61 dead Palestinians.... why did Trump do this?

I understand perfectly how the classified portion works, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I have explained to you at least three times already what is relevant. So I don't think a third attempt would accomplish much. At this point I'm convinced you're just faking not understanding.

 

How? Its just an embassy! Jerusalem is just a location! What does it change exactly?

But I thought that Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel.

How does it mean that the US is "satisfied" with it? Also, ten years includes Obama's presidency. Are you saying that his administration was also "satisfied?"

It is this sort of defeatist attitude that will lead to no change.

 

Perhaps you can tell me where exactly in your post you mention the word "control" or how your post even has the theme of control.

 

Okay. Your opinion that the US is to blame for what is happening. What is the science and rationale that has led you to this opinion?

If you tell others what your opinion is, then can't they say what your opinion is?

Are you saying that what I stated as your opinion is what you think? If not, how was I quoting what you think?

 

Correct, but what does that have to do with Swanson?

NO! He doesn't say "FIRST I want to give gays time to repent." That would imply that death should follow after FIRST giving them time to repent. All he said was that "they need time!" How do you know he doesn't mean, INSTEAD of death they should be given time?

Remember, this is what he said: "Then they ask me - yes, but, do you advocate for our civil leaders to do this today? And my answer is NO." He didn't say, and my answer is no - NOT YET! If he really believed that the death penalty for gays should possibly follow at a later time, wouldn't he have made it clear by saying, NOT YET?

Now, is it possible that he is open to it after a certain period of time has passed? Of course it is possible, but we can't tell from his speech at this conference. So you are engaging in overreach.

All 100% correct. However, all 100% totally and utterly irrelevant to gays being killed TODAY! Swanson believes that the repentance of gays is far more important than them receiving the death penalty, despite him believing that they deserve it. Again, he is a hypocrite. I should say, that the mere belief that they deserve it I disagree with. However, at least he is not advocating for it today, at least for the time being.

Yes, he expands it to "America needs time to repent." And if you believe that he says America needs time to repent FIRST, doesn't that mean you think that he is saying that all American's, gay or straight, will ALSO receive the death penalty at some point in the future if they haven't repented in time?

Swanson doesn't tell us because Swansea isn't God. Only God knows how much time people need to repent. If Swanson does in fact believe that there is a 'time limit' by where if gays haven't repented then its time for them to be killed, then he is 'playing God', plain and simple. God wants ALL non-believers to repent and turn to him, and He doesn't give certain people a certain amount of time to repent. The only time that it is too late is on Judgement Day and this will apply to everyone, gay or straight!

I don't know of any who call for it today. Swanson is the most extreme that I know of, with many on the same level as him, but not more extreme. Anyway, this current dialogue between us started off after you challenged me after I asked @dairyair what Christians are actively going around killing gay people. And since then, neither @dairyair or anyone else has been able to provide any examples.

Agreed.

Only if they were advocating for the death penalty for non-crimes today.

 

The theme of the OP is not "control". It's "recklessness"

 

By "what is happening" do you mean the death of 61 protesters? You need to be more specific. It's pretty much explained on the OP. You want me to repeat it and/or expand on it? Somebody at a high level of the government (not Trump, because he's an ignorant oaf) should have known that making a show of moving the Embassy to Jerusalem is an insult to patriotic, ethnic and, especially, religious beliefs of Palestinians. It would be like the Russians taking over the White House using some legal trick, and installing their embassy there. Or the Taliban taking over the Vatican and transforming it into a Mosque.... something like that. Bottom line, at a minimum, it would cause massive violent protests. So if a sensible, well-informed President felt the need to do it, they would proceed quietly. On an unannounced date. Not with a celebration, ceremony, and a party that is sure to provoke them even further and, with almost absolute certainty, cause deaths. Trump doesn't care about human life. And he proved it here one more time.

You should quote it. Because most times you rephrase my opinion you get it wrong. Quoting it will give you the opportunity to read it again and realize that you are misinterpreting it.

you weren't quoting it.

 

I have, but I'm not gonna hold your hand for every single gay person killed to see if the killer was actually christian.
But the country is mostly of christian belief.
You can take it or leave it. That most killed were by those who are religious and in this country, likely christian.

And has anyone addressed Giftedone Uganda claim. A christian country with gay killing as policy.

 

If it's just an embassy, why the move?
No reason for it, it's just an embassy.

 

And what does "recklessness" have to do with CONTROL?

 

Swanson is advocating for the death penalty (not as in God should kill these people but secular society) for Gays, adultery, fornication.
Swanson states he does not want to lobby the Gov't to invoke the death penalty right at this moment to give gays and the US in general time to repent.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...who-dont-repent-send-queen-elsa-back-to-hell/

Others at the conference are more forceful and want the death penalty right now but realize that this is unrealistic at the Federal level given the current political climate.

 

I don't know. You tell me. You're the one talking about "control"

 

If you don't know, then how do you explain this:

Which was in reply to:

 

The significance of an embassy being located properly in a capital city is greater than any reason that people would have against its location. The location of the US embassy doesn't make Jerusalem ANY LESS belonging to the Palestinians.

 

How can you expect people to take you seriously when you have precisely ZERO EVIDENCE? "You can take it or leave it" - yeah, that's not actually an argument!

When you're referring to a former time in the USA where the country was "mostly of Christian belief", how do you suppose that the number of those of Christian belief was calculated? That's right - it would've been the census! The highly reliable and accurate census! Where many people indicate "Christianity" as their religion simply because they were baptised or because their Mum or Grandmother was a good Christian lady! Or even because they actually do go to church every week for the sake of tradition or because they don't want to upset their family! NOT because they are a genuine Christian, with a Christian heart!

What makes you think that its a Christian country?

 

Why? The location of the US embassy doesn't make Jerusalem ANY LESS belonging to the Palestinians.

Some "legal trick?" You mean like a legal loophole? You make it sound like it is legally possible for Russia to take over the White House! Are you serious?

In any event, what is the White House & The Vatican equivalent sovereign building in Jerusalem which is being taken over in this case?

Yes, it certainly would've been a less provocative way to do it. I agree that it wasn't necessary in the quest of relocating the embassy because the embassy would've been relocated regardless of the manner in which it was done. However, I'm guessing that even if it was done in the quietest possible manner, even resulting in zero protests, that you would still have a problem with it. Am I right? I'd be shocked if I was wrong.

 

It has become very clear that all you're doing is just regurgitating exactly what Right Wing Watch is reporting when they covered that conference. Clearly Right Wing Watch is your ONLY source! The quote that you included for example - its not even a direct quote from Swanson! Come on now! Seriously?

Where exactly did Swanson say the above in the conference? Is it in one of the videos that you have provided? I can assure you, it is not!

I have challenged you MULTIPLE times now to state the video times that he says these things and all you continue to do is regurgitate the same misinterpreted nonsense from RWW which I have effectively argued against. If Swanson said these things, then fine - simply direct me to where he says it! I am MORE than happy to be proven 100% wrong!

Also, a couple of questions that still await your response, if you are capable of answering them:

1. Why would he give gays ANY time to repent if he hates them?
2. If he really believed that the death penalty for gays should possibly follow at a later time, wouldn't he have made it clear by saying, NOT YET or something similar?

Death penalty right now for gays?

 

There are many sources that say exactly the same thing and RWW is not the only source you were provided.
I have watched the video numerous times and quoted to you giving times.

Swanson believes in the for the Death Penalty for Gays and spends much time in the video justifying his position.

When it comes to forcing his personal religious belief on others he argues that gays be given some time to repent.

Others at the conference want to start sooner rather than later.

1) Just because I hate someone does not mean I do not believe in due process - this is a ridiculous argument
2) He did say something similar to "Not Yet" I have listened to his rant numerous times and am not hearing impaired.

From the NY-Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/campaign-stops/ted-cruz-and-the-anti-gay-pastor.html

Here is the Transcript. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2015-11-09

As I have stated previously - Swanson states that the reason he does not want to call for civil authorities to institute the death penalty is because " We need some time for homosexuals to repent - They need time to repent ... America needs time to repent"

How much time he does not say.

Others at the conference were calling for the Death Penalty right now and there were pamphlets being distributed justifying the death penalty for Gays - the pamphlet was authored by Kayser who is even more of an extremist than Swanson.

 

What exactly do you want me to explain? I disagree with that statement.

 

If it were called the U.S. Embassy in Palestine, it wouldn't. Not the point, though.

Ever hear of a "hypothetical"?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothetical

I would disagree with it. It would mean we abandon our possible future role in a two-state solution, if these nations ever decided to elect sensible leaders instead of the nutjob war-mongers they both have in power now.

 

Jerusalem is a known major question that has always been left to negotiation. Both Israel and Palestine claim it as their capitol. By making this move, the US is resolving an issue in favor of Israel without ANY consideration for Palestine.

Obama made no new move to support additional Israeli progress in ethnic cleansing of West Bank or assuring claims made by Israel.

West Bank is undergoing ethnic cleansing by Israel. Gaza is is essentially a large open air prison where residents can't buy building materials to repair the war damage by Israel, can't leave, can't have people visit, can't sell their goods outside Gaza, etc.

That is a state of war. And, Israel has remained in a state of war against Gaza for more than a decade now.

I don't have a CLUE what you mean by "defeatist attitude". The very fact that Palestinians are living under these conditions, has a government that is working strongly AGAINST violence, adheres to the tenets of the UN, works closely with the IDF - these are MAJOR signs of incredible trust that the world community will, eventually, make moves to end Israel's humanitarian atrocities against its people.

 

Let's remember that Abbas is a major example to the world of a sensible leader.

Even while his own people are being ethnically cleansed by a foreign power, are unrepresented in the foreign government that rules major sections of his country under foreign military law, he works WITH that foreign power in order to STOP violence by his own people.

Abbas has put his faith in the rule of law, has subscribed to the tenets of the UN, has advocated negotiation for borders.

I just want to be DAMN sure we aren't overlooking the fact that Palestine is NOT led by war mongers, but by a government that believes in the rule of law and opposes violence even in the fact of human atrocity by a foreign power.

 

I have to admit that Abbas has made several attempts to take definite steps towards peace and has stood up to Hamas.

I withdraw my statement. It was unfair to categorize Abbas as a war-monger

At this point we need a leader on the other side who is actually willing to negotiate peace. Definitely not Netanyahu.

 

Sounds like Israel is a terr

Sounds like Israel is a terroist state

 

Exactly, so it is not recognised as being the Capital of one or the other. So how is moving the embassy to Jerusalem "resolving an issue in favor of Israel?" And what is the "issue" in this case?

So then why did you say "last 10 years" which includes Obama's time in office?

And how is Hamas helping the situation by destroying its own infrastructure and preventing aid? https://unitedwithisrael.org/gaza-palestinians-destroy-access-to-their-own-humanitarian-aid/

You don't think that the US were an important peace broker, or at least had the potential to be an important peace broker?

When exactly has Hamas been this sort of a government?