Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Posted: **Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:40:32**

I hope I remember to find this thread again when I log in, later.

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:57:31**

Even though this thread is very clearly one such as I've made it my policy to avoid like I'd avoid a p!ssing match between skunks, I cannot contain my curiosity on one point: I would be much obliged if Kreutz, ratherfish, or just whoever would explain to me what in the heck a "Christian Zionist" might be.

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:19:04**

Ask Kreutz....

I'm just reapeating the slander the liberals throw at me....Call me whatever you want I really don't care...

Ummm Mr Kreutz.... Am i Mistaken in reading that you're an Obama supporter? Plan on voting for him?

And you self idently as an "independant" no doubt....voted for Obama last time.....

Mister ... you're a flaming liberal progressive with his eyes closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a gun board arguing that your messiah isn't planning to take away your 2nd ammendment rights in his second term????

That's Obamazombie country!!!!

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:59:51**

OK, Kreutz.................
What DO you mean by the term "Christian Zionist"?

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:54:45**

Kreutz wrote:
Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.
Its called "Where Empires go to Die" for a reason, was anyone really foolish enough to think this would end in any other way than defeat?

Insanity is doing/repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. Afghanistan is patently unwinnable. Always has been.

Didn't we used to mock the folly and hubris of the Russians against the Mujahadeen back in the 80s? And yet, here we are and there we fight. Utterly a waste of human time and life and limbs. It makes me physically ill.

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:11:43**

I'm of the opinion that we'll never know if Afghanistan was winnable, because the politicians undermined the military folks who were fighting. Perhaps we'd have failed to win if they'd been allowed to fight; perhaps not. But we'll never know.

Is Kreutz ever gonna tell me what he means by Christian Zionist?

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:37:16**

dorminWS wrote:I'm of the opinion that we'll never know if Afghanistan was winnable, because the politicians undermined the military folks who were fighting. Perhaps we'd have failed to win if they'd been allowed to fight; perhaps not. But we'll never know.

Is Kreutz ever gonna tell me what he means by Christian Zionist?

I have a job (a real one, not "on call"); sue me.

I'll just link the wikipedia article because I'm lazy and ole ratherfish seems to hate wikipedia (no doubt because its a nest of liberals or something).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. It overlaps with, but is distinct from, the nineteenth century movement for the Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land, which had both religiously and politically motivated supporters. The term Christian Zionism was popularized in the mid-twentieth century. Prior to that time the common term was Restorationism.[1]

Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with Christian Dispensationalism. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christian, as a means fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.[2][3][4]

Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with the “ingrafted” Gentile Christians[Romans 11:17-24] (dual-covenant theology). This has the added effect of turning Christian Zionists into supporters of Jewish Zionism.

Essentially this boils down to a bizarre instance of simultaneous philosemitism and antisemitism.

The former in that the Christian Zionist stops just short of worshiping Jewishness, the latter because for their desire to see said jews wiped out as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ. You must remember their support of Israel is self-serving and interested only in that one end result.

This differs markedly say, from the Orthodox Jewish position that Israel exists to usher in peace and prosperity for all....something that hasn't quite happened yet either. In fact its had the opposite effect, but, when you establish a country by committee what do you expect?

I first became aware of the existence of this many years ago (not something one runs into in NY) when my last name was on my shirt in the Army and someone with a very thick Southern accent introduced himself and said he looked forward "to killing some sand *****ers together someday". When I asked wtf he was talking about, he said, "You're jewish right? See, I'm a Christian Zionist, and I support Israel 100% and want you to know I stand by you".

Baffled I looked it up and later on saw it (and conversely anti-zionism) pop up every now and then on message boards. IIRC its major proponents are Pat Robertson and Glenn Beck, so, that's probably enough of an intro right there as to who it attracts.

I also made every effort to avoid this guy naturally because he skived me out and instead I hung out with the black/sephardic jew from Brooklyn, who comically, had a rather ancient Hebrew name on his shirt as opposed to my mongrelized eastern European one and he did not receive the same introduction from said Christian Zionist I did.

Latent racism mayhaps? In any event I swore never to hold another job where I had my last name on my shirt; which I upheld thus far.

Back on topic, what do you mean by "Perhaps we'd have failed to win if they'd been allowed to fight"?

Short of not being allowed to execute every man, woman, and child as a means of victory, how did politicians tamper? Most military leaders favor the "hearts and minds" approach anyway.

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:40:16**

Wiki smarts is a truely disgusting thing. Specially when the practitioner doesn't include the sources and footnotes....

It is an on line contributory encyclopedia. Most schools disallow it as reference. On line libs live by it of course! It almost always slants their way.

Seems to be the way the same individual understands Holy Scripture... as a buffet to pick and choose verses to do battle against Christianity.

I have been labeled "Christian Zionist" Because I object to neo-nazi propaganda being posted on another site by a moderator. The german site in question surmised that "Jews" were responsable for the civil rights movement in America and viewed it as a means of striking out against "whites"!!!!!!
Dunno, maube he agrees....

Guess I'll have to repeat unanswered questions until the "independant" drives a stake in the ground;
Ummm Mr Kreutz.... Am i Mistaken in reading that you're an Obama supporter? Plan on voting for him?

And you self idently as an "independant" no doubt....voted for Obama last time.....

Mister ... you're a flaming liberal progressive with his eyes closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a gun board arguing that your messiah isn't planning to take away your 2nd ammendment rights in his second term????

That's Obamazombie country!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OH!

By the way!!!!

Number #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:02:51**

dorminWS wrote:I'm of the opinion that we'll never know if Afghanistan was winnable, because the politicians undermined the military folks who were fighting. Perhaps we'd have failed to win if they'd been allowed to fight; perhaps not. But we'll never know.

Fighting a war is more than technological capability. The very fact that the politicians never were going to let them fight the war and were going to undermine them from the beginning makes it un-winnable. Be careful, you're starting to sound like Ron Paul...if you're going to fight, fight with everything you have; otherwise don't start a fight.

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:06:36**

@ratherfish

You do your cause great harm expressing it the way you do. Your failure to have a respectful and intelligent conversation makes you sound like a troll. You're quickly becoming another Gat6...

Posted: **Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:20:46**

gunderwood wrote:@ratherfish

You do your cause great harm expressing it the way you do. Your failure to have a respectful and intelligent conversation makes you sound like a troll. You're quickly becoming another Gat6...

this!

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:09:39**

dorminWS wrote:I'm of the opinion that we'll never know if Afghanistan was winnable, because the politicians undermined the military folks who were fighting

We do know it is unwinnable for certain because nobody has won it, historically or currently. And we won't win it and that's not even a goal. Every nation we do this to always reverts the moment we stop intervening. Militarily, that is. We as a nation always win the culture wars, or until there's a severe conservative backlash. Even the US is having a conservative backlash against our biggest American export: libertine pop culture.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:20:46**

Well, you know, as Gunderwood pointed out, if you are going to fight, fight to win. Go all out. We could have won, but our "leaders" seem to not want to throw a meaningful punch. Apparently we must go to war without offending or killing our opponents, now.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:27:32**

ratherfish wrote:Wiki smarts is a truely disgusting thing. Specially when the practitioner doesn't include the sources and footnotes....

It is an on line contributory encyclopedia. Most schools disallow it as reference. On line libs live by it of course! It almost always slants their way.

Seems to be the way the same individual understands Holy Scripture... as a buffet to pick and choose verses to do battle against Christianity.

I have been labeled "Christian Zionist" Because I object to neo-nazi propaganda being posted on another site by a moderator. The german site in question surmised that "Jews" were responsable for the civil rights movement in America and viewed it as a means of striking out against "whites"!!!!!!
Dunno, maube he agrees....

Guess I'll have to repeat unanswered questions until the "independant" drives a stake in the ground;
Ummm Mr Kreutz.... Am i Mistaken in reading that you're an Obama supporter? Plan on voting for him?

And you self idently as an "independant" no doubt....voted for Obama last time.....

Mister ... you're a flaming liberal progressive with his eyes closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a gun board arguing that your messiah isn't planning to take away your 2nd ammendment rights in his second term????

That's Obamazombie country!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OH!

By the way!!!!

Number #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

In your very first thread where you came here to bitch about vaguntrader.com as a den of islamonazifascisthomosexualrotarianvegans you self identified as a "Christian Zionist". You were not "labeled" one you liar.

Shame that thread got deleted, it was a wonderful preview of the pearls of genius and tact you'd be dispersing before us lowly swine.

You've gone from amusing to irritating fast.

And I plan on voting for Ron Paul in the VA primary, but since my choice will be Romney or Obama and they have absolutely no difference except skin color I'll throw my useless non-electoral popular vote to the brotha man over a freaky Mormon robot, what of it?

Shame Ron Paul wont make it though. I like that guy alot more than Obama such a flaming liberal I am after all.

I voted for Obama last time over the octogenarian with dementia and anger problems, and the self-promoting whore of a running mate, what of it?

Other people having opinions differing from yours really seems to burn your ass, why is that?

So now you can post "I SED HE WUZ N OBURMMERZOMBEE HUR HUR HUR" over and over, are you happy?

And yes, I consider myself an independent, why shouldn't I? Last I checked Obama won last time in 2008 (thank our White Aryan God!), so, that would have meant mostly everyone was a 'flaming liberal", so why did the Dems get thrashed in 2010? And probably won't do so hot in 2012?

Can it be most people are capable of looking at a myriad of factors between their whopping two choices and then selecting one based on "whatevers closest"?

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:39:01**

When you're running an all-volunteer military during a recession in a country that isn't invading US soil, politics, PR, and blowback are as much of a consideration in war as the fighting itself. The things you consider to be barriers to winning are actually essential parts of the fighting and winning: play one part wrong and all the actors and their was are drummed out of the Corps.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:40:18**

Dooga wrote:When you're running an all-volunteer military during a recession into and against a country that isn't actually currently invading US soil, politics, PR, and blowback are as much of a consideration in war as the fighting itself. The things you consider to be barriers to winning are actually essential parts of the fighting and winning: play one part wrong and all the actors and their was are drummed out of the Corps.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:46:18**

@ Kreutz:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Christian Zionism appears to me to have a continuum of meanings, from merely being a Christian who supports the existence of Israel as a state and ally of the USA to actively agitating for the advent of Armageddon as a means to bring about the rapture. Given your background and the character of the debate beyween you and ratherfish, I was simply wondering where you came down. As to the debate itself, I don't have a dog in that hunt.

Wikipedia, as a source, I regard as informative but not authoritative.

@ all posters on this thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As to Afghanistan, The folks who have said you should fight to win are exactly right. That was basically what I was saying. The fact that we didn't is why we'll never know if we could have. The history of imperial ventures in Afghanistan is instructive but certainly not controlling. If our Founding Fathers had thought that way, we'd still be British subjects. Dooga is basically saying "OF COURSE the politicians prevented a winning strategy, but that's what we should expect because that's what they are supposed to do." I suppose that's one way to look at it. Certainly, that approach makes the "war never works" position a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I seem to remember that almost all of those politicians supported going into Afghanistan because there was a clear attack on US citizens on US soil (and, I suspect, because the outrage of the American people made them afraid to play callow political games at that point), and used the proposition that Afghanistan was where we should be fighting because that was a "just war" to justify their politically and ideologically-motivated efforts to hobble and impede the effort in Iraq. After they had assured an ineffectual effort in Iraq, they then proceeded to do the same thing in Afghanistan. You can think what you want, but I think it was largely motivated by a desire to discredit Bush and for political advantage in the 2008 and 2012 elections.

My post that we would never know whether we could have won was no more than that. Frankly, the thing that irks me most about some of these declarations on this subject is their defeatism and derogation of the resolve and capability of US forces and the American people. In my opinion, it is one thing to say "we can't/couldn't have won", and quite another to honestly acknowledge the fact that our political leaders are incapable of putting aside their political ambitions and personal ideologies long enough to pursue US interests. The former is defeatism; the latter intellectual honesty.

Having said that, I will say no more. Nobody here is going to change his/her opinion. I will therefore leave the monkey and the football to their own devices.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:03:27**

dorminWS wrote:
Nobody here is going to change his/her opinion.

That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of folk that lurk in the background and never utter a word; we only know the thoughts of those who post.

Besides, my personal opinion has been changed by other points of view on this site, in the past. Even when it hasn't, I've certainly re-evaluated my beliefs and opinions on various subjects since I started frequenting VGOF.

Points brought up by you, Kreutz, MamaBear, Allingeneral, and many others have been very beneficial to my personal thought processes.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:35:50**

SHMIV wrote:
dorminWS wrote:
Nobody here is going to change his/her opinion.

That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of folk that lurk in the background and never utter a word; we only know the thoughts of those who post.

Besides, my personal opinion has been changed by other points of view on this site, in the past. Even when it hasn't, I've certainly re-evaluated my beliefs and opinions on various subjects since I started frequenting VGOF.

Points brought up by you, Kreutz, MamaBear, Allingeneral, and many others have been very beneficial to my personal thought processes.

Truth, I have had to reconsider many long held positions because of you people.

Some people are very rigid in their opinions, others are not. I'm more on the latter side.

My first real ideological "shock" came from an ultra-conservative modern American history professor I had in college (they do exist-and he was a Harvard grad, go figure) who took a liking to me because I participated alot and so he used to BS with me after class.

He actually changed my mind on the New Deal (and a few other things), which I was taught from middle school had SAVED AMERICA!

Conversely a liberal macroeconomics prof. introduced me to the very important concept of externalizing costs; the dirty little secret to free market capitalism. This is why I am wary of decreasing regulations in some industries and think regulation can be an effective tool if used well in the interest of the public at large instead of special interests.

If one has the time Gunderwood and Gat6 are the most thorough in explaining themselves from either side whether you agree with them or not, they do their homework...and then a thesis, and then publish a seven volume series.

Which is then bound into an anthology which claims the life of a moderate sized forest.

Its better to be flexible in ones opinions than rigid.

Posted: **Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:47:03**

It is hard to take ratherfish seriously when he is able to use 67 exclamation marks in one post, including 37 at the end of just one little sentence, which wasn't actually a sentence anyway.

And then throws in an insane laugh at the end.

Actually, I feel sorry for the poor guy. He is crying out for attention and respect. No thanks, I'll pass on that opportunity.

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan

Re: Truth, lies and Afghanistan