66 votes

WOW - Michael Scheuer Destroys Peter King and Other Israeli Lovers

This Argument Is AWESOME.

You must watch and spread far and wide!

Finally, a neocon war hawk is DESTROYED by Michael Schuer!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why many Christians support Israel

Many years ago before finding out about the deception going on in our government I would have agreed that we should support Israel as a Christian because I was listening to the pastors on radio and tv that taught this. John Hagee was one of them I listened to. This article is from a Biblical understanding.

John Hagee's Israel Heresy!

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

ChristianAnarchist's picture


THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS!!! Now move along...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Are you talking about Muslims or our government?

I can't tell anymore.

And it's all perpetuated by a lie

Nebuchadnezzar ran the Jews out long before Muhammad even climbed the Mountain to find Islam. Islam was not even born yet, and they are still being blamed for the act of a Babylonian. But because King David's Temple was destroyed the true details don't matter.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Don't lump "Israel-lovers" in with people like Peter King...

Why would you have no love for the good people in Israel?

There are millions of good people in Israel.
The good people there just want to live in peace but certain people keep claiming Israelis have no right to live, no right to exist!

Yes, the Israeli government is a typical government and it does some really nasty things and they should not be overlooked. But Hamas and the Islamists who want to destroy Israel are no better, in fact much worse because they have already reduced their own countries to dirt poor shit holes with no intentions of improving life for their own people, only attacking Israel, and are far more tyrannical to their own people. Israel is not America, and it cannot play nice with it's enemies if it wants to survive, even though it tries to. But it has liberty for it's own citizens. 1.6 million, 20% of Israeli population is Arab-Muslim ethnicity, btw.

I have love for all good people in Israel.

Yes, there are NWO globalist infiltrators in Israeli government, even from the founding.
How is that any different than America?
Should I hate all of America?
So, should I hate all of Israel, because of a few NWO people?

But, you hate Israel as a whole because you believe they have no right to live.
You believe someone else does not have the right to live.
Someone has taught you this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

If the 'Palestinians' simply wanted full citizenship and equal rights under the law, the border fence and Gaza region opened to trade and free travel, basically joining with Israel, (you could call it "Israel-Palestine", or vice versa) and demonstrated for this peacefully I would whole-heartedly support that.

But that is NOT their cause. Their cause is to DESTROY Israel and all the 'infidels' living there. It's in Hamas' and PLO Fatah's charters, their very founding documents. How can there ever be peace? How can you support someone who wants to kill all others and refuses peace?

Israel has conceded more and more land to the Arab-Muslim radicals, and gave up Gaza entirely in 2005. Still nothing works, the Islamists keep terrorizing. You can't reason with, or appease madness.

Israel is far freer, and more prosperous than any country in the mid-east region. Liberty lovers should support MORE of that, and LESS of what the Islamists bring, which is totalitarian Islamist tyranny. Israel is a representative democracy, with courts, appeals courts, and fair laws. The have something similar to our constitution. It's a beautiful, prosperous country with fruit orchards and field as far as they eye can see. There are Muslims, Jews, Christians living there in peace with each other. Muslims serve in the IDF, too, not just Jews. There are beautifully preserved religious sites from all Abrahamic religions that people from all over the world (including many Muslims) visit every year.

There is PLENTY to LOVE!

None of this, btw, has anything to do with US foreign policy, or US interventionism. I do not support foreign aid to anyone. I do not support going to war unless by Congressional Declaration as per the constitution, and only for very good reasons, such being attacked by a clearly defined enemy.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Great work by Scheuer but....

Just once I'd like to hear someone in response to a line like King's "I believe it's essential we support Israel." say "Of course you do, AIPAC donates money to your campaign. If you wish to be re-elected and if you'd like AIPAC and similar groups to donate more you'll continue to support Israel. It makes financial sense for you to do so."

Wow! That was one of the best

Wow! That was one of the best verbal ass-kickings I've seen in a while.

That man deserves a standing ovation.

I live in a Muslim country, they certainly don't hate us for freedom and liberty, and anyone to repeat that bullshit is a blind, dumb, fool.

I used to live across the street from the US embassy too, and the only time they'd gather for a peaceful protest was to show support for Palestine.

No one is protesting American values or way of life. No one is gathering outside of embassies around the world because we allow women to vote, or because we manicure our front lawns... this is bullshit fed to us by the war machine.

I don't know. I think both sides are right, but..

the big difference is how we are fighting and the reasons for going to war.

The price isn't high enough for moderate Muslims to stand-up against the radicals and the way we are fighting it now is only creating more radicals.

I think we should pull out of the Middle-East and tell al-Qaeda/ISIS and moderate Muslims of the region that if we are attacked, we will carpet bomb the Middle-East like we did Germany in WWII. We will destroy every mosque, every Muslim religious icon and holy land the likes man has not seen before. Saving moderate innocents will not be a consideration. We will unleash a hell that will make the whole world gasp in horror.

An attack with proportions of 9/11 will result in a million 9/11s throughout the Middle-East.

We now see why the Butcher of Baghdad, Gaddafi and Assad were/are the barbarians they were/are. If you want to beat the barbarians you have to become a bigger, badder barbarian. They were the only ones keeping the radicals in check. We've removed our safety-check thinking it was a good thing but it only created a vacuum for something worse. Say what you want, but they kept the peace toward us and they fought amongst themselves until we had to get involved to save the oil buddies of wealthy Americans. We made ourselves the target.

Of course, we/I don't want war but if we're attacked, we have to fight to win and the only way to win is to be more brutal than your enemy. That's how ISIS is winning now. More importantly, we can't give them a legitimate reason to attack us by invading their country. When we do accidentally kill innocents, the innocents hate us. We have to stop with re-building their countries. If they attack us, we annihilate them all as a country. Forget trying to root out an enemy with no border. What we destroy, the enemy can't use as a resource to re-group and attack us again.

We have to hold to a foreign policy that states we will not clean your dirty laundry but if they soil our sheets, we will clean the whole basket and not just the one dirty sheet.

If war becomes necessary, the moderates will join us in the effort because they know if they don't, we will not spare them.

The idea that we can spread democracy, freedom, women's rights, etc. by fighting the good fight against a region where the politics is based on centuries old religion and has been ran that way for centuries is ridiculous.

It would help even more if we produced our own energy and were not dependent on them for a drop. Our economy would grow, their economy would falter.

I don't know. It may be too late. Another attack will come before we withdraw from the region, then we'll be conflicted on how to fight a war we created upon ourselves.

If we stop supporting Israel we can't judge them on how they protect their interest. If they are attacked and most likely they will be before us, they will wipe out more Muslims in a day than we would in a year. They know the brutality of radical Muslims and they won't even save Jews to kill Muslims that kidnap Jews. As a result, the hijacking and kidnapping of Jews stopped for the most part. Muslims, radical and moderate, know the Israelis don't play politics when it comes to war, only if the U.S. pays them off.

If the payments stop, the gloves come off. So, there's that. Stop supporting them but if we do, we can't judge them. Who would we be to tell them how they can protect themselves from barbarian radical Muslims?

It's a mess and it won't be solved in a short period but we could adopt a new foreign policy of "don't start nothing and we won't either, but if you do, we'll finish it and there will be nothing left to rule when we're through."


for promoting genocide

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

So, was Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide?

How about the way we bombed Dresden in WWII?

I'm not for genocide. I'm for defeating any enemy hiding in any country if we can't get the people of that country to point them out or fight them.

Obviously, if we are attacked, the people of that country aren't willing to defeat the enemy or can't.

both of those were genocides

Wanton murder of civilians is never ok.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Both of those helped save thousands of American lives...

So let's say you're a soldier or your loved one is a soldier fighting in a war. You have a strategy that will end the war but it will kill civilians of the country that attacked you. If you just fight hand-to-hand in small battles, you're going to lose thousands of men and keep in mind they attacked you, they started it. There was no civil war fought to determine whether they would attack you.

So you'd rather fight and die or have your loved one fight and die, than end the war even if it meant killing civilians?

Yeah, we tried that in Vietnam, it didn't work. Communism took hold and many more civilians died as a result. So, they're going to die regardless and that wasn't even a war we should have been in.

It's not wanton murder when you are defending yourself after being attacked by an enemy that hides among civilians and they do nothing to tell you about them or kill them themselves.

We can't beat the radicals now because the moderates want to be neutral. That's fine. But if the radicals attack us, we're not sparing anyone at the cost of additional lives on our side. That's all I'm saying here. If the radicals don't attack us, then you don't have to worry about us.

I am gonna have to disagree with you there

If I throw you off a cliff and then catch you as you fall, I cannot legitimately say I saved your life. The same arguments goes for any American lives that those genocides may have allegedly saved. Those American lives were only in danger in the first place by previous actions of the perpetrators of the genocides.

The second problem with this argument is that it assumes that killing all those civilians was the only way to end the conflict. That seems rather short-sighted an unimaginative to me. For example, Japan was already trying to surrender, but they wanted to keep their emperor. But the US said no and killed thousands of innocent civilians to get rid of that surrender condition. Who cares about the damn emperor as long as they stop all military action?

I have no idea what you are talking about with Vietnam. The US had no business being there in the first place and when they did, they sure engaged in some rampant civilian slaughter.

I don't understand why you defend such actions. To me, such actions are abhorrent.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial complexes...

that supplied the Japanese military. Nagasaki was actually a major seaport that provided a wide range of military industrial activities that supported the Japanese military. The "innocent" people actively supported/worked/made bombs, etc. for the military and the Emperor. The bombing ended the war immediately. I'm sure many POWs and fighting soldiers were relieved it didn't take months to end the war. I'm sure China was relieved as well. The terms were always unconditional. Japan had too much "honor" or pride to surrender without their Emperor staying in power.

I defend the actions because I love freedom more than I do tyranny.

I not sure where you got the notion that the Japanese people bombed were just "innocent" people going about their business unaware their country was attacking every country in the region and they did not support it one bit.

Sorry, but that's ignorance.


Do you realize that your reasoning could be used to justify 9-11?

Seriously, man, you need to stop trying to justify the murder of 100,000 civilians. That's fucked up.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Unless 911 was some kind of inside job...

that is how the Islamic radicals view us. There are no innocent civilians that elect a government that occupies their holy lands.

Seriously man, you need to wake-up and realize how our enemy views us and I'm telling you the next terror attack will be of such mass proportions you won't give a rat's red rosey rear-end how many "innocent" civilians we kill to eradicate those bastards.

I'm all for being proactive in telling our government to stop their insane foreign policy that is going to justify our enemy to attack us. At least if we give them no reason by occupying their land, then if they do decide to attack us, there's no conflict on how we eradicate them.

Tell me, how would you go about fighting radical muslims without killing any innocent civilians? Don't just tell me we can't, tell me how.

I'm not the first to justify killing innocent civilians.

1 Samuel 15:2–3 KJV

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel din opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Deuteronomy 20:17 NIV

Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.

If I'm f'd up, I'm with good company.

that argument does not hold water with me

Just because the Bible says something does not make it ok. The Bible is full of horrible things.

"Tell me, how would you go about fighting radical muslims without killing any innocent civilians? Don't just tell me we can't, tell me how."

I am not interested in fighting radical muslims unless they are attacking my neighborhood. If that ever happens, we can talk.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

But you have no problem telling others how they can fight them?

Hopefully, people like me would make sure they never got close to your neighborhood.

I have no desire to mass kill but if we're attacked by people that see their religion as more superior, then you have to make sure they understand, it's not.

The world has been fighting Muslims for centuries and we've never finished the job out of compassion but they keep coming back like termites causing more harm. The crusades were the reaction to Muslim dominance. The final crusade will come once enough Muslims obtain nuclear weapons.

They won't hesitate to mass kill and are willing to kill themselves to carry it out.

They just may come to your neighborhood but it'll be too late to do anything about it at that point and you''ll wish we had killed them all.

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan


The Bombing of Dresden

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

So if there were anti Chinese radicals in the u.s. who threatened china, would you go hunt them down yourself and kill them? Would China be justified in bombing and killing your family and friends if they were unwilling or unable to kill the anti Chinese radicals?

Using your logic, Hitler was justified in trying to kill every Jew to get the minority of whom were communists and bankers who were destroying Germany from within and from the outside. The nazis couldn't tell one from the other since they hid amongst the population and their fellow Jews did not tell the nazis who they all were, kill them, or capture them to be handed over. So Hitler declared a final solution to the Germans Jewish problem.... Kill em all.

Do the ends justify the means?

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn

Do the people of a free country hold any responsibility...

for their government or ruling power when it harms another country?

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan

I'll give your link back and tell you to go read the comment section that disputes every reason mentioned.


The Bombing of Dresden

This one supports my argument.

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Again, disputed with fact and reason in the comments section.


Hmmmm...Chinese radicals in the U.S. that are planning to attack China leading to a nuclear retaliation. That's a good plot line for a movie. Would this be a false flag thingy or does our government not have any clue this is going to happen and only I do? If it's just me and it was coming down to a "24" (TV Show) scenario, I'd Jack Bauer every one of em'. I'd ask the Chinese to give me as much information they had on them and invite them to use my house as their command center in helping capture them. I'd also, if necessary, enlist as many patriots I could to route them out. Lastly, I'd let my government know that we have Chinese radicals in our country trying to start a war with China and it's not in our interest to allow that to happen, could they please lend a hand. If they refused and I wasn't successful in capturing or killing them myself or with the help of patriots, I'd leave the country and let the war begin. And yes, China would be justified in attacking us to protect their national interest if we stood by and did nothing.

Hitler and the Jews - Someone should tell Hamas, Iran and some of the people on this site that lobbing thousands of bombs into Israeli neighborhoods is attempted genocide. For some reason, that's not a good enough reason for the IDF to blow-up Palestinian neighborhoods even though Palestinians elected Hamas, who were created by the US and Israel to compete with the PLO. Maybe, they'll elect another party that will choose not to lob bombs and maybe trade with surrounding countries to create an economy and jobs. Oh! that's right, the Jews "stole" all the land that the Jews have historical ties to since biblical times.

I'd say the mass killings of Jews was unnecessary because many of the Jews were willing to turn over Communist within their group. Hitler wanted the wealth Jews had created, something about a Master Race and invaded countries that hadn't attacked Germany. So, that's not a good example to use.

Here's a better example, let's say a group flies airplanes into buildings that kill innocent civilians because of that country's foreign policy and they want to spread their religion throughout the world that limits freedom. They justify that there are no innocent people of that country because they elected the government that carries out that foreign policy that places troops on their holy land to monitor a no-fly zone of another country that same country attacked for attacking their neighboring country for stealing their oil and selling it to the country that attacked them.

Let's say the people did nothing and their government continued their foreign policy which brought on more attacks of civilians. Don't you think after a while more people would say, let's stop our government from their foreign policy? Let's get out of those countries but if they attack us after we do, let's annihilate them to the point we'll not have to worry of being attacked again?

So you support keeping U.S. troops in the Middle-East...

to prevent genocide? You can't have it both ways. Neocons argue that we must keep troops in every nation to prevent radicals from committing genocide. You agree with that?

Just a down vote?

Don't be a coward, answer the questions.

It wasn't me that downvoted you, brother.

Don't make assumptions :)

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

No assumptions made...

I was speaking to whoever it was that down-voted without stating their case.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Downvoted for babies and bath water

You said: "We have to hold to a foreign policy that states we will not clean your dirty laundry but if they soil our sheets, we will clean the whole basket and not just the one dirty sheet."

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Yeah, so?

I don't see what's wrong with a policy of non-intervention yet defending ourselves if attacked.

It isn't "defending yourself"

It isn't "defending yourself" if you are fighting people other than those who specifically attacked you. By your argument, you would nuke the Earth if one person threw a rock at you.

So Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong?

Carpet bombing Dresden in WW2 was wrong? Plenty of civilians died that didn't attack us. But both events helped end a war.

What we are doing now is what you recommend and it will never succeed. The bad guys can retreat, wait for us to leave and rear their ugly heads later. Otherwise, we have to keep troops in every country where a threat may occur and guess what, the civilians that you think we should save, don't want us there. They see us as occupiers and when we accidently kill a few or one of our guys loses it and kills a few, we become their enemy.

So how is that working for us? It's not.

The thing to do is to leave and let them deal with their radicals as they see fit but if they don't and their radicals attack us, we go in, clean house and leave.

How many American troops do you want to die playing whack-a-mole trying to spare the populace who won't fight for their own freedom from radicals and don't want us occupying their country while we haven't been attacked?

And let's say I had the power to nuke the world if someone threw a rock at me, what would you do if you saw someone pick-up a rock to throw at me? Would you just stand there and let them?

Wow! A down vote for non-intervention...

Let me welcome the neocon to the site.

Mr Stewart I also served in the military

In the deadliest combat zones in the world and you are either living in fantasy land or a bold face liar as I NEVER met a single soul who was motivated to kill us because we are free. What absolute hogwash. This man deserves to be ejected from his position and and his " military experience" be opened to the public.

Complete utter deceptive nonsense!

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops