Who is funding terror?

We are funding terror.

Twelve days ago, the US gave one hundred and fifty million dollars to the Palestinian Authority, much of which will be used to buy arms to murder Jews, much of which will be used to reward terrorists for their holy deeds.

Why pay off the Palestinians when there are many deserving people going hungry? Duh! The answer, of course, is that it is a payoff. If we pay them, they will refrain from hijacking US planes, refrain from murdering Americans. They will stick to murdering Jews – at least for the moment, though each time they come back for more money, they tell us that alas, unless the payment increases, they will, alas, have difficulty restraining extremist elements. Every negotiating session, they utter threats. Every time they utter threats, we pay them more. Eventually we are going to have to say no, and the dollars we have sent them will come back to us as bombs.

Now if sacrificing a few Jews would keep those @#$%^&* Palestinians off our backs, I would be all in favor of it But it is too late for that. It was too late in 622AD. When someone threatens to kill you it is war, and once it is war, the only way you can have peace is to kill your enemies, or die trying.

Tribute always ends in war or surrender. Surrender to Islam would be unimaginably intolerable. In the end, we will have to make total war, absurd though it is that a power so insignificant should threaten a power so great. But this is not the first time that utterly insignificant Muslim groups, by the power of fanaticism, by a willingness to die that exceeded Christian willingness to kill, have successfully extracted tribute from extremely powerful Christians, for example the tribute of money and slaves paid to the Algerians. It has always ended badly, and since 1529, it has usually ended very badly for the Muslims.

21 Responses to “Who is funding terror?”

  1. The Cominator says:

    I dont have admin rights you silly wignat.

    • Ghost says:

      whoremonger

    • Ghost says:

      “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Heb 13:4

      • Bouncer says:

        “God will judge” – therefore, NOT YOU. Refer to Matthew 7:1

        • c4ssidy says:

          matthew 7.1 is about hypocritical judgement, not relevant

          the distinction between the two i can see is that we are told to explicitly execute adulterers

          whoremongering seems to be treated a spiritual matter rather than a society collapsing matter

          • jim says:

            > the distinction between the two i can see is that we are told to explicitly execute adulterers

            That is married women who sleep around, and men who sleep with married women. It is not married men who sleep with more than one woman.

  2. Ghost says:

    @Jim

    I’ve passed all your “shill” tests.

    Your claim is this is a men’s Christian blog seeking to restore family, true?

    How can Com claim to be Christian yet unrepentantly fornicate with prostitutes? You give him admin rights to silence me when I ask him to recite his Christian belief.

    I question your claim. And think you use Christianity as a tool to further your own agenda.

    • jim says:

      Family is not collapsing, and the Churches are not disappearing because of prostitutes.

      The problem rather is the priest that cannot say “groomer”.

    • Neofugue says:

      In other words:

      you should let in more refugees because Jesus said to be compassionate in the Bible somewhere

      no I’m not a christian and I have nothing but contempt for your backward religious beliefs

      so yeah, this argument wouldn’t work on me but maybe if I use it on you you’ll do what I want”

    • alf says:

      You are trying the the same trick the Pharisees tried on Jesus when they accused him of associating with sinners. But the sinners were respectful towards Jesus, while the Pharisees were neither respectful towards the sinners or Jesus.

      Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

      My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

      Com has contributed many insightful and respectful comments. You would do better to follow his example.

      • Red says:

        It’s puzzles me how often people lose their shit over him. I think it might be the speaking with authority and certainty without the correct status, which is a pretty common thing with most spergs. The thing is you can’t knock results with Com.

        • The Cominator says:

          I think I have some informal status here from being the hardcore anti-covid guy almost at the earliest (in fact I think alf though you weren’t a covid Karen I think you said I was burning all my social credit on a bet that covid was bullshit and I said I’m not worried when I’m right I’ll get it back + multiple from taking the longshot bet).

          I had smelled a rat because it was Trump’s reelection year. I was certain with covid because I looked at the South Korean data (summary and translated) and knew it was much better and more truthful than the fantastic stories coming out of China and Italy. About the future I hardly speak with certainty…

          I tend to think a lot of the people who lose their shit (who aren’t shills or non-reactionaries, which is what I suspect Ghost is) are people under different names who were on the other side of the covid controversy.

          • alf says:

            Don’t sell yourself short as a one trick pony Com. You’ve commented here for years, on many topics.

          • Red says:

            I tend to think a lot of the people who lose their shit (who aren’t shills or non-reactionaries, which is what I suspect Ghost is) are people under different names who were on the other side of the covid controversy.

            Com, I was on the wrong side in the COVID debate and I don’t bear any grudges about it.

            I thought it over and in a bunch of cases instead of arguing effectively or insulting people back you either jump back to being right about COVID or called for the person posting to be censored. That’s really not a manly way to argue. You should consider trading insults when others insult you, but try to make them funny and entertaining.

            Calling out shills is fine and I do that when people display shill like behavior, but it looks bad to do that when you’re in a nasty debate and appear to be losing.

            Ghost has proven himself to be a loser faggot by his behavior and he should be insulted as such.

            Alf’s right, you post excellent comments around here. That’s where your status comes from, not the just bring right on COVID.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      What possessed you to post on a 14 year old comment section and not where active conversation was already occurring?

      It looks like you want to be confrontational (aggressive) without directly replying where appropriate (cowardice and submissive). This is passive aggressive behavior. This is feminine.

      >Your claim is this is a men’s Christian blog seeking to restore family, true?
      Why does this sound familiar to:
      >You claim to be a man

      Oh! Ahem.. Excuse me, but are you perhaps an unattached breedable age women?

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        Not saying I agree with his content, but it is better to have it out of the way here. Making personal attacks within ongoing discussions muddies the water for friends and invites enemies to dog pile. Putting the discussion here muddies the water for enemies going over the archives. It’s not a perfect idea, but I’ve used it myself to have a conversation that doesn’t impede an active discussion.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          It’s the confluence of behaviors that raises eyebrows. Posting somewhere out of the way on its own is fine, but doing that after being kinda bratty in the main discussion is just weird. It’s like Ghost is necroposting in order to shit test.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            As I have taken up the role of public defender before, I’ll continue it now:

            I think Ghost is pissed off at Com for personal reasons, taste reasons, and has decided to use our homeostatic defense tools to act on that sentiment. While this is in bad form, it is not the crime of attempting to destroy our tribe, though if left unchecked will inevitably lead to that. Ghost responded with “amen” to Com’s affirmation, that’s a sign of honesty and good faith, albeit small. I myself thought Com, was an areligious materialist who was on “our” side due to goal alignment, but my fee-fee thoughts are worth their weight in gold.

            Com bugs me, sometimes more than others. But when I introspect as to why, I can go no deeper than Red’s remonstration elsewhere, which echoes things I have said before. We are all lone wolfs in some way, hermits and undercovers and isolated men. This is not natural for men; to be isolated and connected at the same time, with a vast intellectual and actual gulf between the parallel experiences. Like a never-ending deathbed, surrounded by comrades and dying in isolation. I think this, at least for me, engenders a tendency to overreact, lash out, or seek to cause damage for sport.

            Or maybe I’m a faggot that needs to be stripped of my keyboard loicence.

            If Ghost can’t restrain himself, let the bullycide commence. But I genuinely think that he, like me, struggles with maintaining the proper frame.

    • Ghost says:

      ?

    • Ghost says:

      Allow me to retort.

      I suspect all of you have large humped noses and spend the day rubbing your hands together counting your shekels.

Leave a Reply