The USA and Israel

[Immanuel Can]

The name “Janoah” ring a bell for you?

Janoah didn't write what I quoted.

What you'll find, instead, is that the author never said any such thing.

I don't even know if he believes that, but he certainly didn't draw on it to make his case, did he?

I lost a post. I thought I'd sent it but it was erased. Here it is in a nutshell:

All Zionist belief is derivative from religious belief:

Irrelevant.

Show me where, in the passage I quoted, this man appealed to religious belief.

What you find is that he didn't.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry Old Bean. What he wrote is only incidental to what is most important in the larges conversation. The larger conversation is what draws me, and the larger picture, not a minor detail.

I know you struggle with the very basics however I can’t help you here. Work it out for yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can't blame them for twisting the truth or spreading outright lies???

I now see that your *amazed question marks* ask seem to ask for clarification. Would you like a fuller explanation?

[phyllo]

You can't blame them for twisting the truth or spreading outright lies???

I now see that your *amazed question marks* ask seem to ask for clarification. Would you like a fuller explanation?

Why would I need a fuller explanation?

We seem to live in an age when truth is mostly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is getting something.

[Iwannaplato]

...he's doing a bunch of things, including in that post, which you are supporting.

All I've "supported" is the duty to speak the truth. Go and check.

And now you are lying.

The only antidote to the lies is truth.

What's the old saying? "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." You may not be getting the response you want, and if they want to persist with the deception, they will...but don't let them do it easily and cheaply. Speak the truth.

You spoke about the people he was responding to. And if fact we already when through this. You are evasive to a degree that is the equivalent of lying. You misrepresent the act you performed. You supported him as if you understood/believed those he was disagreeing with, insulting, mind reading and labelled were being deceptive. It is all assumed in this above quote.

You can't manage to take responsibility for this. There may be people in your life who fall for this evasive denial crap, but just know that a number of people can see what you do and do regularly.

And it's hardly Christian, nor was the person you supported being remotely Christian in his behavior. Quite the opposite, both of you.

All you had to do was to go back and take a look. Then you could have said. OK, I didn't really get the context. I didn't really see who he was responding to and how he has been behaving. It happens. We see one post, make assumptions. But no, you just keep doubling down. He's on your team, so you just can't take anything back. He's been telling to truth - lol. And by the laughter I am not saying he has only told untruths, but he has been with regularity lying about people, mindreading, insulting, never backing up things he says, utterly binary in thinking and hateful. It's all there, easy to access.

But you can't manage this. Team A, right or wrong. I didn't do anything naughty. Tell it to your maker. He'll see through it even better than I do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

I've always been curious to pose the question:

So many see you as dishonest. They say many things of course, as I have, but the basis I think is dishonesty.

How do you explain that to yourself -- I mean in your private meditations? That nearly everyone says that about you?

I have a few theories but I wonder what you think.

Would you mind saying something about it?

[Walker]

I don't see that. Why do others see that?

Try to keep it short.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dozens have written their views re: IC. Over years and as much as a decade.

Did you ever read those posts?

Why do others see that?

Your answer should precede mine — that is if you read what others write.

[Immanuel Can]

...he's doing a bunch of things, including in that post, which you are supporting.

All I've "supported" is the duty to speak the truth. Go and check.

And now you are lying.

The only antidote to the lies is truth.

What's the old saying? "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." You may not be getting the response you want, and if they want to persist with the deception, they will...but don't let them do it easily and cheaply. Speak the truth.You spoke about the people he was responding to.

So?

You're deducing something from the fact that I mentioned he had an audience?

You supported him as if you understood/believed those he was disagreeing with, insulting, mind reading and labelled were being deceptive.

"As if"? Well, that may be your interpretation, it's certainly not mine. And you certainly won't find it's what I said. I did not condone insulting in any way, shape or form. And I certainly did not name any particular respondent at all. You have no reason to add any of that baggage to anything I said.

Stick to what I said. Don't read into things things that are not there. All I said, essentially, was, if you are saying something true, then keep saying it.

And anybody who doesn't like that has bigger problems than I can address.

[Immanuel Can]

...

I've always been curious to pose the question:

So many see you as dishonest.

I doubt that. And given the quality of my most strident detractors, I'm very much encouraged.

I don't really feel I'm in a position to explain their psychology...I don't know them personally. But I can offer a postulate: it may be that they so dislike what I say that they hope and pray I'm dishonest...because the alternative, that I'm forthcoming and possibly right, may simply be intolerable. That's possible. There's your explanation, if you're keen for one.

However, you will find that when cornered, every rascal will immediately resort the ad hominem attack. When they've got nothing left, that's what they go to. The frequency of the ad hominem attacks exposes the fact that they're out of intellectual ammo, and back on their heels. And it happens fairly often, it seems, from certain quarters.

So that's actually a very good thing. Resorting to the ad homs is a confession of intellectual bankruptcy, whether they know it or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I doubt that. And given the quality of my most strident detractors, I'm very much encouraged.

Then in fact you don't doubt it. You critique the *quality* of the ideas of your detractors. Fair enough, as far as that goes.

I don't really feel I'm in a position to explain their psychology...I don't know them personally. But I can offer a postulate: it may be that they so dislike what I say that they hope and pray I'm dishonest...because the alternative, that I'm forthcoming and possibly right, may simply be intolerable. That's possible. There's your explanation, if you're keen for one.

I think you are dishonest here. But note that you have zeroed in only on many people's opposition to your position on salvation and the hell-world you say awaits those who do not toe the line you define. In fact, as a Christian, you know exactly where their obstruction is found or in what it is based. For the opposition to the doctrinal position you hold cannot be opposed in good faith -- according to your own doctrines.

You seem to imagine that I had taken you to task for dishonesty in regard to your belief that those who do not accept Jesus will end up in an afterworld hell-realm. But I would say that with that belief you are being honest. I wasn't referring to that particularly.

Time and again, day after day, week and month after month people find your general argumentation dishonest.

I see that you have no insight into why. And naturally that fits with my own analysis of you: a man who has not, and cannot, self-examine.

However, you will find that when cornered, every rascal will immediately resort the ad hominem attack. When they've got nothing left, that's what they go to. The frequency of the ad hominem attacks exposes the fact that they're out of intellectual ammo, and back on their heels. And it happens fairly often, it seems, from certain quarters.

I believe that the ad hominem response to you is part of what is necessary. The other part is refutation of your more corrupt ideas through concise explanation. But the nature of your problem is something that goes beyond your mere opinions. So, within reason of course, ad hominem is a proper response to pepper at you.

Your ideas do not express merely disagreements but are bound up in the curses of the diabolical figure you worship and want others to bow before. But all this has been explained to you in detail. I know it must seem to you utterly outrageous that I associate you with a *demonic* figure. It is a symbol.

So that's actually a very good thing. Resorting to the ad homs is a confession of intellectual bankruptcy, whether they know it or not.

If can be that, of course. But if I describe you as a 'religious fanatic' (and I do) that is not in truth ad hominem. It is an exact description. It does not reveal intellectual bankruptcy either (obviously).

Your involvement in lies, deception, and dishonestly, seems to be deeply tied up with your mytho-religious beliefs. You cannot do else but lie, since your belief is bound up in a whole series of false-beliefs which you have no alternative but to take literally. And this trait, if that is what it is, is also shared in a mass-psychological and mass-cultural sense. Therefore: you are a danger.

Getting more clear?

Note that this comes out here in this discussion on this thread. Your Christian Zionism distorts how you see right from the start. You do not know, apparently, what *truth* is.

Myself, I find all of this immensely instructive.

Simultaneously, the hyper-religious Jews in Israel are deeply enmeshed in similar types of beliefs. The sort of *belief* you are enmeshed in has tremendous effect in the world, a great deal of it not good and bordering on *evil*.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you are dishonest here.

I have learned to care very, very little for what you say. It's almost 100% posturing and blather...when it's not simply dead wrong.

I believe that the ad hominem response to you is part of what is necessary.

You just identified yourself as one of the "rascals" who are "intellectually bankrupt" and devoid of relevant arguments.

Okay...I'm fine with that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have learned to care very, very little for what you say. It's almost 100% posturing and blather...when it's not simply dead wrong.

Yes, yes, and you have said the same thing six or seven times now.

Duly acknowledged!

[Immanuel Can]

I have learned to care very, very little for what you say. It's almost 100% posturing and blather...when it's not simply dead wrong.

Yes, yes, and you have said the same thing six or seven times now.

Duly acknowledged!

I don't care about ANY of this petty stuff, AJ. That's what you don't get. I don't care about the ad homs, the posturing, patronising, dramatics, insults, pseudo-pedantry...it's SO boring. That's why I don't return it, or debate it, or accept it, or respond to 9/10 of the nonsense you squirt.

You need to raise your game. Come back when you're ready to be interesting and relevant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not write for your benefit nor even really to you. What interests you or doesn't does not much matter. Think of yourself as a specimen under study!