TexasCHLforum.com

The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

1/20/2017. That is all.

Abraham wrote:Perhaps, I'm overlooking something, but I thought I'd made it clear: I'm all for helping "almost" anyone or group get gun training, but not American/socialist/commies. So now, some on the left find guns appealing and want training in their use, oh the irony...

If these Asc's if you will, want gun training, I'm not going to help them - no more than I'm going to help an arsonist burn down my house...

The gist of what I read after my post is: Hey, if you like guns, I reflexively like you and will help.

That philosophy sounds self-destructive to me.

No more than if a stranger/criminal smiles at me am I immediately going to consider him a friend...

Hhhhmmm, let's see. You like guns, but not my conservative values. However, since your lefty pals don't know squat about guns, you want me to train you in their use...?

Hhhhmmmm, nah...

I believe there is a real difference between actual liberals, and the people who tend to be considered (either by themselves or others), as "liberal-progressives", aka leftists, socialists, etc. I have a difference of opinion with actual liberals, and before the Interwebs were over-run with "paid trolls", I had civil discussions with the occasional liberal. However, I agree whole-heartedly with Abraham on this one. I would not supply training to someone who, at heart, wants to rid the world of me and mine.

The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, things are indeed rough right now, but the 20th of January is right around the corner. As one lady on a TV news program said, the UN is a generally weak and ineffectual body that relies on the USA to get most things done.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

Hmm! somehow I am not really surprised at this. Historically the UK government has never been as pro Israel as the US. In fact they have always been more friendly with Jordan (the long time King of that country was educated at the same military academy I attended, in addition, one of Egypt's past presidents also had a British military education). It may have been a long time ago but remember when the Brits were in control of that part of the world in was the Zionists who were the terrorists/freedom fighters (depending upon your perspective), remember the King David Hotel bombing. Once the state of Israel was founded the US was quick to recognise it, the UK came along later grudgingly. Some positions among the career mandarins in the UK foreign office are slow to change.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

But I bet you won't refrain from action - when momentum from California votes threaten Texas freedom with oppression similar to what Brits suffer, you'll respond with the patriotism that drives us all.

And I appreciate that - I've got a half dozen California felonies in my gun safe, and that's just counting magazines!

Noggin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

Hmm! somehow I am not really surprised at this. Historically the UK government has never been as pro Israel as the US. In fact they have always been more friendly with Jordan (the long time King of that country was educated at the same military academy I attended, in addition, one of Egypt's past presidents also had a British military education). It may have been a long time ago but remember when the Brits were in control of that part of the world in was the Zionists who were the terrorists/freedom fighters (depending upon your perspective), remember the King David Hotel bombing. Once the state of Israel was founded the US was quick to recognise it, the UK came along later grudgingly. Some positions among the career mandarins in the UK foreign office are slow to change.

During WWI, the Ottoman Empire was siding with the Germans. Britain was rightfully worried it was going to lose access to the Suez Canal, so it pushed for what became the British Mandate. That gave them control of so-called Palestine as a land bridge. By 1939 when it was obvious that WWII was coming, Britain reascended its prior support claiming it never intended to establish a separate Jewish political state. It did so because it feared alienating the Arabs with a war on the horizon. That fear was very real since the Arabs were already suspicious as a result of Britain failing to honor every promise T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) had made during WWI. From that point on, Britain tried to prevent a Jewish State.

Throughout their control over Palestine, they tried to greatly limit Jewish immigration to Palestine, even when agreements and UN mandates allowed immigration. U.S. requests for increased immigration of Jews to Palestine were rejected, which is rather surprising considering the war dept Britain owed to the U.S. (Rumor has it that the only reason Britain abstained in the final UN resolution vote, rather than voting against it, was because the U.S. threatened to require Britain to pay that debt.) When the UN resolution was voted, Britain abstained. Britain refused to either help implement the resolution or let a UN transition team do so. Prior to leaving in August 1948, Britain confiscated as many weapons from the Jews as possible. They wanted the new Jewish nation to be crushed by the Arabs.

You are right about the bombing of the Kind David hotel in 1946. You are also right about it being either a terrorist act, or the work of freedom fighters, depending upon one's perspective. It was done in response to Black Sabbath, a large scale British operation designed to further disarm the Jews, while leaving their Arab enemies alone and well armed. Pretty much every country that was once under British rule, including the U.S., could be accused of terrorism by the Crown.

As I said before, I'm French/English by blood, not Jewish. That said, King David himself was no more pro-Israel than am I. In 1967, at the ripe old age of 17, I wanted to volunteer for the IDF. My Mom died just a few months later, so I never pursued it.

Obviously, I feel very strongly about protecting Israel and some of my comments may have offended others, especially Brits who are now here in the U.S. For that I sincerely apologize. My comments are directed more toward the British government and its politicians. (I've been very critical of my own government too.)

I've said far too much already, so I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'll leave the final word on this subject to others.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Noggin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

Hmm! somehow I am not really surprised at this. Historically the UK government has never been as pro Israel as the US. In fact they have always been more friendly with Jordan (the long time King of that country was educated at the same military academy I attended, in addition, one of Egypt's past presidents also had a British military education). It may have been a long time ago but remember when the Brits were in control of that part of the world in was the Zionists who were the terrorists/freedom fighters (depending upon your perspective), remember the King David Hotel bombing. Once the state of Israel was founded the US was quick to recognise it, the UK came along later grudgingly. Some positions among the career mandarins in the UK foreign office are slow to change.

During WWI, the Ottoman Empire was siding with the Germans. Britain was rightfully worried it was going to lose access to the Suez Canal, so it pushed for what became the British Mandate. That gave them control of so-called Palestine as a land bridge. By 1939 when it was obvious that WWII was coming, Britain reascended its prior support claiming it never intended to establish a separate Jewish political state. It did so because it feared alienating the Arabs with a war on the horizon. That fear was very real since the Arabs were already suspicious as a result of Britain failing to honor every promise T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) had made during WWI. From that point on, Britain tried to prevent a Jewish State.

Throughout their control over Palestine, they tried to greatly limit Jewish immigration to Palestine, even when agreements and UN mandates allowed immigration. U.S. requests for increased immigration of Jews to Palestine were rejected, which is rather surprising considering the war dept Britain owed to the U.S. (Rumor has it that the only reason Britain abstained in the final UN resolution vote, rather than voting against it, was because the U.S. threatened to require Britain to pay that debt.) When the UN resolution was voted, Britain abstained. Britain refused to either help implement the resolution or let a UN transition team do so. Prior to leaving in August 1948, Britain confiscated as many weapons from the Jews as possible. They wanted the new Jewish nation to be crushed by the Arabs.

You are right about the bombing of the Kind David hotel in 1946. You are also right about it being either a terrorist act, or the work of freedom fighters, depending upon one's perspective. It was done in response to Black Sabbath, a large scale British operation designed to further disarm the Jews, while leaving their Arab enemies alone and well armed. Pretty much every country that was once under British rule, including the U.S., could be accused of terrorism by the Crown.

As I said before, I'm French/English by blood, not Jewish. That said, King David himself was no more pro-Israel than am I. In 1967, at the ripe old age of 17, I wanted to volunteer for the IDF. My Mom died just a few months later, so I never pursued it.

Obviously, I feel very strongly about protecting Israel and some of my comments may have offended others, especially Brits who are now here in the U.S. For that I sincerely apologize. My comments are directed more toward the British government and its politicians. (I've been very critical of my own government too.)

I've said far too much already, so I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'll leave the final word on this subject to others.

Chas.

I don't think anyone misconstrued your OP as an attack on the British people in general, but a response to an article, furthering misinformation and left wing rhetoric based on poor reporting. At least that's how I viewed it.
Noggin, has a huge amount of insight, based on being a recent transplant, and can offer a perspective those of us who have lived our whole lives in the USA, can't possibly provide.
I agree that labeling all Brits, as being left leaning and anti gun, is over generalizing, but they have allowed those policies to take over their lives. Despite many of them being beyond their control.

My stand is that this particular reporter simply has no idea why we cling to the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment in particular, and found a very small number of people, with a particular point of view, that tried to show that they were formally against guns, prepping, etc. but now are having to protect themselves against the "deplorables" even though the article listed no substantiated reports of that being a necessity.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

The Egyptian decision to withdraw the one-sided anti-Israel Security Council resolution should not mask the sad reality that it is the Obama administration that has been pushing for the resolution to be enacted.
http://fxn.ws/2hA1AGm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The despicable UN vote condemning Israel's settlements was 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining. Britain voted for the resolution. I'll refrain from further commnent.

Chas.

The vicious condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council on December 23, 2016 is a watershed moment in U.S.-UN relations – albeit not as President Obama hoped. Following the vote of fourteen in favor and one American abstention, Palestinian representative Riyadh Mansour and American Ambassador Samantha Power exchanged a telling handshake. Evidently, President Obama believes that he has put one over on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the incoming Trump administration. But here’s another possibility: treachery at the UN will not be cost free.
http://fxn.ws/2imDtiJ

Jusme wrote:
Noggin, has a huge amount of insight, based on being a recent transplant, and can offer a perspective those of us who have lived our whole lives in the USA, can't possibly provide.
I agree that labeling all Brits, as being left leaning and anti gun, is over generalizing, but they have allowed those policies to take over their lives. Despite many of them being beyond their control.

Thanks for your support. That said as the years passed by I watched the steady march of UK politics towards liberal collectivism. The one glimmer of hope in the last 70 years was the Thatcher regime of the 80s for that decade UK flirted with libertarian ideas (though almost nobody in UK knew then or knows now what libertarian ideas are) over there with the possible exception of Maggie being conservative has always meant supporting the Monarchy and the Traditional class structure.

As my political views changed as I matured and I became disenchanted with the institution of monarchy I was accused of being a commie. This was because most people in the UK assume if you are opposed to the traditional class structure then you must be extreme left. Over the Christmas holiday in 2011 my wife and I attended dinner party at one of neighbours one of the other guests was an enthusiastic member of the Young Conservatives (an official branch of the UK Conservative party) I was shocked that he called himself a hard right conservative while at the same time claiming that the EU open borders policy was the right way for the future!!!! When my wife told him that she and I were more libertarian than conservative his reply was "I can relate to that I am quite a libertine" enough said. The next year out daughter went to live with her Grand parents while attending school in Texas six months later we put our UK house up for sale.