Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
baryachoi
You are flat out making things up
“1 in 10 vaxed kids suffer from Asthma”
You made this up
“All vaxed kids suffer from developmental delays”
You made this up, this one is demonstrably false
“Unvaxed kids crawl walk & talk months before vaxed kids”
you made this up
akuperma
“In all fairness, an unvaccinated child is only a threat to other unvaccinated people”
This is not true
“So grandma is living to 95 because grandkids got vaccinated?”
No, but often becasue SHE was vaccinated against polio as a child against pneumonia and flu. These all often killed grandma but less so now.
“Do you believe we should vax the dead to protect their grandkids? “
what?
“Did you read suzanne humphries md’s book dissolving illusions?”
Yes
“Visit Dr Eilenberg MD in Lakewood & see for yourself, asthma among non vaxed kids,@ 1/3 to 1/10 of vaxed kid rate”
Tell to publish it! she can be famous
“Talk to the parents who vaxed their older kids but not their younger ones”
Talk about what?
BTW I’m curious who you think makes more, Shanik off vaccines or Humphries off her book?
Stam
“I am neither pro or anti and am somewhat confused.”
If that is in fact true, Id be more than happy to explain it to you.
(though on this thread, http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/things-causing-autism-jokes you were pretty anti-vaccine (read pro-disease))
What are you confused about?
Joseph
In none of those quotes does he swear on the life of his mother….
also you havent answered my question. (As usual)
syag, fair enough.
although,
“That is telling us that the new program that YOU are introducing, is INCLUDING the option of keeping your doctor.” He also made clear that certain bare minimum plans would be banned. This is a direct contradiction to the first line you quote. And at the time nobody called him out on it. becasue it was obviously hyperbole until it becme a talking point.
Joseph
“Obama swore on his mother’s life that no one would have to give up their existing insurance.”
Source?
No I dont think you are lying. I think you are exagerating to make a point. Something readily apparent to all reasonable people.
At the risk of being “back to… old card tricks of repeating points that were answered.”
What percentage of Americans would ahve to keep their Doctors for the Statment “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” be considered true albeit an exagerationn as opposed to a lie.
Homer
“You can keep your doctor, insurance etc etc” All of which they knew beforehand as it comes out
It isnt just “They” who knew. It is everybody who understood the aleph-beis of obamacare. Including some of the republican leadership (not all, since most arent very bright or they just pretend not to be to pander to their base)
So why didnt they call him out on the “lie” at the time?
While you think about that. Here is another question, What percentage would have to keep their doctor in order for the statment “You can keep your doctor” be true. (Consider if a teacher tells the class “You did really well” How many would have had to do well for the statment to be true, these percentages dont have to be the same)
100%?
99%?
95%? 90? 75? 51? Some other number?
Hold of looking up how many can keep their doctor under obamacre, thats cheating.
avram
“Oh? Is there a consistent definition?”
Not at all. And different poskim would reach differnt conclusioions too. Which posek should the law follow? R’ Moshe or the Tzitz Eliezer?
“So I respectfully disagree with what seems to be your assertion that the medical definition of danger is stricter than Judaism’s,”
thats not my assertion at all. My assertion is thatthey are different. And most OB’s Ive spoken too (especially frum ones) laughed at the thought of a otherwise preganant woman fasting being dangerous. The one sitting next to me when I mentioned your non-Jewish OB’s comment said “puk chazi”
“or that there is any real consistent definition at all. “
There absolutly is not! Thats why a blanket law is so dangerous. It is crucial that they be judged on a case bycase basis. This has been my position all along.
“Again, it seems like a big assumption to me that the “medical” definition (or to be more accurate with what we’re discussing, legislative definition interpreted by medical practitioners) will be stricter than the halachic one”
Its not assumption, it is based on real life experience. (I was not directly involved in either but do have first hand knowledge of both among others) Specifcly a case of assault Rch”l and Edwards syndorm. It was hard for the medical practioners to argue that either of these put the mother’s life at risk more thanthe average pregnancy. As for the psak both women got…
“Here’s the thing: most abortions in the US are done for economic reasons or due to fear of disruption to life. “
this si without question true. But 1) Be aware that by stopping those you WILL be stopping frum women from getting (safe) abortions in very very few cases. You can argue that this is a small price to pay. and while I disagree i DO hear that.
2) banning abortion doesnt actually prevent them it just makes them less safe. But again you can still argue that this is beneficial to society.
“Babies are blessings, not burdens, and this message should be reinforced.”
amen veamein!
Avram
“Two options you do not suggest would seem to be the most reasonable for such legislation: “
Ok so option 10.
“the individual physician or an appointed team of medical experts who can assess each case individually.”
Ah but medicine and halacha define danger to life veeeery diferently. This comes up in many situations eg fasting (There is raely a medical indication for a person to avoid fasting for a day with the exception of the elderly) Rabbonim allow eating much more commonly especialy among pregant women, recent surgery etc. Delaying a bris milah is another example physiologic jaundice is not a medical reason to delay a bris. So unless your physician or medical experts would defer to a Competent Rabbi (which is my option 1 above) This isnt a viable option.
“Consulting a knowledgeable rav is something Jews should do regardless of civil legislation,”
I’m not sure what you mean by regardless of legislation, if abortions where illegal unless the life of amother was at risk, and your physician or medical expert felt there was no risk, and a competent Rav felt the life was at risk (either medicaly or psychologicly). What good would going to the Rav be?
“I am aware that in reality, such a setup would be extremely complex, potentially inconsistent, and fraught with conflicts of interest and values. For those reasons, I think it is unlikely for such legislation to be enacted into law. I therefore tend to agree that given the current culture, outright bans are not the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions in the US at this point.”
We whole heartedly agree! PErhaps in Israel, and certainly when Moshiach comes we can enact a Rabbinic advisory board of some sort.
“However, this does not mean I support the status quo!”
What do you support?
“What about non-frum Jews?”
They are number 2
“I wish this were true. But previous discussions in this forum have made me fear otherwise.”
You are right about that. But they fall into my number 2 category.
Avram
not quite
Here is Joseph’s 3rd option as you present it
“3. Ban abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, including psychological factors”
the problem is who decides what constitutes danger to life of the mother? Especially regarding “psychological factors”?
in this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-republicans-pro-life#post-579129
I offer some choices to the question. Feel free to pick. (Joseph claims he answered but I cnat find where)
“so what makes option 3 worse than 1 in your mind?”
Because my number one priority is frum people. So a frum personj by definition will not get an abortion stam azoy. As for the general public that is veryvery low on my prioritiy list. Especialy when banning them would not even decrease them!
“To play your game, if you were forced to choose between options 1 and 3, which would you choose?”
I’m not sure who decides in your scenaario 3. If itis an orthodx Rabbi. Tehn I choose option 3. That is exactly my position! If it is a Legislature. I still choose option 3. That is better than banning all abortions!
“supporters of option 1 would line up behind option 3, since it’s better than option 2 to them. “
Agreed. but option 2 is better than option 3 to us.
Joseph
“Okay, you’re back to your old card tricks of repeating points that were answered.”
Nope I never do that. I ask simple direct preferably yes/no questions. My calling out your avoidance and dodging the question is not “repeating point”
Here is the question you are too afraid and/or dishonest to answer for all to see. I grant you that the way I first posed it was “preposterous and unrealistic” So i rephrased it in a very realistic way.
Here it is again:
“Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions”
(Note: This does not mean you would vote for candidate A over B you may agree with B on a million and one other positiions)
Asking which candidtae’s view (whether or not it would be implemented) is more compatible with your own is not a preposterous question.
“Your comments are nonsensical. I’m not going to sit here and rebut every time you repeat the same nonsense and non sequitur over and over by shifting a few words. “
Profound! care to elaborate? I dont think you know what non-sequitor means.
Oh and
” I can ask you a million what ifs.”
Bring them on, though try to keep them on subject
” What if you were forced to let die either your boss or your neighbor, who would you let die?”
Dont see how that is relevant. This feeds back to the discussion on limited resources which as indicated there are hard to resolve. On theoretical level, as to your question though, assuming all things were equal (the odds of saving them, there expected recovery, who is closer, who got sick first, Whose a bigger talmid chacham, who i like better etc etc etc) Id probably flip a coin.
Why do you ask?
Joseph
i’m sorry you lost me. You claim you addressed the issue with Walker, but it is a simple question and no you have not answered. Granted it is preopsterous and unrealistic (as I said) So I will phrase it in a non-preposterous/unrealistic way.
Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions (and yes there are candidates who take these view, whether they “take a lot of heat” is irrelevant)?
Your stealing scenario highlights how little you’ve actually thought about the subject. For several reasons:
1) “after all maybe someone will be starving in remote Alaska” The cases I referred to are not “maybes” They are real. Obviously they do not make it to the yated or even the New York times, but I know of several frum women who had halachicly sanctioned abortions in the past year alone. Do you know of anybody starving in remote alaska?
2) Even starving in remote Alaska stealing should still be illegal. Hopefully the judge would have sense to grant clemency and I doubt charges would be filed but there is no need to change the law for that.
3) If the guy in alaska does steal to survive even if illegal we cna expunge the record no harm done, if a woman does not get a halichly sanctioned abortion and something catastrophic happens you cant really say oops we wrote the law to broadly, sorry.
4) Abortions dont just happen, in order to be safe you need people who know what they are doing. (Keep in mind countries without legal abortions dont have less abortions they merely have less safe abortions but this is a side point) In other words in that rare emergent case where a woman has a heter for abortion its not like your guy in Alaska who can just take the food legal or not. She needs trained personal available to her.
As an side you seem to have shifted positions. Are you saying ALL abortions should be banned since the halachicly sanctioned ones are rare? (like in your Alaska example) Because I wouldnt argue with that. I disagree, but that is merely a difference of opinion about which I think reasonable people can disagree
If you are saying that the halachicly sanctioned cases do not exist, or that they can be worked into a viable constitutionally sound legal system. On either of those points you are simply wrong and there is no room for differing iopinions
“The fact is that your motives are not what you are representing them to be.”
How can you possibly now that? What i do know is that your facts are not at all what you are representing them to be. You have very strong opinions on a subject you clearly know so little about
Joseph
Question for you (though you havent answered my earlier question yet)
IF you had two candidates with alll things being equal other than their position on abortion candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban in all cases (You indicated you believe “Assault” should be an exception, at the drecent debate rubio said it shouldnt. Walker says there is no case where an abortion is medically neccesary)
Obviously this is strictly theoretical,as there are no two candiates who could possible disagree on this one thing.
Joseph
Two cvan play at this game:
Baloney. You want to support your control over women and are looking for lame excuses to justify the unjustifiable. And a poor excuse at that.
(To be clear I dont actually beleive that, I think you are well intentioned but simply either a) havent throught through the implication of your position b) are not aware of the realities either practical or halachic and/or c) are naive as to what can plausibly be written into a law while remiaing constitutional and meaningful)
“It can clearly be written broad enough to cover all basis. “
In order to cover all bases it would either have to say “abortions would be permissible if allowed by her ORthodox Rabbi who is competent and qualified to rule on such matters” or allow abortion on demand.
Now you can argue with my prmeise, and say that since those halachicly valid abortions are so rare they should be banned to prevent wide-spread abortions. I personally disagree with that, but at least it makes sense. OTherwise there is simply no way to allow for the few halachicly sanctioned abortions
each case is determined individually. I know of a few cases where women got heter for abortion from Rabbonim that would surprise you, but I am not at liberty to divulge that information.(Granted most were in the first HALACHIC 40 days) Nor would I share to many specifics since each case has to be judged indivdually, and I wouldnt want them generalized.
Joseph
“The law can be broadly written to cover virtually any halachic exceptions. “
virtually isnt good enough.
and which posek would the law follow? Would it allow for cases of mental anguish (like rape rch”l)? How late in the preganacy?
I’m sure you know halacha isnt black and white, there are several different (equally valid) shitahs, that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Akuperma
Some dictionaries define homicide as the illegal killing, but I conced the point as most say like you.
“Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide”
Incorrect. According to some it is and according to most it is not.
A physician/midwife/surgeon performing an abortion in the rare situation where it is necessary to save the mother’s life, incurs no penalty”
Even when unjustified he does not incur any of the penalties that homicide incurs. In fact he incurs a very defferent penalty, a financial one (which is not the case for a child < 30 days) Nor does he incur other thing sthat homicide incurs such as not being allowed to duchan.
Nor do we kill children whent their mothers are chayav misas beis din
“The pro-choice advocatges maintain, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the baby from conception until birth is not alive and as an inanimate mass of tissue has no more legal rights than a tumor or an infected appendix or a wart.”
This isnt a scientific question. There is no science behind “legal rights” A tree is alive, that doesnt mean cutting it down is homicide, a leg is alive that doesnt mean amputating is homicide.
When do you say life begins? fertilization? before fertilization? implantation? The second trimester? viability outside the womb?
And why at that point?
Halacha isnt as clear as you think. the first 40 days are called “merely water” I’m pretty sure even R” Moshe doesnt hold the first 40 days are murder. Though it isnt clear what physiologic change takes place at 40 days (the heart starts beating well before that! (nor does it neccesarily matter, it may plausibly be a “chok” at 40 days is tzuros havelad period.) (Keep in mind 40 days are counted differently by halacha and medicine)
At all points a fetus is described in shas as “its mother’s thigh” This pbviously does not allow for abortion on demand, and is not written in the context of abortion at all (though many poski do bring it in)
The bottom line is the following:
If a Woman were to desire an abortion for whatver reason rch”l. Who shoud decide for her.
I’ll give choices, feel free to add your own:
1) a SUPER COMPETENT well qualified posek
2) Her local Rav
3) you
4) me
5) crispandrefreshings’s rav
6) The US supreme court
7) State legislature
8) Congress
9) The president
10) somebody else
joseph
“Can we stop quoting these Shittos please?”
Chas veshalom! never!
“They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century”
incorrect, and besides the tzitz eliezer is certainly a bar hachi in these matters
akuperma
Even if you dont define homicide as any killing even lawful (As some (perhaps most) dictionaries do, your statment “The halachic approach is that this is still homicide, but it is justifiable homicide ” is still wrong.
This has been discussed at length here before but here are some differences recapped:
1) homicide carries death penalty bemeizid or galus beshogeg. Abortion carries a financial penalty
2) A kohen who kills can not duchan (even if the killing was justified) To the best of my knowedge a kohein who aborts can duchen.
Bottom line is I’m sure most would agree that we would want a competent Rav to decide on each case whether abortion was required/allowed or forbidden. I dont think anybody would argue on that point.
Obviously this isnt an option. The next best thing we have is as simcha613 outlined
akuperma
I dont think You know what homicide means.
As to your “questions”:
“”is it their duty” if the child is defective,” no
“what if the child is merely inferior,” They should speak to a super qualified posek. not a politician, which is what simcha said.
“what about adults who being old and disabled have no potential for further accomplishments and are just “eaters” rather than producers, “
what about them? Are you asking if retroactivly they could have been aborted?
“what about groups of persons who accomplish little in life but consume many resources and may in fact be a burden due to low productivity and high criminality …. “
again whatabout them/ Though
I am willing to bet you do favor the apital punishment for those with “high criminality” (at least in some cases) Correct me if Im wrong. Though that can hardly be called “pro-life”
Joseph
“You can support the abolition of abortion with exceptions,”
Its harder than you think. The catholic church (as a group) oppose all abortions. period. and if a fetus is a “life” as in “pro-life” why SHOULD there be exceptions? (we have a more nuanced view where it isnt a full life, (according to most poskim) and thus can be aborted in certain limited cases) but the “most americans” you refer to havent given it much thought.
mw13
“inherently important” is subjective. Yes I cna find you mamrei chazal and pesukim extholing the virtues of “shira” that makes it inherently important in my book.
Do you think Simcha is inherently important? Whata bout Bracha? what about Aryeh?
i’m not sure how you determine “inherently important” If the Torah is called “shira” that seems pretty important to me
“For all we know, the true reason could be something totally different from all of them”
Agreed. but your comment doesnt make sense
mw13
“2) Although the Torah is indeed referred to as shira, song still does not have any inherent importance. Life and peace do.”
Thats silly. Shira is clearly has inherent importance the Torah is called sirah as mentioned.I’m sure we can find several mamrei chazal extolling the virtues of shira. should I bother?
3) None of those names, as far as I know, are common in other societies. So it would be hard to say that they stem from outside influences. But for all I know, maybe R’ Chaim would say some of those names (especially the animal ones) would indeed be problematic.
I doubt it the the Shagas Aryeh, beis halevi, Rav Shach, the bal hatanya had some of those names. Its possible he’d say they didny have proper names, but somehow I doubt it.
Incidently his daughter is bracha, which ist a name in tanach. But im wiilling to bet that “blessing” is inherently important. right?
mw13
1) “Also, it should be noted that although Chaim is not a name in Nach, it is still a word used in Nach; perhaps R’ Chaim holds that that is enough.”
shira DOES appear in nach as a word. Though I’m pretty sure shneir doesnt. Nor does Zalman, Kalman, Meir, Man, I’m sure you can help think of dozens of others
2)” Chaim and Shalom, life and peace, are certainly no shtus; they are important ideals.”
As is Shira. In fact the Entire Torah is reffered to as shira “Veatah kisvu lachem es hashira hazos”
3) “The problem isn’t that the concept of song is foreign to Judaism; that is obviously not true. The problem is that naming somebody “Song” is not a Jewish concept.”
Why is it less of a Jewish concept than naming “Life” “Lion” “deer” “comforter” “Bear” “wolf” all of which are words in tanach but never used as names in tanach?
Joseph
Yes, but if it is called to their attention they remove it. So you have to act fast if you come across anything
Sushi
You need clearance to have an opinion on these things. Please supress your opinions until either Joseph or the “the military leadership” allows you to have an opinon.
Joseph
I was proud of the dedication can it please be a co-dedication
The reason I heard for omiting tachanun (I think i read it in R” Soloveitchik’s work) is that Tisha b’av isnt a time for davening. As several pesukim say Hashem didnt accept tefilos eg eicha 3:44 ???????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????????. This is why we omit tiskabel as well.
Tisha ba’v is a time for mourning (of course we daven shemonie esrei like we are mechuyev to)
Daven at the kever of R’ Eliyahu Yosef Rabinowitz. the first Rebbe to settle in the U.S.
All the best
I’ll bump this in a year or so. PErhaps youll be more willing to revealuate your posisition or answer a simple direct question
mdd
This conversation has been pretty long youre confusing my comments on various things.
Let me back up, since you joined the party late.
The thread began a few months ago by CA saying that “if ten years ago i told you the US would let Iran have the bomb you would think i was crazy.”
I replied that In fact I had predicted that for over ten years now.
Someone mentioned Torah codes and the next several comments were regarding that side issue.
Then CA reclaimed his thread by asking “i wonder how charlie would defend this [this being the deal]
I replied to put it in the excelent way tirtza put it “the deal is better than none and no other plan will work”
I will repeat it again since this is the MAIN point of the thread:
the deal is better than none and no other plan will work
and a third time for emphasis:
the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.
On this I freely admit I am not sure perhaps there is another plan that I havent thought of. Plus it is impossible to predict how this will all play out.
What I am certain of is that nobody will attack Iran. Talk of military option is just that talk. You believe it is a real option,on this point you are dead wrong.
My question then is straight forward You believe (rather strongly that:
a) The plan wont work which means that b) Iran will get a bomb and that this c) poses an existential threat to Israel which can d) be stopped by an attack
(I labeled them a-d so you can tell me which point I you dont agree with) Assuming you accept all 4 points there doesnt seem to be any othe r option than attack. So if at a certain point, when an attack doesnt happen. If you are honest you have to accept that you were wrong on one of those points above.
I’ll let you decide on the time frame
Sorry Mdd I dont follow. So if in 1.5 months Israel doesn tact you will admit you have no clue what you are talking about?
My question for you is straight-forward. You said “I think if it were o.5 mile, Netanyahu would have ordered an attack.” At what point, with no attack are you wrong?
mdd
Ok So lets file this conversation away, and revisit it at a to be determined point in time. At what point with Israel still not having attacked will you say I was right. 1 yr? 2? 5?
CNN had a story today
“In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans”
To those of you who said that Trump everything Trump says is thr truth (Poster, Mimzee and Joseph)
So none of you were able to specify if you felt his comments regarding illegal immigrants where true (regarding most of them being criminals, drug dealers and/or rapists,)
(You all either ignored the question, denied that “some I assume are good” meant most were not, or reinterpreted his comment as reffering to the illegal act of entering the country (which of course would make the entire comment non-sensical))
How about his latest
Do any of you believe this is true?
mdd
If Israel is facing as an existential crises as he claims, and point of no return is imminent (as he it has been for 20 years now), and an attack would prevent that What choice does he have?
mdd
I dont mean concern to Obama I mena to the American public. Terroism in the US is also a concern as are military casualties. How many do you think the American public would support? 1000? 10000? 1000000? How many could be expected
“He is more worried than the Israelis. Give me a break.”
I dont get what you mean. The Israleis arent attacking either. Obama isnt MORE concerned, both are concerned at that very real possibility
mdd
Youve got to be kidding. Iran has an air force, anti-aircraft defenses, missle capability of hitting US bases in the mideast and probably Europe, capability of attacking ISrael etc etc. We are not talking about a two day operation.
Thanks Tirtza I will definitely read
mdd
It is a very real possibility if a prolonged war with IRan ensues. IRan is quite big and could raise a large army. I am not saying it will happen, just a possibility albeit a far-fetched one.
If you think it is too far-fetched to even be considered, feel free to ignore it and answer the other 3 questions in that comment.
CA
lol though 2015 -1995 = 20 (However it ended in December so it has been less than 20 years)
Heres a good one:
CBS march 2015 (more recent than yours)
“Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran’s nuclear program is a threat that can be contained for now. Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat to the United States at this time.””
Requires military action now – 29%
can be contained for now – 45%
Not a threat at this time – 18%
unsure 7%
This was further broken down by party, though even then not even half of republicans supported military action
CA
meh, most polls I’ve seen support an agreement. Its cheating to only use polls with data you like. and besides:
see the wikipedia page on the subject.
Its one thing to support attack, how long do you think support would last, and and what cost increased oil prices? how many casualties? What about terrorism at home? a draft? How many of the above have been considered by those responding to the poll?
mdd
his 2nd comment went up after mine. I never ignore. (Oh and I dont quit)
Look I dont know if an attack would be succesful, I suspect it wouldnt as if it would the ISraelis wouldve done it already otherwise the anonymous white house source is right about Netanyahu. But that is a side issue, since on this I agree with Joseph I dont know if it will work or not.
“He has to deal with Obama and EU. “
Not when your very lives are at stake and we are nearing the point of no return! (as we have been since 94′ according to him)
mdd
“I don’t trust that left-winger.”
I see. Mostly becasue it isnt what you want to hear?
That isnt my main point though
“Anyhow, with the deal it will be much more difficult for the Israelis to launch an attack.”
So do it today. What are they waiting for? Netanyahu has been saying that Iran is close to the bomb for over 20 years now! If the thought of Iran getting a bomb is so unacceptable, and attacking is possible and would be effective, attack now and deal with the consequences. What choice is there? ITs what we did with Iraq, (Remember how pleased Heilege Reagan was? oh wait…)
CA
Nuch besser! The US doesnt have the stomach for a 5th war in 2 decades (though Bosnia it has been more than 2 decades since Bosnia, and I’m surprised to hear you say we ar at war with ISis,the standard party-line is that Obama has been ignoring ISIS)
mdd
You are hacking ah cheinek, bottom line is like you acknowledged 3 times it isnt. The US population doesnt have the stomach for a 3rd war in 2 decades especially when the same pretense was already used in what turned out to be false. Whether theoretically if Iran where to do something crazy like attack the US or the political landscape would change overnight, would it be possible? yes. Would it work Doubtful, given the MOssad’s assesment butsome analysts say it could.
As things stand today July 21 2015 Attacking Iran is not an option period.
I’m not sure why this confuses you you have it right in your posts ” there some people who don’t like going down that path,”the liberals lack the will and the stomach even for a limited, mostly air campaign against Iran”
Thus it is impossible and not an option.
I’m sorry youve been tricked when Obama said “Every option is on the table” He was lying, he knew it, Netanyahu knew it, Kahmeni knew it and most pundits knew it. Ive often wondered who he was fooling…
Tirtza
You accused me of supporting doing nothing. I’ll grant CA’s point that continuing the sanctions isnt really doing nothing. (debatable). But certainly trying this deal isnt doing nothing?! I hope it’ll work I’m sure you do too.
“OK, I’ll leave it to others, I have a weak constitution.
Shalom”
All the best! I hope you have an easy fast especially given your weak constitution
mdd
bottom line is attack on IRan is impossible. period. As to why it is impossible there are many reasons, some you correctly identified. As to wether it would be effective. The Mossad says no. I’m inclined to beileve them, but I cant be sure. But some say it would be effective.
You were late to the party. From the get -go I made clear the gist of my argument is thta there is no alternative. As to what will happen with the current plan? Nobody can possibly know. I made this clear from the start, this wasnt a later addition
Quick mussar: Never be too sure of yourself you can always be wrong! Being willing to constantly reevaluate your opinions (even firmly held ones) is a mark of strength not weakness
“”All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” “
Precisly! I am not suggesting doing nothing, that was you! (CA and Joseph said it deirectly and you agreed with them!
seeoption #3 here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/iran-bomb/page/2#post-575997
Tirtza
“We all repeat ourselves with the facts and you claim that your facts are better, less tainted with your so-called “knee-jerk” reaction than ours.”
you havent provided too many facts. The only solid fact Ive seen is “because we distrust it’s main supporter, Obama.”
“All you keep saying is the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.”
Um yes because that is a concise synopsis of my opinion on the matter. Thank you for putting it so succintly.
“At least I’m honest (to you and most importantly to myself) about my opinions being just what they are opinions.”
I’ll do you one better, I’m honest enough to admit that not only is this just an opinion but I can be wrong. See last paragraph of this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/iran-bomb/page/4#post-576737
“Why bother to attend that rally, it’s to protest the deal, you support it.”
1) I may be wrong
2) I dont “support” the deal. (Though this doesnt address your point since I dont protest it either)
3) As I mentioned to Joseph opinion and action are different
4) ??????????, ??????? ????????????, ????????, ????????? ???.?
Joseph
Wait do we have permission to discuss these things? Before formulating an opinion Dont we need clearance, or at least can I get clearance from you?
I was under the impression that we arent allowed to have opinions on these things
First thread dedicated to me! whoohoo thanks
tirtza
You give yourself away
“because we distrust it’s main supporter, Obama.”
“I have never ascribed to any of those stereotypes, partly because I don’t think they are true and partly because they give fuel to people like you, who profess “rationality” and “facts.”” In other words you do partly think they are true!
The quote you provided is more of the same. You claim it doesnt include any of the stereotupes, but it includes others
“”Is he purely a radical leftist, is he a Reverend Wright/Saul Alinsky sock puppet, is he a radical anti-western anti-colonialist, is he an incompetent teleprompter pot-head, is he an arrogant, egotistical maniac, a narcissistic fantasist, … he is all of these things. …stone cold … we are all expendable … pure evil here”
All this is coloring your view of the deal (and if you beleive any of it how can it not?). Like Lindsey Graham, Bohner, and the Isralei leadership I’ll bet you formulated an opinion on the agreement before knowing what was in it (I specify bohner and Graham becasue they outright said they didnt know what was in the agreement but they opposed it) Such disagreement isnt based on “rationality” or “facts” It is based on a knee-jerk reaction to anything from Obama. I for one do not much care for Obama I have had enough of him and sometimes long for the ISraeli sytem where we can get rid of a head of govermnment mid-term once weve had enough, but we are stuck with him for the next year and a half or so.
Please note nowhere in my comments to you or joseph did I make any appeal to authority or any emotional argument. This is strictly factual/logical. And I have yet to hear a viable alternative.
mdd
So it is not an option. Why is this hard for you to get? You keep repeating yourself. Bottom line is war is not an option either because “some people dont want ot go down that path” or because the “liberal elite” or like the mossad says it wouldnt be effective. period. not an option you keep agreeing yet formulating like a disagreement
Joseph
” What I’m saying is that you should defer your views to the views of the military leadership on military questions and to the political leadership on national security questions that you are not privy to national security secrets to.”
I hear if you mean lemaaseh, if Obama called me and asked me what I thought (and Im entitled only to the information I have now) I probably would defer to them.
But we are hocking that is all. Pleas make no mistake about it. This conversation is completly insignificant. I dont understand how a thinking person can say I say “you should defer your views”
Even in the Obama calling me scenario, I STILL would think what I think now. As a thinking individual I cant “defer my views” I probably would defer my ACTION, but “views”? Never. That is a terrible thing to suggest
That said,
Is it possible I’m wrong?
Of course! Certainly you have the insight to appreciate that it is possible that YOU are wrong (along with “military leadership”)
Joseph I’d love to discuss all those things!
But are you saying I cant have opinions? what about Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity et al, after all they arent in the “military leadership” either did they ask you for permission to have an opinion?
Are you really suggesting that only military leadership can have opinions on the topics you mention? I have to say that is a bizzare notion but you are certainly entitled
mdd
even if that is true. Bottom line is you agree that attacking isnt an option. Fyoo had me worried.
Joseph
It absolutely does. If they have secret alternativ eplans it is there responsibilty to share them. We dont live in a autocratic society where “laypeople” accept everything “national leaders” say. And besides leshitascha what right do you have to disagree with YOUR national leaders who support the plan?
Please dont reply to that question it is an absurd question and you have every right, nay duty! to disagree with your leaders if you believe they are wrong. Keep up the good work
mdd
addressed already, see above.
Joseph
Fair enough. Well I disagree with what they are saying.
madianartshop
Accordning to R’ Nota Greenblat R’ Moshe ate chalav stam when in Memphis
Tirtza
“Because they would not have gotten:
Freeing up of other sanctions, for arms and ballistic missiles,
Giving them $100-150 billion to sponsor Hezbollah, Assad, Hamas, and the Houthis.
Help in protecting from sabotage”
They only get these things if they keep their end of the deal.
“Recognition “
I’m so sorry to tell you but they have been full members of the UN for quite some time now. I;m not sure what you mean by “recognition”
“If your point is that all political action is fruitless and the only recourse is to daven, well you are right.”
That isnt my point, but obviously its true.
“they send a message to the world, “Israel does not stand alone.” “
Obama has repeatedly said this, Obviously not enough though.
“
“I think that observant Jews, especially should go to the rally on Wed. and call and write their Congressmen. We each can do our small part.”
by all means! all I am calling for is cautious optimism. I am not saying it is a good deal.
“you are quite a staunch Obama supporter”
not at all! (though you probably would consider me one since I dont think he is an america hating -antisemitic-islamofascist-socialist-kenyan-muslim-atheist-communist) Obama has been a complete dissapointment easily the second worst president of the 21st century and I hope it stays that way. I am a fact supporter. Though as an adom gadol once said “reality has a well known liberal bias”
Jospeh
I actually have a theory but it involves more conjecture than I am used to so I’ll leave it off for now, as I feel I have satisfacorily answered your question in point #2 above.
Keep in ind, none of us are making any policy decisions, we are just hocking so i feel comfortable disagreeing with national leaders.
You argument is an appeal to authority which i am not that big a fan of.
Mdd
I dont.