• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

When did the anti-Israel stance start from the right?

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,749
4,521
65
Southern California
✟87,026.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Starting a war can conceivably be viewed as wrong.
Okay, I'm coming in way late in the argument, so I may get things wrong. If I've misunderstood you, please deal with me patiently. :)

Are you talking about the war with Iran? The US did not start the war. Iran started the war way back in 1979 when it supported the students who took the American hostages and held them for 444 days.

Remember that Iran used too be a very strong ALLY of both the US and Israel, and it WAS a muslim nation at that time. So this has nothing to do Palestinians. This has to do with with nutty muslim EXTREMISTS taking over Iran and turning it into a theocracy. Normal Islam is easy to work with. But jihadists are fruitcakes. You can't reason with people like that. They are religious imperialists who want to take over the entire world and set up Sharia law. They don't give a rat's about Palestinians. It's all about the caliphate. And the US and Israel are the greatest obstacles to that.
If you save the civilians by killing as many of them as you do the other sides military you might find that not all appreciate the saving.
I've read this five times, and still don't understand you.
I'm not a proponent of peace at any price. I strongly support Ukraina's efforts to defend themselves.
That's good to know.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,749
4,521
65
Southern California
✟87,026.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
I'm neither anti Israel or Anti Semitic.
I'll decide that based on what things you actually say about Jews and Israel. We shall see.

I'm sure that in the back of your mind you realize that most racists don't realize they are racist.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we defined our terms.
Absolutely:

Zionism: the secular political philosophy that the Jewish state of Israel should exist as a refuge for Jews from antisemitism, since history has shown us that we can't trust the nations of the world to protect us.

Religious Zionism: similarly believe in the right of Israel to exist, but bases it on the Bible rather than reason and common sense.

Semite: someone part of a group that traditionally has spoken any number of languages descended from Proto-Semitic.

Antisemite: Someone who hates Jews. Not semites. Jews. This term was coined by a German guy who wanted a word that would specifically refer to his hatred of JEWS as a race. So it doesn't matter if some people find it irrational. It means what it means.

Antizionists: They claim to hate Zionists and not Jews, but actions speak louder than words. Do they attack Israeli embassies?? No.. They burn down synagogues, bomb Jewish preschools with children inside, and shoot Jewish families celebrating Jewish holidays at the beach. Their actions reveal who they really hate.

Jews/Hebrews/Israelites: a joinable tribal group with a shared history, homeland and culture. According to Jewish law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or who has completed geirus. Geirus is usually translated as conversion, but it is much more than a change of religions. It really means to be adopted into this tribal people as a full member. This tribe has its origins in Canaan, and Jewish groups all over the world still have middle eastern markers in our DNA.

Judaism: the religion of the Jews. Most Jews either practice some form of Judaism or associate themselves with it, although there are a minority of Jews that are not religious, are atheist, or that belong to other religions.

Israel: THIS WORD HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS. You have to examine the context to know which definition is being used. Israel can refer to any of the following:
Israel can refer to Jacob, the son of Isaac who went by both names.
Israel is often used as shorthand for the B'nei Ysrael, People of Israel, aka the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites.
Israel can refer to the united Kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon.
Israel can refer to the northern Kingdom of Israel that came into being when the United Kingdom split into two.
Israel can refer to Eretz Yisrael, the LAND of Israel.
Israel can refer to the modern democratic Jewish state of Israel that exists today.

Genocide is the deliberate attempt to exterminate a people either in full (worldwide) or in part (a given territory). If the intent is NOT extermination, then it doesn't matter how many people are killed, it's not genocide.

Apartheid: a society formed upon racial segregation. The lower group is blocked from participation in government and is also discriminated against economically and socially.

SEMANTICAL INFLATION: this is when a defined term is misused, either by taking a horrendous term and misapplying it to something that does not qualify, such as the use of genocide and apartheid to describe Israeli policies, or the false expansion of a perfectly ordinary term to include horrendous things that are not part of its definition, such as when people claim Zionism means expanding Israel's borders or eliminating Palestinians.
The nation state of Israel certainly exists, but it is not true Israel, that would be the Body of Christ. I am not opposed to the true Israel.
Your use of the word "true" delegitimizes all the other definitions of Israel. That is not how language works. You can't say that the "true" meaning of bat is a flying mammal but not a stick with which to hit a baseball.

I realize that a few Christians are still left that are supersessionist, but the overwhelming majority of Christians churches renounced Replacement Theology when they looked at the holocaust and realized that a bad doctrine had brought about an unimaginable evil.

And you are going to have to accept that I will never EVER accept your claim. You are not Israel. You do not get to misappropriate my tribal name. If you want to make your own covenant with God, I'm fine with that, but you do not get to misappropriate my covenant or any of its promises. And while I think it's great if our sacred texts inspire you, and I'm more than happy to share them, they are not yours.

Has it ever occurred to you that before you so summarily dismiss the Jews, that perhaps you should actually get to know us?
Words mean things. If we allow a group of people to claim titles that do not belong to them,
Em, that would be YOU, Mr. I-am-Israel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

Bind my wandering heart to thee!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2004
71,948
8,433
Western New York
✟248,214.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is CFR short for?

No. This part of the discussion started with you asserting some strange things about the school that most probably was targeted (from what we know now, we'll see if it was because of faulty intel) and destroyed by the US military.

ETA: If there had been a popular uprising first, I would be in support of the use of military force to support that.
CFR = call For References.

Please produce some form of evidence that we killed as many Iranian civilian's as the Iranian regime killed.

And when I say “we” I mean the US, not Israel.
 
Upvote 0

RedLetterJoe

Member
May 24, 2026
11
4
61
Way out west
✟652.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I'll decide that based on what things you actually say about Jews and Israel. We shall see.

I'm sure that in the back of your mind you realize that most racists don't realize they are racist.

This was the point where I stopped reading.

And this is the point where I choose to follow Christ and love my neighbor.

You have yourself a beautiful day.
 
Upvote 0

Dogheaded

Active Member
Jun 17, 2023
168
53
31
Windsor
✟34,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
According to the New Testament. Israel is not the chosen people and they have no business in that land as radical colonizers. While the white supremacist (jews that aren't white are considered second class or third class citizens, are inadequately represented in government, and even have had their own 'Black Panther' style resistance group) ethno-state "Israel" is killing, raping, and torturing Christians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, evangelicals turn a blind eye. They also do this to muslims who have traditionally been less problematic to Christians than Israel.

The support of Israel has no basis in traditional Christianity, but is a product of deepstate propaganda forces - which promoted the deeply problematic and heretical scofield Bible - with it's made up concepts like 'the rapture' sourced from Darby.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
25,838
18,663
56
USA
✟485,405.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you talking about the war with Iran? The US did not start the war. Iran started the war way back in 1979 when it supported the students who took the American hostages and held them for 444 days.

Umm... No.

That was not a war. Somehow we got through the first 47 years of this "war" without knowing we were in a war.

Have we always been at war with Persia?
 
Upvote 0

Dogheaded

Active Member
Jun 17, 2023
168
53
31
Windsor
✟34,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Umm... No.

That was not a war. Somehow we got through the first 47 years of this "war" without knowing we were in a war.

Have we always been at war with Persia?

We have always been at war with Oceania. Always.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tinker Grey
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
1,418
566
Kristianstad
✟43,227.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
CFR = call For References.
That was not what I meant to say, it was that the number of civilians killed by the US is in the same ballpark as the number of military killed by the US.

Before the ceasefire, given that we don't have good data on Iran's military losses yet, they were in the same ballpark.

Please produce some form of evidence that we killed as many Iranian civilian's as the Iranian regime killed.

And when I say “we” I mean the US, not Israel.

I don't think we have the granularity yet to differentiate between US and Israeli strikes. I believe that the majority of munitions used in the war has been US munitions.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
1,418
566
Kristianstad
✟43,227.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Okay, I'm coming in way late in the argument, so I may get things wrong. If I've misunderstood you, please deal with me patiently. :)

Are you talking about the war with Iran? The US did not start the war. Iran started the war way back in 1979 when it supported the students who took the American hostages and held them for 444 days.

All countries have histories, I was talking about since February 28 2026.

Remember that Iran used too be a very strong ALLY of both the US and Israel, and it WAS a muslim nation at that time. So this has nothing to do Palestinians. This has to do with with nutty muslim EXTREMISTS taking over Iran and turning it into a theocracy. Normal Islam is easy to work with. But jihadists are fruitcakes. You can't reason with people like that. They are religious imperialists who want to take over the entire world and set up Sharia law. They don't give a rat's about Palestinians. It's all about the caliphate. And the US and Israel are the greatest obstacles to that.

I've read this five times, and still don't understand you.

Sorry, it was probably ambiguously written, I was trying to make a point that if the proportion of collateral civilian casualties is high then it hard to argue that it is for the benefit of those civilians or their families. I do believe that the proportion will go down with time as we get more information about iranian military losses.


That's good to know.

I would also support an israeli defense against an invading neighbour.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

Bind my wandering heart to thee!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2004
71,948
8,433
Western New York
✟248,214.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That was not what I meant to say, it was that the number of civilians killed by the US is in the same ballpark as the number of military killed by the US.

Before the ceasefire, given that we don't have good data on Iran's military losses yet, they were in the same ballpark.



I don't think we have the granularity yet to differentiate between US and Israeli strikes. I believe that the majority of munitions used in the war has been US munitions.
Thanks for clarifying.
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
9,365
3,522
Pennsylvania, USA
✟1,074,894.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yes, 2.5 years after Trump pulled out of JCPOA. 1.5 year after Iran said they would stop meeting all the requirements in JCPOA.

Trump pulling out of JCPOA made the deal not worth it for Iran.
There seem to have been problems with the IAEA inspection reports. Physicist David Albright, a former IAEA inspector, founder of the Institute for Science & International Security ( I abbreviate it as IS & IS) noted several times up to Trump’s rejection of the JCPOA.

Albright is someone to take note of since he helped debunk the claims of Saddam Hussein having “weapons of mass destruction.” He and policy analyst, Andrea Stricker, wrote several analyses of IAEA inspections with the final in Nov 2017.

The analysis I have linked is, for me, technical & above my pay grade although I will try to get through it time & comprehension permitting. Albright & Strickler do note at the beginning:



The latest IAEA report again states: “Since 16 January 2016 (JCPOA Implementation Day), the Agency has verified and monitored Iran’s implementation of its nuclear-related commitments in accordance with the modalities set out in the JCPOA…” The quarterly report does not contain information about any violations of the JCPOA during this reporting period, but the report is once again so sparse in detail that it is impossible to conclude that Iran is fully complying. Nowhere in the report does the IAEA state that Iran is fully compliant with the JCPOA, and it should not make that judgement in any case. The issue of judging full compliance is rightly the responsibility of the Joint Commission and governments, in particular those in the P5+1. Of note, the report states that IAEA Director General Amano visited Tehran on October 29 and met with President Hassan Rouhani, Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and “stressed the importance of the full implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related. commitments under the JCPOA.” Amano’s visit and the statement in the report could imply that the Director General does not think Iran has fully implemented the deal. In terms of full implementation, the Director General has not clarified what exactly he means. He has referred to past cases of Iran exceeding heavy water limits, but he has also discussed Iran needing to do more on implementing Section T of the JCPOA





Info on Albright & Strickler:







Criticism that IAEA failed to verify Iranian compliance with section T of the JCPOA:



the IAEA includes no information about visits to sites or monitoring of specialized equipment that would provide insight into its Section T verification effort



Section T of the JCPOA (per AI) involves:



Section T requirements" refers to the non-proliferation and weaponization controls outlined in Annex 1 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). They explicitly ban activities contributing to nuclear explosive devices and dictate IAEA access to verify compliance with these dual-use equipment and research restrictions. [1, 2]

Key Requirements of Section T
Section T restricts specific research, design, and developmental activities that could aid in creating a nuclear weapon. Core restrictions dictate that the State shall not: [1]
  • Computer Modeling: Design, develop, or use computer models to simulate nuclear explosive devices.
  • Explosive Systems: Fabricate, acquire, or use explosive diagnostic systems (such as framing/streak cameras and flash X-rays) suitable for nuclear explosive development.
  • Multipoint Initiation: Conduct multipoint explosive detonation systems or shaped charge development for nuclear explosive purposes.
  • Neutron Sources: Design or fabricate components intended for nuclear explosive neutron sources. [1, 2, 3]


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
1,418
566
Kristianstad
✟43,227.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There seem to have been problems with the IAEA inspection reports. Physicist David Albright, a former IAEA inspector, founder of the Institute for Science & International Security ( I abbreviate it as IS & IS) noted several times up to Trump’s rejection of the JCPOA.

Albright is someone to take note of since he helped debunk the claims of Saddam Hussein having “weapons of mass destruction.” He and policy analyst, Andrea Stricker, wrote several analyses of IAEA inspections with the final in Nov 2017.

IAEA also correctly caught the misrepresentations in the US and UK claims about Iraq's supposed WMDs. It is the US intelligence community that has a credibility problem (I think they know a lot of things, but they are not above the suspicion that they are prepared to bend the presentation for political reasons).

The analysis I have linked is, for me, technical & above my pay grade although I will try to get through it time & comprehension permitting. Albright & Strickler do note at the beginning:



The latest IAEA report again states: “Since 16 January 2016 (JCPOA Implementation Day), the Agency has verified and monitored Iran’s implementation of its nuclear-related commitments in accordance with the modalities set out in the JCPOA…” The quarterly report does not contain information about any violations of the JCPOA during this reporting period, but the report is once again so sparse in detail that it is impossible to conclude that Iran is fully complying. Nowhere in the report does the IAEA state that Iran is fully compliant with the JCPOA, and it should not make that judgement in any case. The issue of judging full compliance is rightly the responsibility of the Joint Commission and governments, in particular those in the P5+1. Of note, the report states that IAEA Director General Amano visited Tehran on October 29 and met with President Hassan Rouhani, Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and “stressed the importance of the full implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related. commitments under the JCPOA.” Amano’s visit and the statement in the report could imply that the Director General does not think Iran has fully implemented the deal. In terms of full implementation, the Director General has not clarified what exactly he means. He has referred to past cases of Iran exceeding heavy water limits, but he has also discussed Iran needing to do more on implementing Section T of the JCPOA





Info on Albright & Strickler:







Criticism that IAEA failed to verify Iranian compliance with section T of the JCPOA:



the IAEA includes no information about visits to sites or monitoring of specialized equipment that would provide insight into its Section T verification effort



Section T of the JCPOA (per AI) involves:



Section T requirements" refers to the non-proliferation and weaponization controls outlined in Annex 1 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). They explicitly ban activities contributing to nuclear explosive devices and dictate IAEA access to verify compliance with these dual-use equipment and research restrictions. [1, 2]

Key Requirements of Section T
Section T restricts specific research, design, and developmental activities that could aid in creating a nuclear weapon. Core restrictions dictate that the State shall not: [1]
  • Computer Modeling: Design, develop, or use computer models to simulate nuclear explosive devices.
  • Explosive Systems: Fabricate, acquire, or use explosive diagnostic systems (such as framing/streak cameras and flash X-rays) suitable for nuclear explosive development.
  • Multipoint Initiation: Conduct multipoint explosive detonation systems or shaped charge development for nuclear explosive purposes.
  • Neutron Sources: Design or fabricate components intended for nuclear explosive neutron sources. [1, 2, 3]



This is more of a complaint against IAEA than Iran. The other parties to JCPOA where prepared to work inside the deal until USA left it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
24,027
19,836
✟1,596,348.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Words mean things.
Yes. Like antisemitism which means bigotry against Jews. Muddying the waters as if it has or does mean something else is disingenuous at best.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,828
4,579
Louisville, Ky
✟1,142,363.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I know not every conservative is a Christian but it’s still whiplash in many conservative forums where there’s a big anti Israel stance. Reading Fox News comments about Israel and its overwhelming negative forwards that nation. I’m Christian, go to church and the consensus I always “Israel is right, defend them always”. I'm A/G denomination if that helps. I don’t remember the vitriol towards them ever like this. I expected it from the left but never from the right. Are Christians simply in their own bubble and island at the moment?
Israel is not the government, which is secular. You can be pro-Israel and anti- Netanyahu.
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
9,365
3,522
Pennsylvania, USA
✟1,074,894.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
IAEA also correctly caught the misrepresentations in the US and UK claims about Iraq's supposed WMDs
I know, the physicist at IS & IS, David Albright, who I am referring to about problems with the IAEA inspections ( leading up to Trump abandoning the JCPOA) was part of that IAEA inspection team on Iraq.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,749
4,521
65
Southern California
✟87,026.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
This was the point where I stopped reading.

And this is the point where I choose to follow Christ and love my neighbor.

You have yourself a beautiful day.
Very strange place to stop reading.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,749
4,521
65
Southern California
✟87,026.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Umm... No.

That was not a war. Somehow we got through the first 47 years of this "war" without knowing we were in a war.

Have we always been at war with Persia?
No. Just since 1979.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,749
4,521
65
Southern California
✟87,026.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
All countries have histories, I was talking about since February 28 2026.
Yeah, I can't justify pulling Feb 2026 out of context like that.
Sorry, it was probably ambiguously written, I was trying to make a point that if the proportion of collateral civilian casualties is high then it hard to argue that it is for the benefit of those civilians or their families. I do believe that the proportion will go down with time as we get more information about iranian military losses.
In WW2, about 2-3% of the German civilian population died as a result of the war. In Gaza, about 2-3% of the Gazan population (and remember that this figure INCLUDES Hamas terrorists, not just civilians) died as a result of the recent war. Approximately 0.0039% to 0.0067% of the Iranian population has died as a result of the military conflict with the United States and Israel since Feb 2026.

Was it wrong to fight against the Axis powers in WW2 based on that percent of civilian casualties, which was higher than both the war in Gaza and the recent offensive in Iran?
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
1,418
566
Kristianstad
✟43,227.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I know, the physicist at IS & IS, David Albright, who I am referring to about problems with the IAEA inspections ( leading up to Trump abandoning the JCPOA) was part of that IAEA inspection team on Iraq.

Only until 1997, the IAEA made inspections all the way until 2003 showing that Iraq wasn't trying to working on WMDs. IAEA managed to correctly assess that situation.
 
Upvote 0