If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Israel strikes Syrian targets. This is not a repeat from yesterday   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 374
    More: Followup, Syrians, Damascus, Reuters News, sectarian violence, Sunni Muslims, Syrian War  
•       •       •

6927 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2013 at 10:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



374 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 06:03:57 PM  

Tatsuma: vygramul: Woahwoahwoah... let's not go crazy.

He's the one who repeated in two different threads multiple times that I was posting on Shabbat (I wasn't) and seems to basically just argue at me, argue about me, or insult me, adding nothing to this thread, while he knows I have him on ignore.

Yet I'm the troll that it's worthless debating with (which is exactly what he tries doing every thread I'm in, based on the constant green arrows I see next to his name)


You'd be better off debating with a brick wall or a teenager.  You'd get a more intelligent response.
 
2013-05-05 07:34:24 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I really wouldn't give a shiat what Israel did - nor would the rest of the civilized world - if the U.S. would just stay the fark out of it.


no worries..as long as Israel is the one doing the giving the US will stay out. It's the taking part that we will then become involve.
 
2013-05-05 07:37:00 PM  

BravadoGT: mayIFark: So, let me get this straight, Hamas shoots rockets at random targets in Israel - Terrorism (Agreed).
Israel shoots even more powerful stuff at random targets all over the middle east - Not Terrorism (What the fark?)

that wasn't a "random target." It wasn't a school or a pizzeria; it was a missile factory.  Meant to be fired at them.  There is a big difference.


not to play devil's advocate but are you saying if Hamas hit an Israeli ammo dump or tank factory you wouldn't call it terrorism? I find that hard to believe.
 
2013-05-05 07:44:48 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: not to play devil's advocate but are you saying if Hamas hit an Israeli ammo dump or tank factory you wouldn't call it terrorism? I find that hard to believe.


No, that would be a guerrilla attack, and I would congratulate them on finally growing a pair and stop being cowards.
 
2013-05-05 08:07:25 PM  

Tatsuma: SuperNinjaToad: not to play devil's advocate but are you saying if Hamas hit an Israeli ammo dump or tank factory you wouldn't call it terrorism? I find that hard to believe.

No, that would be a guerrilla attack, and I would congratulate them on finally growing a pair and stop being cowards.


I don't consider the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist act.
 
2013-05-05 08:07:34 PM  
You do have to wonder how many brown children Tatsuma would personally sacrifice on an altar in the name of Israeli independence.

I mean taking pleasure in the murder of 'terrorists' or making feeble justifications for massive 'collateral damage' is one thing, but would he have the stones to actually get down like his ancestors and dash some babby brains out against a wall in the name of Yahweh?

I think it's a little unfair that he's the strongest representation of fundamentalist craziness and cognitive dissonance in here. It would be more balanced if we had some wild eyed muslim whackjob posting the same kind of nonsense from the other side of the fence. There'd be a lot less 'Jews are brutal monsters' and more 'The whole area is a lost cause of fundamentalist nutters'.

I'd say that Tatsuma's insanity is actually the greatest act of anti-semitism on Fark - he stirs up more hatred towards the Jewish people than three or four Stormfront sub-forums. At least if there was an equal amount of crazy from the other team it would mitigate that somewhat.

I dunno, you read the old testament and think 'what a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths on all sides and what vile, petty conflicts'.

And then you realise it is still going strong, and always will.

Kind of makes you wish they had all listened to that Jesus guy and his 'New' Testament.

But then again, I'm not sure how well that one worked out in implementation.
 
2013-05-05 08:09:16 PM  
utah dude: Jesus only dropped the f-bomb when he was cleaning out the temple.

If he'd been the actual son of G-d (not that there is such a thing literally, ch"vs), he might have remembered that, oh you know, G-d himself ordered what was happening in the Temple.



OK, Tats, I'll bite. Given your interest in Judaism, I assume you have read the entire Tanakh (aka Old Testament),k yes? All the prophets?

Question: were there any examples of Jews doing things on the Temple Mount or in the Temple itself which G-d disapproved of?

Hint: Ezekiel.

Did it occur to you that Jesus might have been annoyed with some similar behaviors? Specifically, he did not like people selling doves and other sacraficial animals inside the temple grounds (vs. outside). That seems fairly consistent with what G-d might want, as evidenced in other stories in the Tanakh.
 
2013-05-05 08:10:14 PM  

vygramul: I don't consider the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist act.


Me neither.

I consider the post right under yours a pretty pure form of anti-semitism though.
 
2013-05-05 08:14:14 PM  

cloud_van_dame: Did it occur to you that Jesus might have been annoyed with some similar behaviors? Specifically, he did not like people selling doves and other sacraficial animals inside the temple grounds (vs. outside). That seems fairly consistent with what G-d might want, as evidenced in other stories in the Tanakh.


Your example is wrong. The process of what should happen at the Temple Mount in order to facilitate the sacrifices were laid out both in the Oral Torah and in the Written Torah as part of the Pentateuch (what we call Torah).

It's like that story about the 12 apostles just wandering around on the Sabbath plucking corn from the ears and asking that guy 'Why are your disciples doing that??' and him answering 'Well did not David eat from the showbread of the Priests in the Temple?'

Well, first of all, he ate from them because he was about to die from starvation, and these guys were not (otherwise people would not have said anything as you're allowed to break Shabbat if you are about to die of thirst/starvation) and second the High Priest is absolutely allowed to give the show bread to others once they are about to change it for the new show breads (as they were about to) as it then becomes the property of the Cohanim to eat.
 
2013-05-05 08:19:28 PM  

Tatsuma: vygramul: I don't consider the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist act.

Me neither.

I consider the post right under yours a pretty pure form of anti-semitism though.


So thinking you are insane is anti semitic?

I have Jewish friends and celebrate their rich history.

I have the utmost sympathy for Israelis who want a peaceful life.

You're a warmongering, insane, fundamentalist whackjob.

And using 'anti semitism' as a shield to hide your own personal failings cheapens it for those who actually should be protected by it.

Ironically, you're the anti-semite with your one-eyed insanity.
 
2013-05-05 08:19:55 PM  

Tatsuma: Your example is wrong. The process of what should happen at the Temple Mount in order to facilitate the sacrifices were laid out both in the Oral Torah and in the Written Torah as part of the Pentateuch (what we call Torah).


This is actually interesting. Can you cite the book/page etc so I can read it?
 
2013-05-05 08:21:16 PM  

cegorach: So thinking you are insane is anti semitic?


No.

However saying things like 'One Jew makes me hate all Jews' and

cegorach: I dunno, you read the old testament and think 'what a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths on all sides and what vile, petty conflicts'.

And then you realise it is still going strong, and always will.

Kind of makes you wish they had all listened to that Jesus guy and his 'New' Testament.


'Jews are a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths, they've been that way for 3,300 years, why didn't they just accept xianity and became better and not bloodthirsty psychopath' is literally textbook anti-semitism.
 
2013-05-05 08:23:23 PM  

Tatsuma: Well, first of all, he ate from them because he was about to die from starvation, and these guys were not (otherwise people would not have said anything as you're allowed to break Shabbat if you are about to die of thirst/starvation)


Thing is, maybe they WERE very hungry (are you required to fast during shabbat? I understand no cooking is allowed) but the person who questioned them did not know that, so asked them.

We don't know, it was 2000 years ago. If that was their only opportunity to eat, but the questioner didn't know that, the whole thing is a misunderstanding.
 
2013-05-05 08:26:22 PM  

cloud_van_dame: This is actually interesting. Can you cite the book/page etc so I can read it?


By memory, the rule that the moneychangers will be necessary comes from Shemot (Exodus) 30 where the rules for the exchange was first laid out, and it was brought up later in Vayikra (Leviticus) and I believe there's also another reference in Shemot.

I don't have any books with me right now, they are all packed, but yeah those rules are most definitely set out early in the Bible.
 
2013-05-05 08:29:01 PM  

cloud_van_dame: Thing is, maybe they WERE very hungry (are you required to fast during shabbat? I understand no cooking is allowed) but the person who questioned them did not know that, so asked them.

We don't know, it was 2000 years ago. If that was their only opportunity to eat, but the questioner didn't know that, the whole thing is a misunderstanding.


Well, no, you wouldn't be allowed to break Shabbat if you're 'very hungry', only if you were about to actually die. As far as no cooking, this is a bit more complicated than that, you would be allowed to set a meal up before shabbat and have it cook through during Shabbat (to use on the day) as long as it was 1/3rd cooked before the onset of Shabbat.

As far as the person asking them not knowing, this is highly unlikely and if it was the case, well clearly he only had to say 'Well they were allowed to die, therefore they ate and it's permitted', he would not have gone a rant about how David ate bread in the Temple and anyway be more careful about what you say than what you eat. He absolutely avoided answering the question while trying to take the moral high ground. He would have been a good Fark poster.
 
2013-05-05 08:54:41 PM  

Tatsuma: cegorach: So thinking you are insane is anti semitic?

No.

However saying things like 'One Jew makes me hate all Jews' and

cegorach: I dunno, you read the old testament and think 'what a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths on all sides and what vile, petty conflicts'.

And then you realise it is still going strong, and always will.

Kind of makes you wish they had all listened to that Jesus guy and his 'New' Testament.

'Jews are a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths, they've been that way for 3,300 years, why didn't they just accept xianity and became better and not bloodthirsty psychopath' is literally textbook anti-semitism.


So you're not just insane, but also have visual difficulties?

I didn't say 'One Jew makes me hate all Jews'  - You did. In fact I quite clearly said I like Jews - it's in black and white, right there up the page.

Neither did I say
'Jews are a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths, they've been that way for 3,300 years, why didn't they just accept xianity and became better and not bloodthirsty psychopath' is literally textbook anti-semitism.

You did.

I pointed out the vicious internecine warfare of the Old Testament is still going ON ALL SIDES. That's a comment on human nature, not 'semitism'.

Again, you demonstrate how your extremism warps your ability to deal with factual reality.

You, White Power Bill, Jihadi Joe and Klansman Keith are all the same guy. Changing the words doesn't change the sentiment.

You have an insanity that makes you actually wish death and suffering on other humans due to a perceived ideological difference.

That's what makes you different, not the fact that you happen to be Jewish.

It's not a good difference.
 
2013-05-05 09:05:18 PM  

Tatsuma: Well, no, you wouldn't be allowed to break Shabbat if you're 'very hungry', only if you were about to actually die. As far as no cooking, this is a bit more complicated than that, you would be allowed to set a meal up before shabbat and have it cook through during Shabbat (to use on the day) as long as it was 1/3rd cooked before the onset of Shabbat.

As far as the person asking them not knowing, this is highly unlikely and if it was the case, well clearly he only had to say 'Well they were allowed to die, therefore they ate and it's permitted', he would not have gone a rant about how David ate bread in the Temple and anyway be more careful about what you say than what you eat. He absolutely avoided answering the question while trying to take the moral high ground. He would have been a good Fark poster.



The other issue is whether eating raw grain right off the stalk constitutes "work". Clearly there was an interpretation of scripture that this is the case (it is harvesting) but then again, it is also no more work than eating a meal that was prepared the day before.

Also, I am reading Exodus 30, it has a provision for taking atonement donations (half a shekel per person, Exodus 30:11-16). Problem was, this was instructions for when the temple was still a tent, and nothing about selling doves. Leviticus 1 says you should make your offering of an animal to be sacraficed at the doorway of the tent meeting. Pease offerings also should be offered at the doorway of the tent meeting (not inside). [Leviticus 3]. Sin offerings also should be presented at the doorway of the tent meeting [Leviticus 4]. Leviticus 5 states that if a person cannot afford two turtledoves, they can bring an ephah of flour to the priest instead. Still no moneychangers, but getting warmer.

I think the question, re Jesus being outraged, is where the boundary (doorway) of the temple is considered to be, and whether the dove-sellers were on the wrong side of it.
 
2013-05-05 09:09:47 PM  

cegorach: You do have to wonder how many brown children Tatsuma would personally sacrifice on an altar in the name of Israeli independence.


All of them, I think.
 
2013-05-05 09:24:11 PM  

cloud_van_dame: The other issue is whether eating raw grain right off the stalk constitutes "work". Clearly there was an interpretation of scripture that this is the case (it is harvesting) but then again, it is also no more work than eating a meal that was prepared the day before.


Except that 'work', in regard to the Sabbath, has nothing to do with 'work' in the English sense. Melacha is related to the things that were done in relation to the Temple. That means that, for example, you would be allowed to move a heavy piece of furniture from the basement to the third floor, while you wouldn't be able to take a piece of cloth and bring it from a domain that is considered private to one that is considered public.

cloud_van_dame: Problem was, this was instructions for when the temple was still a tent, and nothing about selling doves.


Sacrificing doves was indeed commanded as acceptable multiple times.

cloud_van_dame: Pease offerings also should be offered at the doorway of the tent meeting (not inside).


Different sacrifices were done in different places. Also the sanctity of the Temple Mount is not the same as inside the Temple, and specific places in the Temple did not have the same holiness as the Holy of Holies.

cloud_van_dame: Leviticus 5 states that if a person cannot afford two turtledoves, they can bring an ephah of flour to the priest instead. Still no moneychangers, but getting warmer.


Changing the money was mentioned in Tanach but as I said I don't have my books with me right now.

Oh and do you want to know what's really funny? When you enter the xian quarter in the Old City through the Yaffa gate, the first thing you see are rows and rows of buildings of Moneychangers. All concentrated there, too.

cloud_van_dame: I think the question, re Jesus being outraged, is where the boundary (doorway) of the temple is considered to be, and whether the dove-sellers were on the wrong side of it.


Everything had been done that way until he did that, and then we kept on doing it after he was kicked out. And once we rebuild the Third Temple, we will be doing it again.
 
2013-05-05 09:30:25 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Tommy Moo: Fark Me To Tears: Tommy Moo: You're on your own, Israel. Don't you dare expect that you can throw a few rocks to provoke a full scale invasion, and that the United States will then step in and fight your war for you.

I think you've got that backwards, sport. Israel is doing this on our behalf.

What do we care which insane dictator is in charge of Syria? They don't have ICBMs or nukes.

Oil, allies, humanitarian interests, and perhaps other interests. Then again, I have you farkied as a liar and a moron and you usually continue to provide justification for such labels.


Eat shiat and die. I'm neither.
 
2013-05-05 09:31:57 PM  

Tatsuma: Oh and do you want to know what's really funny? When you enter the xian quarter in the Old City through the Yaffa gate, the first thing you see are rows and rows of buildings of Moneychangers. All concentrated there, too.


I bet Jesus wouldn't like that, either.
 
2013-05-05 09:34:40 PM  

Tatsuma: Everything had been done that way until he did that, and then we kept on doing it after he was kicked out. And once we rebuild the Third Temple, we will be doing it again.


Aaaand, we're back to my first question, which you ignored: Are there any examples in the Tanakh of Jews doing things on the Temple Mount, or in the Temple itself, that G-d disapproved of?

The answer is yes, and you know that.
 
2013-05-05 09:39:15 PM  

cloud_van_dame: Aaaand, we're back to my first question, which you ignored: Are there any examples in the Tanakh of Jews doing things on the Temple Mount, or in the Temple itself, that G-d disapproved of?


I thought I answered already that it was 'irrelevant' to the table turning situation
 
2013-05-06 12:10:05 AM  

Tatsuma: cloud_van_dame: Aaaand, we're back to my first question, which you ignored: Are there any examples in the Tanakh of Jews doing things on the Temple Mount, or in the Temple itself, that G-d disapproved of?

I thought I answered already that it was 'irrelevant' to the table turning situation


Does it really matter one way or another since it's all mythology anyway?
 
Displayed 24 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report