Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend

[erowe1]

You didn't even read my post thus you are not worth my time.

I did. I just don't see how it relates to the question I asked.

There are some 200 states in the world. Would you use similar arguments to the ones you gave to say whether they're legal or not?

 

[PSYOP]

I did. I just don't see how it relates to the question I asked.

There are some 200 states in the world. Would you use similar arguments to the ones you gave to say whether they're legal or not?

Stop changing the subject -- I'm not talking about all the other states in the world. I am talking about Israel right now. And in regards to Israel, their only case for re-claiming the Holy Land is that God gave them the authorization to have it after the destruction of the temple which is a blatant falsehood.

 

[erowe1]

Stop changing the subject -- I'm not talking about all the other states in the world. I am talking about Israel right now. And in regards to Israel, their only case for re-claiming the Holy Land is that God gave them the authorization to have it after the destruction of the temple which is a blatant falsehood.

I'm not changing the subject. I just don't follow your argument. First you said something about an illegal state. Now you're talking about reclaiming land. I don't see what those two things have to do with each other. And I still don't understand where you're coming from when you refer to an "illegal state." Are there other states out there that you consider "legal"? And if so, what does it take for one to be legal and another illegal?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

I knew at the time what RP was doing however I didn't find it useful to getting him elected to "hold his feet to the fire" by calling him out for twisting his words to get votes..

I would think Ron Paul fans on this forum would know his stances on such an important issue as foreign policy/mideast? You will notice that Press Release cited in OP is a series of statements with quotes and not a single full Ron Paul policy statement, it is possible Press Secretary saw some political benefit in such representation to hit Obama but this is edited view of Ron Paul's total view in this PR. Everything quoted there has been stated many times by Ron Paul and all is true, but these are just slices of his total view that do not have Ron Paul's name at the bottom. I think you have have been tricked by the out of context collection of statements and out of context title taken from an observational view.

 

[PSYOP]

I'm not changing the subject. I just don't follow your argument. First you said something about an illegal state. Now you're talking about reclaiming land. I don't see what those two things have to do with each other. And I still don't understand where you're coming from when you refer to an "illegal state." Are there other states out there that you consider "legal"? And if so, what does it take for one to be legal and another illegal?

You haven't even read any of the divine texts have you? It shows. And it doesn't help that you constantly change the subject to something other then Israel. God never gave the Jewish people the authorization according to all known ancient history the divine right to take back the land of Israel after the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D by the Romans. Yet, 1900 years later Jewish Khazarian converts (who are not any of the 12 tribes of Dan) show up and say they have a divine right to the land of Israel according to the law of God. Do you not see the contradictions here?

 

[erowe1]

You haven't even read any of the divine texts have you? It shows. And it doesn't help that you constantly change the subject to something other then Israel. God never gave the Jewish people the authorization according to all known ancient history the divine right to take back the land of Israel after the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D by the Romans. Yet, 1900 years later Jewish Khazarian converts (who are not any of the 12 tribes of Dan) show up and say they have a divine right to the land of Israel according to the law of God. Do you not see the contradictions here?

I don't get why you think I'm changing the subject. I want to know what you mean by "illegal state." Is there any such thing as a legal state? If so, what are the criteria for a state being legal.

Obviously this question requires you to say something more general about what you think about states than just something about Israel. That's not changing the subject. You used the phrase "illegal state." If that phrase means anything, other than just being a cypher for Israel, then you should be able to answer me.

I'm not sure what divine texts you're talking about. Apparently some that refer to 12 tribes of Dan. Whatever those are, no, I haven't read them.

 

[PSYOP]

I don't get why you think I'm changing the subject. I want to know what you mean by "illegal state." Is there any such thing as a legal state? If so, what are the criteria for a state being legal.

Obviously this question requires you to say something more general about what you think about states than just something about Israel. That's not changing the subject. You used the phrase "illegal state." If that phrase means anything, other than just being a cypher for Israel, then you should be able to answer me.

I'm not sure what divine texts you're talking about. Apparently some that refer to 12 tribes of Dan. Whatever those are, no, I haven't read them.

You haven't even read into the old history of Israel yet you're trying to educate me about Israel. Got it.

 

[erowe1]

You haven't even read into the old history of Israel yet you're trying to educate me about Israel. Got it.

I'm not trying to educate you. I'm trying to understand you.

At this point, I still don't know what you mean by "illegal state." Is there such a thing as a legal state?

You seem to want to treat the modern nation-state of Israel as something special that needs to be treated differently than all the other nation-states in the world. And it seems that your reasoning for that is based on some divine texts or something. But that's not where I'm coming from. I'd rather just apply the same rules to the modern nation-state of Israel that apply to all the other nation-states out there. I don't see why Israel's special.

But again, granted, if I read the divine texts that talk about 12 tribes of Dan, I might think differently. Who knows?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Interesting side debate going on here. My two cents on modern legal standards are that since WWs/birth of UN & International Laws, geopolitical changes sanctioned by UN are seen as "legal" and others are not. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was "not legal" and US invasion of Iraq was "legal". Likewise Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinians is illegal.
In old times Might is Right was the law and Divine claims used to be used to occupy lands. But in modern tiimes, none of that is kosher at least on paper. In actual, Might is Right even today.

 

[klamath]

I would think Ron Paul fans on this forum would know his stances on such an important issue as foreign policy/mideast? You will notice that Press Release cited in OP is a series of statements with quotes and not a single full Ron Paul policy statement, it is possible Press Secretary saw some political benefit in such representation to hit Obama but this is edited view of Ron Paul's total view in this PR. Everything quoted there has been stated many times by Ron Paul and all is true, but these are just slices of his total view that do not have Ron Paul's name at the bottom. I think you have have been tricked by the out of context collection of statements and out of context title taken from an observational view.

No I do NOT believe RP considers Israel our "close friend" as reinforced by his other statements on the internal affairs of Israel. He used "close friend" intentionally to temper a strong belief in the GOP electorate that he was anti Israeli which is a huge vote loser.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

No I do NOT believe RP considers Israel our "close friend" as reinforced by his other statements on the internal affairs of Israel. He used "close friend" intentionally to temper a strong belief in the GOP electorate that he was anti Israeli which is a huge vote loser.

Well Israel is our "close friend" or why else would this tiny state be getting tens of thousands of tax payers dollars per resident despite economic crisis at home? If you make an observation about the view of the policy makers and use that to make argument to the intended audience, it is not same as asccepting the view or lobbying for it.
This is just a matter of perception, what GOP calls "anti Israel", I call "pro Israel". GOP is not a "friend" of Israel, Democrats are called party of Israel and that is why 80% of US Jews vote democrats. Last GOP President sat so hard on them to uproot Gaza settlers that it sent there revered PM to paralyzing coma. Today there is expansion of settlements in West Bank while a democrat is in the White House.

Ron Paul is a friend of Israelis and Palestinians, he does not want to meddle in or send weapons/tax payers money to them and wants to trade peacefully with foreign states.

 

[PSYOP]

I'm not trying to educate you. I'm trying to understand you.

At this point, I still don't know what you mean by "illegal state." Is there such a thing as a legal state?

You seem to want to treat the modern nation-state of Israel as something special that needs to be treated differently than all the other nation-states in the world. And it seems that your reasoning for that is based on some divine texts or something. But that's not where I'm coming from. I'd rather just apply the same rules to the modern nation-state of Israel that apply to all the other nation-states out there. I don't see why Israel's special.

But again, granted, if I read the divine texts that talk about 12 tribes of Dan, I might think differently. Who knows?

It does need to be treated differently -- because billions of dollars in our money is being spent to fund a terrorist nation who is committing ethnic genocide against an entire people. Not to mention the fact that they are making more then just enemies with the Palestinians, but many other countries as well which by the laws of entangling alliances -- Israel's enemies inevitably become our enemies which could very well lead to the deaths of thousands of American boots on the ground putting aside the financial aspect. As far as your last comment is concerned, I would say, yeah, you would. And it does matter -- because if the state of Israel had not been created in the first place, many future lives could have been spared, both Jew and Palestinian, and believe it or not even the many Christians (you can relate to this) who are being slaughtered by the USRAELI funded mercenaries, essentially Al'Qaedi, in Syria.

 

[erowe1]

It does need to be treated differently -- because billions of dollars in our money is being spent to fund a terrorist nation who is committing ethnic genocide against an entire people. Not to mention the fact that they are making more then just enemies with the Palestinians, but many other countries as well which by the laws of entangling alliances -- Israel's enemies inevitably become our enemies which could very well lead to the deaths of thousands of American boots on the ground putting aside the financial aspect. As far as your last comment is concerned, I would say, yeah, you would. And it does matter -- because if the state of Israel had not been created in the first place, many future lives could have been spared, both Jew and Palestinian, and believe it or not even the many Christians (you can relate to this) who are being slaughtered by the USRAELI funded mercenaries, essentially Al'Qaedi, in Syria.

OK.

That said, now can you tell what you meant by "illegal state"?

 

[PSYOP]

OK.

That said, now can you tell what you meant by "illegal state"?

Why are you not reading any of my posts? I already told you four times that the Khazarian Jews have claimed that it is by divine right that they had the authorization post-world war 2 to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to safeguard themselves from further persecution. An interesting story and understandable but nevertheless illegal in the sense that the Palestinians already owned that land so what gives for the United Nations to force Palestine to give up some of their land so that the so-called Jews could have their own state? Do you think we would like it if modern descendents of the Chorokees Nations went to the UN and forced the United States to give up some of the southern territories in order to accommodate their need for an ethnic homeland at the expense of it's present inhabitants?

 

[erowe1]

Why are you not reading any of my posts?

I am. You still haven't said anything about what an illegal state is.

Even here:

illegal in the sense that the Palestinians already owned that land so what gives for the United Nations to force Palestine to give up some of their land so that the so-called Jews could have their own state?

You switch between Palestinians owning land and Israel being a state. I don't see why those two things have anything to do with each other, or legality.

How about from the other direction? What would it take for any state to be legal?

 

[PSYOP]

I am. You still haven't said anything about what an illegal state is.

Your one to two sentences of nothing every single post is meaningless. You've lost this argument and have proven time on and time again that you have not done any research what so ever into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict let alone biblical-era history.

 

[erowe1]

Your one to two sentences of nothing every single post is meaningless. You've lost this argument and have proven time on and time again that you have not done any research what so ever into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict let alone biblical-era history.

I'm not even arguing. I'm just asking questions, trying to understand what you're saying.

I still don't know what the difference between legal and illegal states is.

On the research part, could you recommend any sources that tell me about the 12 tribes of Dan? I'll start with those.

 

[PSYOP]

I'm not even arguing. I'm just asking questions, trying to understand what you're saying.

I still don't know what the difference between legal and illegal states is.

Of course you don't, you're an anarchist. I on the other hand am not.

 

[erowe1]

Of course you don't, you're an anarchist. I on the other hand am not.

OK. That's fine. Since your opinion is what I'm trying to understand, could you tell me what the difference between a legal and an illegal state is, when you use those terms? I should still try to understand your position even if I disagree.

 

[PSYOP]

OK. That's fine. Since your opinion is what I'm trying to understand, could you tell me what the difference between a legal and an illegal state is, when you use those terms? I should still try to understand your position even if I disagree.

Why should I even bother answering that question when we both already know our definition of a state and the role of government is completely on the opposite end of the spectrum? Look, I really don't want to continue this conversation because it'll end up pissing me off and then I'll say something I'll regret. We'll just agree to disagree.