Israel Declares War
- Thread starter ThereRoseaLamb
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ok, still not personal enough. Your wife, daughter, sister at a gas stop alone at night. Someone comes up behind her and brutally attacks her then rapes her and drags her body down the road. The cops come to you and you're lie "Nah, I'm good. I'm a Christian so, just the the guy go". It's not about revenge, it's about justice and about stopping a terrorist organization. smh
Ah, inquiring if a person would cry foul if they are against conscription if the armed servicemen that are paid through federal taxes refused to defend him...
You don't want taxes to be brought to the topic because it obliterates your attempt at making him a hypocrite. It's not a "loophole" to point out the person's taxes finances their defense. It's providing insight and context as to the person's entitlement to a defense in spite of being against conscription. We do agree that even if he didn't pay taxes that the servicemen would still defend him... THAT point is moot.
As to specifically "IF" a person would cry foul, I wouldn't doubt someone would. They would be allowed to defense just like anyone else in spite of their personal view of conscription. If he was drafted and was a draft evader, that is a crime. He would be subject to whatever the consequences are of draft evading, BUT he would still be entitled to a defense. I understand you were just curious if one would. It really just depends on the person. I was focusing on if there is merit to his crying out foul, which there is as he's a tax paying citizen.
You don't want taxes to be brought to the topic because it obliterates your attempt at making him a hypocrite. It's not a "loophole" to point out the person's taxes finances their defense. It's providing insight and context as to the person's entitlement to a defense in spite of being against conscription. We do agree that even if he didn't pay taxes that the servicemen would still defend him... THAT point is moot.
As to specifically "IF" a person would cry foul, I wouldn't doubt someone would. They would be allowed to defense just like anyone else in spite of their personal view of conscription. If he was drafted and was a draft evader, that is a crime. He would be subject to whatever the consequences are of draft evading, BUT he would still be entitled to a defense. I understand you were just curious if one would. It really just depends on the person. I was focusing on if there is merit to his crying out foul, which there is as he's a tax paying citizen.
-
1
- Show all
I watched from the marked spot for roughly 10 minutes. They were talking about statehood. Why would you refer to two dudes on youtube who are discussing Palestinian land and Israeli land over going to the actual Fourth Geneva Convention link I sent? You're a big girl who can answer questions independently of posting random YouTube videos. At the very least, give me the timestamp so I don't have to hope they eventually answer the question.
What do you have against reading from the source where it spells out what is not permitted? Would you go to two random Christians to know what the word of God says or would you just get a copy of the word of God and read/study it yourself?
Make your case that Israel isn't occupying and settling on the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
What do you have against reading from the source where it spells out what is not permitted? Would you go to two random Christians to know what the word of God says or would you just get a copy of the word of God and read/study it yourself?
Make your case that Israel isn't occupying and settling on the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
I don't want taxes brought to the topic? What in the world are you on about? You keep adding to what I asked not even
knowing libertarians were a thing. It was a simple muse that you have added many red herrings to. Congratulations.
Expecting others to "slave" for him when he refuses to "slave" for others is hypocrisy in my view, regardless of taxes paid.
knowing libertarians were a thing. It was a simple muse that you have added many red herrings to. Congratulations.
Expecting others to "slave" for him when he refuses to "slave" for others is hypocrisy in my view, regardless of taxes paid.
Wellll listen, you take that up with God. If you don't believe the Word, I can't convince you and I see others have tried.
And you're indifferent about Jews.
In fact some here have tried to say they aren't even REAL Jews!! I'm not indifferent about the subject, I'm indifferent about your sources and your opinions. Don't get it twisted. I do not believe Israel is seeking to murder women and children, Hamas did and does and could care less if their own die. That's why they have to be obliterated.
Do you?! Well I find it very telling when Replacement Theology "believers" start saying Jews aren't really Jews and that they get all the curses and the church gets all the blessings and that God is done with them even though there is an everlasting and unconditional covenant that says He is not. I find it telling that these people tend to have an antisemitic worldview, as Martin Luther did. They believe they are the chosen instead of grafted in. That's what I find telling. Then they try to make excuses for believing as they do. Sad.
And you're indifferent about Jews.
In fact some here have tried to say they aren't even REAL Jews!! I'm not indifferent about the subject, I'm indifferent about your sources and your opinions. Don't get it twisted. I do not believe Israel is seeking to murder women and children, Hamas did and does and could care less if their own die. That's why they have to be obliterated.
Do you?! Well I find it very telling when Replacement Theology "believers" start saying Jews aren't really Jews and that they get all the curses and the church gets all the blessings and that God is done with them even though there is an everlasting and unconditional covenant that says He is not. I find it telling that these people tend to have an antisemitic worldview, as Martin Luther did. They believe they are the chosen instead of grafted in. That's what I find telling. Then they try to make excuses for believing as they do. Sad.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you then. It sounds like you think/thought taxes was irrelevant to the discussion? I brought it up because it explains and justifies his entitlement (to be defended).
If we are using the term "slave" (which I know you and Brother Moses were prior) then this gets more complicated as I would have to first agree to the usage of it for conscription. We can pretend we subscribe to "slave" for conscription for the sake of discussion though. In this case, most servicemen are voluntary and are funded by the anti-conscription person. When someone agrees to do a service in exchange for money from someone (the anti-conscription person's taxes) or something (the federal government) then it isn't really slavery. It's called an exchange of goods and services. If the person is a draft evader, he is still subject to the goods and services he or she has paid into though. This is probably where you and I disagree. The fact the person is anti-conscription doesn't mean he or she is alleviated from a financial burden of paying the volunteer servicemen. They are going to get paid regardless of a person's support for or against conscription. If we agree to focus not on "IF" someone would cry foul but would they have merit in doing so, we would have to conclude that he/she has a legitimate reason to cry foul. There is no hypocrisy when there is an exchange of goods and services even if the person is anti-conscription.
If we are using the term "slave" (which I know you and Brother Moses were prior) then this gets more complicated as I would have to first agree to the usage of it for conscription. We can pretend we subscribe to "slave" for conscription for the sake of discussion though. In this case, most servicemen are voluntary and are funded by the anti-conscription person. When someone agrees to do a service in exchange for money from someone (the anti-conscription person's taxes) or something (the federal government) then it isn't really slavery. It's called an exchange of goods and services. If the person is a draft evader, he is still subject to the goods and services he or she has paid into though. This is probably where you and I disagree. The fact the person is anti-conscription doesn't mean he or she is alleviated from a financial burden of paying the volunteer servicemen. They are going to get paid regardless of a person's support for or against conscription. If we agree to focus not on "IF" someone would cry foul but would they have merit in doing so, we would have to conclude that he/she has a legitimate reason to cry foul. There is no hypocrisy when there is an exchange of goods and services even if the person is anti-conscription.
-
1
- Show all
What's hilarious is her objection to the term "Palestinian", yet here is a post she made USING it!!! 
(post #2741)
(post #2741)
I know she's sooooo stupid, right? Name me a Palestinian king. What language does a Palestinian speak? smhAnd around 33% are in Israel. SHE didn't say she didn't care so watch putting words in HER mouth. SHE doesn't appreciate it. In that post I believe I said IF the younger people are trending away from Hamas that was something we needed to jump on and encourage. That doesn't stop the fact that Hamas has to be rooted out.
SHE can speak for herself, again stop shoving words in my mouth!! I said more than one I do no believe Israel is seeking and targeting children. Full stop. I DID NOT say I don't care they die. I said that is NOT Israels intent like it was Hamas. That happens in real life war. But that is not Israel intent or they would have just gone in and flattened them and there would be no one on the borders they'd all be dead.
Now this last lie you're gonna stop. No one is erasing an identity. It's not
they have an identity they are Arabs. That is a fact. Palestine was a region and there were Arabs, Jews and others living there. But there never was and still isn't now a Palestinian people, the are Arabs. DNA test will show, Arabs. So knock off saying I'm trying to erase anyone, that is untrue, that is not what I said.
A recent discussion brought up subject of the "right of self-preservation" except in application to the Son of God and the ramifications of His 'giving up' that right. This right is no less afforded to one than it is to another. However, and not speaking to one's own preference or self-comfort, one believes destroying the other is necessary to his own self-preservation.
I would think that everyone would agree that this is not the ideal solution for 'all" to get along as swimmingly as possible so, it would seem this attitude would be what needs to change, that the one must be extinct in order for the other to thrive. Which of the two would be most receptive with the other's existence if a change in attitude of the one toward the other were affected (and what attitude, exactly, need be adopted)? And which of the two would only be 'content' if the other fell out of existence entirely?
If it is a given that both have the right to self-preservation, but it seems to me that the one's parameters of self-sacrifice in order to achieve this is a might bit broader than the other as Israel is disinclined to using its children as a shield, and thus conscripting them for the defense of its community. This seems to render them as the less noble of the two.
I would think that everyone would agree that this is not the ideal solution for 'all" to get along as swimmingly as possible so, it would seem this attitude would be what needs to change, that the one must be extinct in order for the other to thrive. Which of the two would be most receptive with the other's existence if a change in attitude of the one toward the other were affected (and what attitude, exactly, need be adopted)? And which of the two would only be 'content' if the other fell out of existence entirely?
If it is a given that both have the right to self-preservation, but it seems to me that the one's parameters of self-sacrifice in order to achieve this is a might bit broader than the other as Israel is disinclined to using its children as a shield, and thus conscripting them for the defense of its community. This seems to render them as the less noble of the two.
I know she's sooooo stupid, right? Name me a Palestinian king. What language does a Palestinian speak? smhAnd around 33% are in Israel. SHE didn't say she didn't care so watch putting words in HER mouth. SHE doesn't appreciate it. In that post I believe I said IF the younger people are trending away from Hamas that was something we needed to jump on and encourage. That doesn't stop the fact that Hamas has to be rooted out.
SHE can speak for herself, again stop shoving words in my mouth!! I said more than one I do no believe Israel is seeking and targeting children. Full stop. I DID NOT say I don't care they die. I said that is NOT Israels intent like it was Hamas. That happens in real life war. But that is not Israel intent or they would have just gone in and flattened them and there would be no one on the borders they'd all be dead.
Now this last lie you're gonna stop. No one is erasing an identity. It's not
they have an identity they are Arabs. That is a fact. Palestine was a region and there were Arabs, Jews and others living there. But there never was and still isn't now a Palestinian people, the are Arabs. DNA test will show, Arabs. So knock off saying I'm trying to erase anyone, that is untrue, that is not what I said.
1.) You object to the term "Palestinian" yet you are free to use it...
2.) You stated that Palestinians voted for Hamas and they are NOT victims.
I'll screenshot and show you your own words. I'm not making anything up, I'm not shoving anything in your mouth. Everyone can go back and read it even if they think I edited the screenshot.
-
1
- Show all
Foolish and ignorant response. During war time the armed servicemen who are already part of the military are not enough to raise an army.
We aren't talking about people who have a contractual obligation, we are talking about the millions who don't have a contractual obligation refusing to volunteer.
We aren't talking about people who have a contractual obligation, we are talking about the millions who don't have a contractual obligation refusing to volunteer.
Defended by who? That is the question. During peace time enough people will want to be professional soldiers to keep the peace. But during a war when the country needs to be defended by an invading army you need every able bodied person to defend the country.
Right now the US has 1.4 million active military personnel. That is about 0.3% of the US population. You cannot defend 99.7% of the population from an invasion with 0.3% of the population. By comparison Israel has 6% of their population as active military or reservists. So we have 1/20th of what we would need as a bare minimum.
Right now the US has 1.4 million active military personnel. That is about 0.3% of the US population. You cannot defend 99.7% of the population from an invasion with 0.3% of the population. By comparison Israel has 6% of their population as active military or reservists. So we have 1/20th of what we would need as a bare minimum.
I know she's sooooo stupid, right? Name me a Palestinian king. What language does a Palestinian speak? smhAnd around 33% are in Israel. SHE didn't say she didn't care so watch putting words in HER mouth. SHE doesn't appreciate it. In that post I believe I said IF the younger people are trending away from Hamas that was something we needed to jump on and encourage. That doesn't stop the fact that Hamas has to be rooted out.
SHE can speak for herself, again stop shoving words in my mouth!! I said more than one I do no believe Israel is seeking and targeting children. Full stop. I DID NOT say I don't care they die. I said that is NOT Israels intent like it was Hamas. That happens in real life war. But that is not Israel intent or they would have just gone in and flattened them and there would be no one on the borders they'd all be dead.
Now this last lie you're gonna stop. No one is erasing an identity. It's not
they have an identity they are Arabs. That is a fact. Palestine was a region and there were Arabs, Jews and others living there. But there never was and still isn't now a Palestinian people, the are Arabs. DNA test will show, Arabs. So knock off saying I'm trying to erase anyone, that is untrue, that is not what I said.
Alright boys, I see ya. I'm disappointed Smoke, I thought better of you than to lie about a person. This is the last time I'm telling you three. There is historically no such people as the Palestinians. SHE didn't just pull that out of her behind and make that up. I have read and studied on this issue a long time before this. They are Arabs, that is a historical fact. Do not say she is trying to erase, that is a lie. I don't want to hear that again.
I don't want to hear this lie again either. What I said was children will be killed because this is war. Others have agreed and said the same. The conversation is about Israels intent vs Hamas. NO ONE has said "oh goody, children dead, let's do more of that!" So stop it! What I said was Israel is not targeting children. Hamas flat out doesn't care, but that's on them, not Israel. That was the discussion. NO ONE said they don't care about dead children and that's a pretty sick thing for you to say. Again, I thought better of you, my bad.
-
1
- Show all
Agreed, during war we need all the men we can get. I remember shortly after 9/11 there was a huge surge in enlisted men. From what I've read on Pearl Harbor, the same thing happened as well. Do you think the draft will ever be used again?
You do bring up a good question though. Defended by who... I don't think most American men would even be physically fit enough if they were to be drafted. I suppose one could serve in less physically taxing ways though.
You do bring up a good question though. Defended by who... I don't think most American men would even be physically fit enough if they were to be drafted.
I suppose one could serve in less physically taxing ways though.-
1
- Show all