.
Click to expand...

Well now you're 'gas lighting history' Harshaw. One year before Washington's farewell address, Washington helped to win support for the Naturalization of 1795, which included the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance, which itself was inspired by the issue of people coming to America to live, while holding loyalties to their country of origin, or any other country to which they might hold an allegiance.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."

Divided loyalties - Washington Times

The practice of dual citizenship would eventually pave the way for people to celebrate their divided loyalties, and Afroyim v Rusk was used to finally decimate the founding fathers vision of what citizenship in the USA meant. The case involved a man from Poland named Beys Afroyim, who moved to the USA where he became a citizen, and then proceded to vote in Israeli elections. His dual loyalty didn't even include his country of birth, but rather a county he wasn't born in, or living in.

Afroyim v. Rusk - Wikipedia

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

The word 'antisemitism' was invented in the 1860's in Germany, and now carries more weight in the American collective conscience than the term dual loyalties. Who's been gas lighted Harshaw?


Give NOT being a Jew-hater a try sometime and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Try not being an apologist for disloyalty in your own country, and maybe you won't see antisemitism everywhere.
 
truthatallcost said:
Well now you're 'gas lighting history' Harshaw. One year before Washington's farewell address, Washington helped to win support for the Naturalization of 1795, which included the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance, which itself was inspired by the issue of people coming to America to live, while holding loyalties to their country of origin, or any other country to which they might hold an allegiance.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."

Divided loyalties - Washington Times

The practice of dual citizenship would eventually pave the way for people to celebrate their divided loyalties, and Afroyim v Rusk was used to finally decimate the founding fathers vision of what citizenship in the USA meant. The case involved a man from Poland named Beys Afroyim, who moved to the USA where he became a citizen, and then proceded to vote in Israeli elections. His dual loyalty didn't even include his country of birth, but rather a county he wasn't born in, or living in.

Afroyim v. Rusk - Wikipedia



The word 'antisemitism' was invented in the 1860's in Germany, and now carries more weight in the American collective conscience than the term dual loyalties. Who's been gas lighted Harshaw?




Try not being an apologist for disloyalty in your own country, and maybe you won't see antisemitism everywhere.
Click to expand...

This is such deflective nonsense. Your gaslighting of history is your claim that thousands of years of persecution of Jews was a fiction invented in the 19th century.

Show me on the doll where the evil JOOOOOOOOOZ touched you.
 
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?"
Click to expand...

Its the rule Max, not the exception. It's also a rule to label people as being antisemitic, just for good measure, whether they really are or not. For example, the ADL describes South America as a continent as being 'problematic' when it comes to antisemitism, which is ludicrous. When will people put their silly labels aside, and stop the childish name calling?

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.
Click to expand...

It "might" be true of the JDL? The JDL has participated in murder and terrorism in the USA, and some of its leaders imprisoned. Its co-founder was convicted of acts related to domestic terrorism in the USA, and fled to Israel, where he founded another terrorist organization, which Israel later banned after an American member of the group murdered 29 Arabs during a prayer service.

Meir Kahane - Wikipedia

Kach and Kahane Chai - Wikipedia


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.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I believe that I stand against all enemies foreign and domestic, and know damn well that the number of domestic enemies to the USA has grown leaps and bounds since Johnson signed one particular bill in 1965.

Your stance as an opponent of Islam is only half thought out. You're still missing the other half of the equation, which most conservatives will never ascertain in their lifetime.

Emanuel Celler - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
This is such deflective nonsense. Your gaslighting of history is your claim that thousands of years of persecution of Jews was a fiction invented in the 19th century.

Show me on the doll where the evil JOOOOOOOOOZ touched you.
Click to expand...

The term antisemitism was invented in the 1860s. That is a fact, and no amount of stupid babbling from you changes that fact.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Israel does have too much influence in America.

Israelis don't support Israel as adamantly as Americans do.

When Israelis call out Israel for some of its actions are they too "antisemites"?

Does iran get to do as they please and claim "antipersianism" when criticized?
 
Harshaw said:
Nor was dual loyalty what he was talking about, especially not in the evil way you use it.




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



Give NOT being a Jew-hater a try sometime and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...

If all the Jews didn't oppress other people all the time then we wouldn't have a problem.

Because for all criticism of Israel to be "antisemitism" then all actions of the state of Israel MUST be inherently Jewish.

Because antisemitism is hating Jews for being Jewish.

Nowhere else is criticism of state actions automatically hatred of the people who live there for being who they are.

Just Israel.
 
truthatallcost said:
The term antisemitism was invented in the 1860s. That is a fact, and no amount of stupid babbling from you changes that fact.
Click to expand...

Yet Jew-hating goes back much, much further than that.
 
What if...? said:
Israel does have too much influence in America.

Israelis don't support Israel as adamantly as Americans do.

When Israelis call out Israel for some of its actions are they too "antisemites"?

Does iran get to do as they please and claim "antipersianism" when criticized?
Click to expand...

What if...? said:
If all the Jews didn't oppress other people all the time then we wouldn't have a problem.

Because for all criticism of Israel to be "antisemitism" then all actions of the state of Israel MUST be inherently Jewish.

Because antisemitism is hating Jews for being Jewish.

Nowhere else is criticism of state actions automatically hatred of the people who live there for being who they are.

Just Israel.
Click to expand...

You are having an argument with someone other than me.
 
truthatallcost said:
The term antisemitism was invented in the 1860s. That is a fact, and no amount of stupid babbling from you changes that fact.
Click to expand...
Yeah, before that it was simply "Judenhass" (hatred of Jews) and supposedly clever people like you decided to cook up something that appears to sound better.

Takes nothing from what they were and nothing from what you are.
 
truthatallcost said:
~................... It's also a rule to label people as being antisemitic, just for good measure, whether they really are or not.
Click to expand...
The rule is actually to label Jew haters as anti-semitic when they are just that.

For your ilk it is of course the rule to deflect from your hatred of Jews by feebly (and futilely) attempting to call the term irrelevant.

Doesn't work though beyond showing how pathetic your line of argument is.
 
AmNat said:
If George Washington were alive today, he would be called an anti-semite.

There is no topic which will turn so-called conservatives into flaming SJWs as quickly as the Jewish Question.
Click to expand...
Letter to Touro Synagogue - Wikisource, the free online library

May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
Click to expand...

You are projecting, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of George Washington would disagree. Being a Mason, Washington would have had to have been incredibly stupid to tip off members of his lodge that he was an anti-Semite.

Oops?






Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
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...

Ironically the key step in redpilling is to become anti-Semitical.
 
truthatallcost said:
Its the rule Max, not the exception. It's also a rule to label people as being antisemitic, just for good measure, whether they really are or not. For example, the ADL describes South America as a continent as being 'problematic' when it comes to antisemitism, which is ludicrous. When will people put their silly labels aside, and stop the childish name calling?

It "might" be true of the JDL? The JDL has participated in murder and terrorism in the USA, and some of its leaders imprisoned. Its co-founder was convicted of acts related to domestic terrorism in the USA, and fled to Israel, where he founded another terrorist organization, which Israel later banned after an American member of the group murdered 29 Arabs during a prayer service.
Click to expand...

So then, after reading most of your links, JDL actions support the idea that many JDL members were/are of dual loyalty (meaning more loyalty to Jews and Israel than the US). Hence, strengthening my point, if Pollard and the terrorist JDL are the criteria for untoward dual loyalty, most accusations of dual loyalty of Jews in public life (eg against Shapiro) are unsupported anti-sematic twaddle.

And as I said, anyone who can't back up their accusation of someone having dual loyalty JUST because they are a Jew who expresses the same opinion as the majority of gentile America, well...its anti-semantic.

That's your opinion. I believe that I stand against all enemies foreign and domestic, and know damn well that the number of domestic enemies to the USA has grown leaps and bounds since Johnson signed one particular bill in 1965.

Your stance as an opponent of Islam is only half thought out. You're still missing the other half of the equation, which most conservatives will never ascertain in their lifetime.

Emanuel Celler - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the Jews were a part of those "enemies foreign and domestic" that vex you. And apparently you think it was a Svengali like Jew who, by himself, authored, printed, and passed the legislation, and was behind Johnson pulling the strings to let more Jeeeewwws and other races in.

And somehow, I'm supposed to see this fellow as "the other half" of something unrelated to my views of an Islamic civilization as an enemy of Western civilization and values (and security).

You might think of opening a CT thread.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I am entirely surprised that AmNat and TAAC agree on so many things. Next, you'll be telling us that it's crystal clear to them what the problem is and the solution involves a wall.

I tell you folks, this thread, it's got some shocking affiliations.



Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom