Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Ok, to what date?

---

2023

Though they have accusations dating back to 1948

---

Got it. So in your opinion, their response to the terrorist attack makes them blood thirsty warmongers. Correct?

---

Yup

Israel NDAA Provision 'Section 219' Faces Bipartisan Blowback From House Lawmakers


Reps. Khanna and Massie seek to stop the expansion of US-Israel defense ties, citing transparency, espionage and oversight concerns.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Israel NDAA Provision 'Section 219' Faces Bipartisan Blowback From House Lawmakers


Reps. Khanna and Massie seek to stop the expansion of US-Israel defense ties, citing transparency, espionage and oversight concerns.

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but its non sequitur and I think you know that.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

The_barBEARian said:

---

william said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Israel NDAA Provision 'Section 219' Faces Bipartisan Blowback From House Lawmakers


Reps. Khanna and Massie seek to stop the expansion of US-Israel defense ties, citing transparency, espionage and oversight concerns.

---

---

---

LOL........

- el UF

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Ok, to what date?

---

2023

Though they have accusations dating back to 1948

---

Got it. So in your opinion, their response to the terrorist attack makes them blood thirsty warmongers. Correct?

---

Yup

---

Interesting. Certainly is a small sample size.

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Amen. The antisemites have hijacked that term kind of like how the race hustlers hijacked "racist."

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Amen. The antisemites have hijacked that term kind of like how the race hustlers hijacked "racist."

---

So anyone that disagrees with the actions of Israel is Gaza (including Israelis) is an antisemite? Wild take, but commend your willingness to die on an absurd hill.

---

A statement no more absurd than saying that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but its non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

That's not really a quibble. As ATL correctly points out, the term "genocide" is increasingly being used as a political slogan rather than as the narrow legal concept it was intended to be. The fact that some NGOs, UN officials, and advocacy organizations have used the term "genocide" doesn't settle the question. There are also governments, legal scholars, military analysts, and international-law experts who dispute that characterization.

As for my second point, it wasn't a non sequitur. You criticized evangelicals for equating the modern State of Israel with biblical Israel. My point was that there is at least some historical, ethnic, religious, and cultural continuity between the ancient Jewish people and many citizens of modern Israel. That's not the same as saying the modern state is identical to the biblical kingdom - a position of course I didn't take. It's simply rejecting the idea that the connection is entirely fictitious or invented, as you suggest.

Indeed, that position would be truly absurd.

muddybrazos said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Look no further than historian. He thinks the satanci talmudic nation of Israel that curses Christ and Mary is somehow a manifestation of God. Imo its probably what is meant by synagogue of satan.

---

I think you're smarter than posts like this suggest. At least I hope so. But you sure do post stupid things like this quite a bit.

Having read Historian's positions, I'm pretty sure he's not saying what you're attributing to him. One can recognize that God still has a plan to redeem Israel (see Romans 9-11) without believing that everything the modern State of Israel does is ordained by God or beyond criticism. Those are entirely different propositions. Believing that God has not abandoned the Jewish people is a historic and scripturally-based Christian position. .

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

That's great deflection, still largely irrelevant to the determinations made (which, to be clear, I am neither negating or endorsing, just pointing out). I don't recall more than a few fringe groups levying genocide charges at the US with respect to Iraq, but if you have a list, feel free to provide.

The default position on war crimes is still insane to me. The moral relativism of "well "they" did something as bad or worse" as any kind of justification or excuse holds no sway for me. We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Amen. The antisemites have hijacked that term kind of like how the race hustlers hijacked "racist."

---

So anyone that disagrees with the actions of Israel is Gaza (including Israelis) is an antisemite? Wild take, but commend your willingness to die on an absurd hill.

---

A statement no more absurd than saying that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide.

---

Surely you don't actually believe this on a one - for - one basis?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America "battled for survival" without asking for free handouts. They didnt constantly whine about what victims they were and beg, cheat, and steal from other nations like the gypsies in Israel did.

Israel wouldnt even exist without America's charity. We all know that, but if you told that to an Israeli they would whine, lie, and tell you the exact opposite. That the only reason America exists is because of Israel.

Netanyahu: "The Founding Fathers of America built the American Republic, but they drew inspiration from something far older… the Hebrew Bible."

"The values first revealed in Jerusalem helped shape the greatest republic in human history." pic.twitter.com/iBgaKYMvkX

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) July 7, 2026

---

Lord, you are stupid. America received substantial aid from France, Spain, and the Netherlands during the War of Independence. We likely would not have survived without it.

And way to miss the point once again, Jew-hater. My point, which once again flew over your empty Jew-hating brain, was that its illogical to suggest that Israel is a bloodthirsy war monger because it had to fight for survival, while at the same time holding America to a different standard.

---

No, your point was they were sweet baby angels who were attacked on all sides for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

You are continuously erecting new strawman's when you are unable to support your previous statements.

---

You missing the point, and reading things that aren't said is so you. Never suggested the Israelis are angels. Nor were our founding fathers. They were all fallible men, with existing flaws. They also did bad things. They are men, not angels.

The question is, does Israel have a right to exist, like America did. Do they have the right to defend against aggressors who want them annihilated. For you, the answer is no because you hate them as a race/people. I get it. It would be best if you just admitted the truth.

---

I think I've been pretty transparent with my views.

I view Israel(not Russia... not China) as the greatest threat to American sovereignty and the freedom and liberty of the American people.

Literally this week Congress is once again working overtime to pass more Israel First legislation. Section 219 was snuck into the massively bloated $1.5 trillion NDAA, which if passed would require our military to share all technology, logistics, and manufacturing with Israel as well as appointing an Israeli in the Pentagon who will be authorized to integrate as much Israeli technology into our weapons platforms and equipment as possible. Israel will basically be able to use the US military equipment and supplies as their own without the charade of paying off politicians to bypass Congressional oversight.



What Does Section 219 of the NDAA Allow as a "Merger" Between the U.S. and Israel?

---

In your hatred, you've made Israel a bogeyman. But this absurd and unsupported fear certainly explains your mindset.

I can think of much greater threats to our sovereignty and the freedom and liberty of the American people. The decline of the family, the collapse of church attendance, the erosion of the moral foundations that sustained our civilization, our unsustainable debt, and the growing power of geopolitical adversaries like China concern me far more than our support of Israel.

You're free to argue that certain pro-Israel policies are unwise or contrary to American interests. But jumping from that to "Israel is the greatest threat to American sovereignty" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I haven't seen anything close to that case made here.

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but its non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

That's not really a quibble. As ATL correctly points out, the term "genocide" is increasingly being used as a political slogan rather than as the narrow legal concept it was intended to be. The fact that some NGOs, UN officials, and advocacy organizations have used the term "genocide" doesn't settle the question. There are also governments, legal scholars, military analysts, and international-law experts who dispute that characterization.

As for my second point, it wasn't a non sequitur. You criticized evangelicals for equating the modern State of Israel with biblical Israel. My point was that there is at least some historical, ethnic, religious, and cultural continuity between the ancient Jewish people and many citizens of modern Israel. That's not the same as saying the modern state is identical to the biblical kingdom - a position of course I didn't take. It's simply rejecting the idea that the connection is entirely fictitious or invented, as you suggest.

Indeed, that position would be truly absurd.

---

Multiple (though admittedly not all) of the parties (including the UN and (again…) the Israeli groups) point specifically to the definition in the 1948 UN convention. You can disagree with their conclusions based on the an available evidence, but to dismiss the conclusion out of hand based on current political rhetoric is lazy and dishonest. The debate is not settled and I have not made an argument one way or the other on the matter. Gaza is the type of thing that should be investigated, just as October 7th should be (assuming any participants or planners are still alive to be brought to justice).

And your second point is absolutely non sequiter. There are "defendants of Abraham" in literally hundreds of cities across the globe in multiple dozens of countries. There is literally no other state that is defended as "gods chosen" by a material segment of the population. The connection may not be "invented" but it is certainly tortured beyond a biblically plausible position (imo) and the mere presence of Jewish people (as implied by your reference to Abraham) does not change the calculus.

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

---

I don't disagree, but are you saying the Gazans are terrorists?

Mothra said:

---

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

---

That is a drastic backtrack and reformation of the plain facial meaning of your comments thus far in this thread.

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

---

I don't disagree, but are you saying the Gazans are terrorists?

---

Did "Gazans" perpetrate October 7th or any other attack on Israel? Or was it Hamas, Hezbollah, etc?

That response was obtuse and your know it.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but its non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

That's not really a quibble. As ATL correctly points out, the term "genocide" is increasingly being used as a political slogan rather than as the narrow legal concept it was intended to be. The fact that some NGOs, UN officials, and advocacy organizations have used the term "genocide" doesn't settle the question. There are also governments, legal scholars, military analysts, and international-law experts who dispute that characterization.

As for my second point, it wasn't a non sequitur. You criticized evangelicals for equating the modern State of Israel with biblical Israel. My point was that there is at least some historical, ethnic, religious, and cultural continuity between the ancient Jewish people and many citizens of modern Israel. That's not the same as saying the modern state is identical to the biblical kingdom - a position of course I didn't take. It's simply rejecting the idea that the connection is entirely fictitious or invented, as you suggest.

Indeed, that position would be truly absurd.

---

Multiple (though admittedly not all) of the parties (including the UN and (again…) the Israeli groups) point specifically to the definition in the 1948 UN convention. You can disagree with their conclusions based on the an available evidence, but to dismiss the conclusion out of hand based on current political rhetoric is lazy and dishonest. The debate is not settled and I have not made an argument one way or the other on the matter. Gaza is the type of thing that should be investigated, just as October 7th should be (assuming any participants or planners are still alive to be brought to justice).

And your second point is absolutely non sequiter. There are "defendants of Abraham" in literally hundreds of cities across the globe in multiple dozens of countries. There is literally no other state that is defended as "gods chosen" by a material segment of the population. The connection may not be "invented" but it is certainly tortured beyond a biblically plausible position (imo) and the mere presence of Jewish people (as implied by your reference to Abraham) does not change the calculus.

---

I haven't dismissed their conclusions out of hand. I've looked at the arguments and remain unconvinced that the evidence establishes the specific intent required for genocide.

The organizations that have advanced the genocide claims - groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights Israel - are not neutral parties. Amnesty and HRW are advocacy organizations who have been critical of Israel and supported the Palestinians for years. B'Tselem and PHRI are leftist activist groups that are frequently critical of Israeli government policy. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, but it certainly calls into question their objectivity.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

---

That is a drastic backtrack and reformation of the plain facial meaning of your comments thus far in this thread.

---

I commented on a position you claimed was absurd. I did not say that was my position. Indeed, it wasn't, for those with basic reading comprehension and no agenda.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

And Thomas Massie is an idiot who is no longer in office because of it.

No traditional conservatives are going to vote for Massie in any large numbers. He's a poor man's Ron Paul without the likability. And he has too much hatred of Israel.

He has no shot of being president.

---

Thomas Massie lost his primary because

Pro-Israel interest groups spent over $9 million directly to unseat Thomas Massie in the 2026 Kentucky Republican primary, contributing to a record-breaking $32.6 million in total ad spending for the race. This figure includes more than $4 million from the United Democracy Project (AIPAC's super PAC) and over $4 million from the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history.

...and Boomercon fell for it.

As far as being president, we will see. 2028 is still two years away and by then the Boomers will be down another -8% of the population.

---

Problem is, when you lose in your own backyard, you're not going to do very well in a national election, especially when you're an uncharismatic wallflower who runs on Israel hate.

---

Lincoln was uncharismatic, ugly, had a high pitched voice, and lost in his own backyard 5 times.

---

Lincoln was an eloquent speaker and debater.

---

So is Massie

His Boomer Ziocon controlled opposition refused to debate the guy... how nuts is that? You are running against an incumbent but are too scared to debate him?

Same with Byrone in Florida. He refuses to debate Fishback because he knows he'd get torn to pieces.

Its incredible how Boomer Ziocons run from debate because their insane ideology cant stand any scrutiny from real America First conservatism

---

No, he's not. Not by any objective measure. I get that you like him because he shares your Jew hatred, but he's just not an eloquent or dynamic speaker.

---

The first person to bring up Jews in this thread was....

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

---

That is a drastic backtrack and reformation of the plain facial meaning of your comments thus far in this thread.

---

I commented on a position you claimed was absurd. I did not say that was my position. Indeed, it wasn't, for those with basic reading comprehension and no agenda.

---

You have claimed antisemitism multiple times in this thread and others with respect to any poster or group critical of the modern country of Israel and its policy toward Gazans, et. Al.

It's a perfectly reasonable inference of your position and you know that.

---

Respectfully, that is utter bull *****

It's part of the problem when you enter a conversation late, lack context, and don't know the history of interactions between the parties involved in the discussion.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

And Thomas Massie is an idiot who is no longer in office because of it.

No traditional conservatives are going to vote for Massie in any large numbers. He's a poor man's Ron Paul without the likability. And he has too much hatred of Israel.

He has no shot of being president.

---

Thomas Massie lost his primary because

Pro-Israel interest groups spent over $9 million directly to unseat Thomas Massie in the 2026 Kentucky Republican primary, contributing to a record-breaking $32.6 million in total ad spending for the race. This figure includes more than $4 million from the United Democracy Project (AIPAC's super PAC) and over $4 million from the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history.

...and Boomercon fell for it.

As far as being president, we will see. 2028 is still two years away and by then the Boomers will be down another -8% of the population.

---

Problem is, when you lose in your own backyard, you're not going to do very well in a national election, especially when you're an uncharismatic wallflower who runs on Israel hate.

---

Lincoln was uncharismatic, ugly, had a high pitched voice, and lost in his own backyard 5 times.

---

Lincoln was an eloquent speaker and debater.

---

So is Massie

His Boomer Ziocon controlled opposition refused to debate the guy... how nuts is that? You are running against an incumbent but are too scared to debate him?

Same with Byrone in Florida. He refuses to debate Fishback because he knows he'd get torn to pieces.

Its incredible how Boomer Ziocons run from debate because their insane ideology cant stand any scrutiny from real America First conservatism

---

No, he's not. Not by any objective measure. I get that you like him because he shares your Jew hatred, but he's just not an eloquent or dynamic speaker.

---

The first person to bring up Jews in this thread was....

---

What's a "Boomer Ziocon" again?

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.