Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nothing in the original post here was flawed....

---

Quote:

---

Terrorism is a byproduct of occupation

---

Quote:

---

"A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice. The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it."
-Andy Newman, New York Times, "City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies," August 26, 2005
http://nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html
http://piratenews.org/pedophile-jewish-rabbis-kill-babies.html

Semite.
A member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including ARABS.
—Merriam Webster Dictionary

"A 'Semite' is any person living in that area, including Arabs and Christians. It's time we start talking about 'The Other AntiSemitism'. A Semite is not a Jew living in America or Europe."
—Ralph Nader (Arab from Lebannon), C-SPAN, 2003

"KHAZARS, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism. They may have belonged to the empire of the Huns (fifth century C.E.). Mas ? udi states positively that the king of the Khazars became a Jew in the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (786–809 C.E.)."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_1
1089.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
http://khazaria.com

"The name Ashkenaz was applied in the Middle Ages to Jews living along the Rhine River in northern France and western Germany. The center of Ashkenazi Jews later spread to Poland-Lithuania and now there are Ashkenazi settlements all over the world. The term "Ashkenaz" became identified primarily with German customs and descendants of German Jews. In the 12th and 13th centuries, many Ashkenazi Jews became moneylenders. Ashkenazim focused on Hebrew, Torah and especially Talmud. Sephardim jews there considered the Ashkenazim to be socially and culturally inferior. By 1750, out of 2,500 Jews in the American Colonies, the majority was Ashkenazi. The United States became the main center for Ashkenazi Jews. In Israel, political tensions continue to exist because of feelings on the part of many Sephardim that they have been discriminated against and still don’t get the respect they deserve. Historically, the political elite of the nation have been Ashkenazim."
-Jewish Virtual Library
http://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Ashkenazim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/culture/?id=35105

"The terms “Marrano” and “converso” were applied in Spain and Portugal to the descendants of baptized Jews suspected of secret adherence to Judaism. Converso, from the Latin conversus, meant literally the converted."
-Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Marranos.html
http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-marranos/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano

"Israel is a 'democracy'. That's a nation where everybody has an equal vote, equal opportunity, everybody is the same in terms of the governance. But I thought that Israel was a 'jewish' state? That means that Christians and Muslims and Buddists and atheists and anybody else is discriminated against. And they are. For exaple, did you know that Christians cannot own land, even if they were born in Israel, even if they're an Israeli citizen?! If you're a Christian, you cannot own land, it's a law, you cannot posses land. They'll rent it to you, they'll lease it to you, they'll make money off you, but it's a 'jewish state'. I'll repeat that, it's not a democracy. Here in America, we have laws that say you cannot rent an apartment to a gay, or a jew, or a Hindu, or a Sikh, or any one of a thousand weird religions. Like Church of Wicca. If you don't rent her an apartment, she'll go down to court and file charges against you -- 'He did't like me because I'm a witch. I have strange ceremonies. I worship Satan. What's wrong with that? How terrible of that Christian!' You can't refuse to hire a person because they're a witch or a Satanist. But in Israel, you don't have to hire anybody if they're not a jew. You don't have to do anything if they're not a jew. This was just a couple months ago in the Israeli newspaper: 'How dare he have sex with me! I'm a jewish woman. An Arab had consentual sex with me. But he did not tell me he was an Arab!' She went down and filed charges against him. Guess what? They indicted the man, they put him on trial, he admitted he had consentual sex with her, AND THEY'RE SENDING HIM TO PRISON. Hmmm, what a 'democracy'. That is 'democracy' in Israel. Give me a break!"
-Prof Texe Marrs PhD, Capt USAF "Not" Military Intelligence, Power of Prophesy Radio Show, Down the Rabbit Hole Volume 3, 25 March 2011
http://www.texemarrs.com

"Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to Jonathan Pollard (convicted traitor and spy in USA) upon exiting Pollard's jail cell

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Anyone who claims Christianity is " the religion of hate " has no political sense, what so ever.

And this 'occupation' lie is beyond absurd. We're not occupying Afghanistan, didn't occupy Iraq, any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

And this 'occupation' lie is beyond absurd. We're not occupying Afghanistan, didn't occupy Iraq, any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Who does?

---

Quote:

---

army of occupation: an army sent into a defeated country to assure compliance with the terms of the peace treaty: the army of occupation exercises military rule of the territory

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Them. You know... those folks.

---

Quote:

---

any more than we 'occupied' Germany or Japan.

---

Quote:

---

As was correctly stated, they were " occupied "

---

Quote:

---

but some of his more recent "arguments", culminating with this one, just make it impossible to believe he's for real.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Chris, I wish you were right; it WOULD be amusing. I think you're close, in that Rap HAS to be an act, nobody is that deliberately, persistently, consistently stupid. But I don't think he does it to make people smile, I think he does it for attention, to be contrary because the more contrary he is, the more attention he gets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But that's exactly what occupation is. Temporary military control over a territory that's not part of the occupiers own formally ruled territory, thus distinct from a colony or annexed territory.

Auraptor, why would you deny the correct use of that term as if it means something else? Why on earth did this circular conversation happen?

---

Right wingers love to redefine words when they get caught in their bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You mean like " marriage " ? That's the Left redefining words, not the Right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You mean like " marriage " ? That's the Left redefining words, not the Right.

---

Disagree with that.

It beautifully evolved from a property exchange between men (property = woman) into an equal partnership. Opening up that partnership to include same-sex couples seems like the LESS revolutionary step.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Got a compelling reason to NOT have polygamous marriage? Then use that to prevent it. Don't stop same-sex marriage if it's something else you don't want.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Aside from which, who on earth ever called Christianity a "religion of hate"?? Where did he dream that one up? Obviously ANY religion can be used to foster hate, but...ach, why bother: See above.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Got a compelling reason to NOT have polygamous marriage? Then use that to prevent it. Don't stop same-sex marriage if it's something else you don't want.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There were sound reasons for man+ woman marriage only, and it seems those in charge ( though not so much the people ) have chosen to ignore them.

So yes, it's damn near anything goes. Maybe not minors or livestock, but when it comes to consenting adults of age... why not ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There were sound reasons for man+ woman marriage only, and it seems those in charge ( though not so much the people ) have chosen to ignore them.

So yes, it's damn near anything goes. Maybe not minors or livestock, but when it comes to consenting adults of age... why not ?

---

It appears the reasons for restricting marriage to heterosexuals are not sound enough. They are not ignored, they are found wanting. And I think you underestimate the amount of support for same-sex marriage among "The People". Christianity-based homophobia aside, it's perfectly reasonable to include same-sex partnerships into this solidifying institution, which, after all, encourages family values and thus benefits society. Most importantly, there are no risks involved that are not already present in heterosexual marriage.

---

Quote:

---

All other propositions SHOULD be subject to the same scrutiny, and be judged on their own merits and risks. You can probably come up with good reasons why poly-marriages pose actual risks for the involved partners or complex legal ramifications within society. If you could not, then you'd have a problem, but that won't be fixed by denying same-sex marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, thousands of years of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman isn't sound reasons enough, huh? Left wanting, in your view, is it ?

---

Quote:

---

And not being in favor of same sex marriage is only about homophobia, is that right ? Way to falsely frame the position of those with which you disagree.

---

Quote:

---

What about Islamic based homophobia ? ( remember the issue for which this thread was started ? ) Why'd you omit that ? Are you a religious bigot ? Oh yeah, it seems you are.

---

Quote:

---

Same sex partnerships which support family values can just as easily be achieved w/ out changing the definition of marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Hell, you could come up w/ good reasons why marriage itself poses risks for those involved, if you're willing to travel down that rabbit hole.

---

Quote:

---

Rabbis Will Defy Law on Circumcision Ritual

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in New York City say if a proposed law requiring parental consent for a circumcision ritual linked to two infant deaths is enacted they will defy it.

During the ritual, called metzitzah b’peh, a mohel removes the foreskin and uses his mouth to stop the bleeding. At least 11 New York infants are thought to have contracted herpes from the practice, two of whom died and two of whom have irreversible brain damage, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

But rabbis insist 5,000-year-old ritual is safe, and say they refuse to tell parents there are any health risks.

“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” said Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”

Niederman said the research linking metzitzah b’peh to infant deaths is “full of holes,” adding that the ritual is performed safely “tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide, and that babies who aren’t circumcised can also acquire herpes shortly after birth.

“We are convinced that the data is flawed and there’s no risk whatsoever,” he said, adding that “safeguarding the life of an infant” is one of the Torah’s most important principles.

Most modern mohels remove the blood with a sterile pipette. But about two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities, who are ultra-Orthodox, are circumcised in the oral suction manner, Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America, told ABC News in March.

The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.

The law would require mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.

Niederman said the government should “do what they feel is right” and advise against the ritual if they think there’s a risk.

“But don’t put it on the mohel,” he said. “Don’t force parents to sign something that is against their religious beliefs.”

The city’s Health Department is scheduled to vote on the proposed law Sept. 13. But Niederman worries a vote to enact the law would force rabbis, who are “among the most law-abiding citizens,” to put their religious beliefs first.

“When it comes to the law, we are all there – it’s our obligation, according to our religion. But not when the law goes against our religion,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/rabbis-will-defy-law-on-
circumcision-ritual/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

#!


On this point, his words are undeniable.

Yes, in history, most if not all religions have their 'fringe' element, who'll commit unspeakable acts.

But we don't live 500 or 1200 years ago. We live in the NOW. And NOW, there's only one religion that is far more likely than not to murder you for not believing in or respecting THEIR way. Doesn't mean everyone who is Muslim will do that, but of the top 10 or top 100 acts of violence committed in the name of some god or religion, odds are greatly in your favor that if you guessed 'Allah' or ' Muslim ', and you'd be right.

---