Many of you do not know that Joseph Smith the founder of LDS was a member of and closely assiated with the Freemasons. Many of the religous ceremonies in LDS are stolen from or assosiated with Freemasonry. The freemason maskerade as a fraternity but are actually a cult/religion, who worship a pagan god. There can be nothing good to come from this, the word of god (Bible) is the only Truth, there is no other truth, the Devil is fooling you. Repent now and ask god for forgivness and he will show you all the lies.

Zionism, though influenced by fashionable eugenics of the time — and as such somewhat racist — was a wholly secular attemtp to build a socialist Utopia in Palestine.

There apparently were some disposed Palestinians; there also have been some displaced Jews. I don’t honestly know who has done what exactly, but I do know that the Anti-Semitic vitriol coming from Hamas would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous, as too many kids grow up only knowing that, and not knowing history and about the world at large.

I have some indigenous blood in me (Roma), and I guess that’s why I have always felt sensitive to racist ideas. I have heard the Anti-Zionist (Anti-Semitic) propaganda since the 1960s, and it has always given me the creeps, because they would have a rightful claim to land; they don’t have a rightful claim to genocide any more than the Israelis do!!

I put less faith in man and more in God and his prophets. More specifically the promise to the Tribe of Judah:

8 ¶ Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.
9 Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

The promise is to the Jews who will prevail with the help of two of Gods apostles.
12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

I certainly was trying to seem naive about the aims and goals of the Arab nations with regard to Israel and the entire region, for that matter. I am fully aware of the long term goal of the extreme and maybe not so extreme to have an Islam-dominated world. Not terribly different than the aims and goals of Christianity and the Church, in particular.

However, the Christians are not going about it by strapping suicide belts and vests to their young men and women and fooling them into offing themselves “for the cause.”

Some Christians are, in fact, hoping for the all our war as a means of bring on Armageddon and the second coming. that their support of Israel is only for that purpose.

While I certainly don’t follow the situation as closely as you do, I am also not a watcher of Al-Jezerra as it appears some people are. Any more than I watch Fox for real news.

I know that the Arabs hate the West and hate Israel. But if I didn’t, your own words predicting the near end of a Jewish state would be convincing evidence enough — or are
you now arguing that YOU are more extreme than the Arabs? From all of my reading, the decision-makers on the Arab side agree with you totally.

I also know that the Israeli media stopped talking about WHETHER there would be war with Iran almost two years ago. They switched to talking about WHEN. Everything then has been about preping the diplomatic and military battlefield for the explosion everyone anticipates is coming.

I know that the last Israeli election devastated the mainstream leftist and centrist parties because of the perception that they had been too slow to go to war with Hamas and had stopped the operations in Gaza too soon. (Labor, which had been the governing party through much of Israel’s history was reduced to minor party status, but spared further humiliation because its leader, Defense Minister Barak, was believed by the public to have fought competently and kept Israeli casualties low.) The hard left was reduced to a subfaction of Kadima (the “centrist party” in order to win any representation in the Israeli Knusset (Congress) at all. The Israeli right won a larger proportional mandate than Obama and the Democrats did in America.

Covert operations have been going on for months on both sides — from Hamas attack planning on the Suez canal to planting of defective nuclear entichment equipment by the West in the black market to slow down the Iranian nuclear program. The major press (including Fox) reports this only occasionally, like when the Israelis bomb a Syrian reactor (Syrian? What?) or a Russian freighter goes missing and the Northern Fleet sends an entire task force after a “load of lumber”, or another frieghter filled with dozens of tons of weapons and ammo from Iran to Labanon or Syria is boarded and displayed by Israel.

So, go ahead and list all the bad things you think the Israelis do — and thereby make my point that concern about violence on a scale of the 1967 war or larger is realistic, not paranoid.

Whether one interprets events in the mid-east from a prophetic-fulfillment framework or from a political-problem framework, people in the US and Europe need to be aware that the rhetoric of NAA about the near-term destruction of Israel is NOT extreme among Arab political leadership. This is incredibly dangerous and is so much like the rhetoric that preceded the 1967 explosion of violence.

This time such a war is not going to be fought in the relatively unpopulated Sinai or even in the Golan Heights. Arab weapon emplacements are fully integrated among their own civilian populations in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza and in range of Israeli population centers. They are under the effective control of the senior member of the alliance, a rising regional power, Iran, that very much needs an external enemy, and has been moving efficiently to encircle not only Israel, but into position to interdict oil supply lines through the Persian Gulf, the Horn of Africa, and the Suez Canal. That doesn’t even address the threat to Israel or the oil supplies represented by the nuclear and missile programs being pursued, or the instability extending from Iran through Afghanistan to Pakistan and possible conflict with India.

People need to understand that what is going on in the next couple of years is not going to be decided in Western capitals. For good or bad, the critical decisions are now being made elsewhere.

Thanks for calming me down! I can see having a reasonable discussion of the situation as it pertains to the Abrahamic Covenant since the various semitic peoples have a claim to it. But one must also look at it as a political problem as well as a religious one. No one has clean hands in this whole situation, but I’m sorry but NAA is way, way over the top here. And it must be called out for what it is.

Suffering of people of any kind is largely unnecessary and, in some cases, downright unforgivable if the means to eliminate it is available. But if that suffering is used for political purposes to justify acts and actions, well, I don’t really have the words to describe who wicked I think that it.

I will give NAA the benefit of the doubt; I’ll call it the dreaded “liberal guilt” instead. One is well off (inferred from the multiple degrees and opportunity to live and travel extensively in the Mid-East). One sees suffering. One can not stop the suffering. One is therefore ashamed of being well off. Getting rid of the shame can become more important than ending the suffering.

If Satan (considered either literally or metaphorically)wished to destroy good-hearted people, shame would be a most effective weapon.

That’s like saying you can go to school and get a master’s degree, but if you want the job and don’t have a master’s degree, we’ll just give you an honorary degree anyway. At that point, what does having a “master’s degree” really mean?

If you believe that the powerful Jews were in a mighty conspiracy since the 19th Century, then they surely were an impotent conspiracy in Europe by the 1940′s, weren’t they? How quickly they achieved such military dominance after 1945! And how supremely brilliant of the Jews to sucker the Arabs into initiating wars — not once, but multiple times. And to use their own kids as weapons! And to keep withdrawing from the land the Israelis conquered so they can suck the Arabs into yet another war! Sheer military brilliance!

The Arab states have been in decline relative to much of the world for centuries. They were once the greatest of civilizations; now they have become an intellectual backwater. That cannot be dealt with by looking inward and healing the society’s own flaws. That would be too painful. It must be the fault of some great conspiracy of all-powerful evil.

I’ve read the Palestinian line many times, NAA. I even know what the Irgun was. I neither have nor require a belief in Jewish innocence in order to know that the Palestinian leaders are behaving suicidally in more than one sense.

“You know, I couldn’t agree more. Funny, because Zionists are the one who do this every day. Palestinians on the other hand don’t, they fight for their survival and their family and friends who are being murdered, illegally kidnapped, and tortured as we speak.”

Let’s see. When was the time the Palestinians tried stopping violence and THEN asking for sympathy? Was it last week when they dropped floating bombs off the beaches near Ashkelon? How about December, when 5 Hamas operatives were caught infiltrating into Israel in a plot both to plant bombs in Tel Aviv and to kidnap another Israeli soldier, thereby repeating the actions that started the 2006 war?

Was it last fall when weapons stores in South Lebanon (forbidden by the 2006 war ceasefire) exploded even without Israeli help? And of course the Palestinians were trying peace when Hamas tunneled under the HQ of the Palestinian Authority and detonated the building as part of their takeover of the Palestinian government because the PA was possibly willing to settle for a two-state solution? Perhaps it was during the “cease-fire” before Operation CastLead in which 32 mortars and rockets were launched against Israeli civilian targets in a single 3-day period?

But you won’t grant today’s Israelis a right to their state even in this discussion. You hold to the cultural artifact that the land of one’s ancestors is essential to honor, and honor is more important than the lives of one’s children — the very immorality you accuse the Zionists of committing.

The situation is so beautifully symmetric: The Israeli position mirrors your own quote above:

“You know, I couldn’t agree more. Funny, because Palestinians are the one who do this every day. Israelis on the other hand don’t, they fight for their survival and their family and friends who are being murdered, illegally kidnapped, and tortured as we speak.”

I hold that the lives of individuals transcends the rights of groups. The latter only evolved to protect the rights of individuals, and they cease to be relevant moral considerations when they threaten to destroy — as they certainly are among the Palestinians — the very lives they are to supposedly protect.

I basically agree with this in the sense that all nationalisms are modern inventions. The Palestinian one is a more typical modern post-colonial one, essentially a gelling of the desire of people in some defined piece of geography (however logically or illogically that piece got its borders drawn) to become a modern state. The Zionist/Israeli one is actually a rather rarer specimen, a mixture of European colonialism and Eastern European influenced ethnic nationalism. But regardless, the value of a nationalism is in whether it can help lay a foundation to produce a harmonious and reasonably just society. When the single state comes, a new nationalism and nationalist myth will need to be built. Mandela was rather adept at doing this through symbolism, sports, and outreach. United Palestine will need leaders of similar wisdom, their presence is by no means a foregone conclusion (this is one point where I’d differ from As’ad Abukhalil for example, his desire for justice may be justifiable enough, but a prosperous shared future needs a dollop of healing and forgiveness as well once the core injustices have been overcome).

“From my reading of Zionist history, I really wish it weren’t called Zionism, if only for LDS sake. The word carries so much meaning for us that we immediately think that Zionism has something to do with religion at all. It doesn’t.”

Thank you, I believe this is a key point for members of the church to realize.

#29: “Should I keep going, or do you get the point?”

Oh, the game is so on! But only one last time, I am undoubtedly making many people very sick of the topic, so I’ll go back to my dark lurking again after this. Look, all you’ve really said is that you have bought Zionist propaganda hook line and sinker like a lemming your whole life and never bothered to actually see what was going on. I was like you once to be fair, but I opened my eyes. Not that I expect any of this to change the opinions of someone who refuses to walk a mile in the other guys shoes (I’ve walked more than my fair share of miles in both sides shoes and drawn my conclusions after that), but let’s go through the exercise for the sake of the facts if nothing else.

“The GOAL is irrelevant, as is the internal rationalization. Buying something is not immoral, nor is selling it.”

If your goal is to use the (surreptitious) acquisition of one piece of property in order to steal much larger quantities of property (and murder many of the owners deliberately in the process both for the greed of obtaining the property and the racist hatred of that owner), the goal is not only relevant, the buying and selling of property in such a case is deeply immoral.

“While I was not alive in 1948, I was certainly around shortly enough thereafter to know which side had the planes and the tanks in 1948 and which side declared war.”

Really, I’m giggling here. Because I know what you think. You think that black is white, white is black, it’s dark as midnight staring into the noonday sun, and above all you think that the Arab armies vastly outnumbered the Zionists and that the Arabs declared war on poor tiny little Israel out of the blue. You do realize that you are factually wrong on all counts? I will point you to Ilan Pappe’s excellent book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” to disabuse you of your myths in excruciating detail – http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265929184&sr=8-1 . Heck, I’ll buy and mail you a copy if you won’t pick it up yourself. Pappe relies primarily on Israel’s own declassified documents (the book would be much richer if his Arabic and grasp of the Arabic sources were better), but the guy does a very good job nonetheless. Ben Gurion and the whole Zionist leadership knew they had the military advantage the whole way through (just as they did in 1967). They had more fighters in the field, they had better trained fighters, and with the possible exception of the Jordanians they had better weapons (and the Jordanians didn’t want to fight anyways, they were in collusion with the Zionist leadership the whole time and only fought to ensure the deal they had made with the Zionists would be upheld). More importantly, the Arab Liberation Army’s entry into the war was late and utterly unmotivated (non-working weapons, insufficient supplies, insufficient manpower, almost total lack of coordination), reflecting reluctant Arab puppet monarchs utter disdain for saving the Palestinians from ethnic cleansing but a tidal wave of popular revulsion at the ethnic cleansing going on Palestine that they couldn’t ignore. And that ethnic cleansing – the REAL start of the war – occurred many many months before the UN partition resolution and the ALA’s far too late entry into the war. Many of the ALA’s fighters were brave and tried to prevent the Srebrenicas of Palestine, but to no avail. Indeed, prior to the ALA’s intervention (and given the ALA’s near total military failure thanks to the Arab rulers’ corruption, even after their intervention in most cases), there was no war at all, civil or international, there was only a pure ethnic cleansing. Ben Gurion was practically giddy. In public he wore a somber face talking about the existential threat they all face, in his private memos he can barely contain how thrilled he is to be driving Palestinians from their homes, dynamiting their villages (on numerous occasions with families still sleeping in them in the middle of the night), looting their properties and bank accounts, and allowing massacres and rapes to occur on a regular basis which scared even more refugees into fleeing. There was no war, there was only a brutal, racist ethnic cleansing by Zionists of Palestinians. The Palestinians who tried to fight back to defend their homes, families, and faith Captain-Moroni-like were ruthlessly slaughtered or driven across the border.

“You can argue all you want about what the Israelis may have intended to do or what they did (what both sides did) AFTER the war started. But it was the Arabs that chose door number 2, and they are responsible for the consequences of that choice.”

Seriously, are you just setting up arguments meant to be easy to knock down? Israel started the ethnic cleansing BEFORE any official war started. Deliberately, brutally, and with extreme efficiency. The Palestinians chose no door. Their choice was to stay right where they were. For that, they were first killed in battle, then if they survived many were executed on the spot (it was standard Zionist procedure in 1948-9 to round up the men in a village after taking it over, get a Quisling informer in a black hood to identify anyone who had been involved in politics that didn’t support the Zionists, and execute him on the spot), and then the remainder disarmed with bullets firing over their heads were thrown across the borders and told never to come back (and if they did come back to check on their homes, they were shot on sight, Israel killed thousands of “infiltrators” this way in the early years of the state). The Palestinians made no such choice to start a war, the Zionists did, they had all the power, they abused it to the max, the Palestinians were made to pay the price of others choices against their will.

“And I was certainly aware enough to watch the Arab nations blockade Israel (an act of war) in 1967″

Ah, 1967, the mother of all myths. When the “oh poor us we’re in danger” myths of the Israelis were peddled louder than ever, even as the generals knew more deeply than ever that they had complete military superiority and worried not the least bit. What was Dayan’s quote right before the war about what would happen if war broke out? I’m paraphrasing from memory, it was something like ‘the very survival of the Jewish people is in danger…and I’ll meet you for lunch in Damascus”. I suggest you read Avi Shlaim’s book “The Iron Wall” for a good view of what was really going on in 1967 from the Israeli side, the Generals (who have always run that little war-crazy entity) were giddy and itching for a war and looking for any way they could to provoke it. For Nasser’s part strategically, the man seriously overplayed his hand rhetorically. Having just drained his military white in a pointless war in Yemen (Egypt’s long-forgotten Vietnam, to this day few Egyptians know or talk about it), he shouldn’t have given the Zionists any pretext to attack in western eyes, but he did, even though Nasser never had any intention of starting a war – he was too weak and he knew it, and the ease with which his forces were smashed showed just how much his military wasn’t on a war footing despite a couple guns at Tiran here and there. Morally of course, the right outcome would have been Israel’s defeat, that little ethnic-cleansing Apartheid state had no more “right to exist” then than it did in 1948 or than it does today anymore than Apartheid South Africa had a “right to exist”. But Nasser was a fool and got his tail handed to him on a silver platter. On the bright side, the Arab dictators having been weakened, independent Palestinian bodies (as corrupt as they’ve unfortunately become since) did at least emerge from their two-decade burial.

“I remember thereafter when the Arab “rejectionist front” formed and swore it would never negotiate peace.”

Today we have only the Arab Quisling front of Saudi-Egypt-Jordan-Hariri Inc. Returning to the 3 no’s of Khartoum is the only way to real peace. One state with equal rights for all is the only practical solution.

“I was around when the Arabs invaded Israel in 1973, and almost brought the world to nuclear war between the US and Russia when the attacking Egyptian army was surrounded. At least the Egyptians figured out that it might be better to live with the Israelis than keep trying to conquer them. And guess what, they got their land back.”

Oh, how many gems will you give me to shoot down here? Rather ironic isn’t it that the US would go to nuclear war to defend a little Apartheid state isn’t it? Although nuclear war in reality was never a serious consideration in that case, that’s a myth, neither the Soviets or the Americans considered it worth the destruction of the planet. As for “the Egyptians”, Anwar Sadat the unrepentant anti-Jewish Nazi admirer had one goal only in mind: preserving his own power. He was more than willing to sell not only his soul, but certainly the Palestinians down the river, to get US guns and money since he’d grown dissatisfied with the Soviets and booted their advisors. “The Egyptians” however, greatly to their credit, overwhelmingly reject the racist state on their borders to this day. Though Mubarak has joined Sadat in jailing, torturing, and murdering those who speak up too noisily about helping the Palestinians. Oh, and you and I give Mubarak a billion dollars a year in free guns and money to ensure he continues jailing, torturing, and murdering anyone who dislikes Israeli racism.

“If you can’t grasp that having a few million highly educated and inventive people from another culture as neighbors can be an asset”

Ah, now I get it. We need good white people to teach the darkies how to be civilized huh? How very white of you. Because Arabs are too stupid and backwards to figure out modern life on their own huh? Why don’t you go on a lecture tour of Syria and Egypt with that message and let me know how it goes. More generally, your worship of the totally firm-as-jello notion of culture makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

“No Israeli government will ever again depend on non-Jews for Jewish safety.”

Nope, because in a few years, there won’t be an Israeli government just as there’s no longer an Apartheid South African government. There will however be a unified government of Un-Holy-Landia or whatever they decide to call it which will protect all it’s citizens rights equally. Here’s a hint: there is no safety for anyone to be found in denying other people their basic God-given rights.

“ask for the world’s sympathy”

Because the world has been so good at having sympathy for the Palestinians? We’ve seen how that works, the more the Palestinians surrender their most basic humanity, the more they get treated like trash by the “international community”.

“You do not have the right to kill living people today for injustices, even when real, inflicted on your dead ancestors by their dead ancestors”

You know, I couldn’t agree more. Funny, because Zionists are the one who do this every day. Palestinians on the other hand don’t, they fight for their survival and their family and friends who are being murdered, illegally kidnapped, and tortured as we speak.

The GOAL is irrelevant, as is the internal rationalization. Buying something is not immoral, nor is selling it.

And I am suggesting that we Americans will be in the LAST position to complain for the violation of our GROUP rights if Native Americans or African Americans or the Chinese buy up our assets and change our culture.

While I was not alive in 1948, I was certainly around shortly enough thereafter to know which side had the planes and the tanks in 1948 and which side declared war. And I have certainly studied enough military history to know that Zionism was always a desire to escape from European pogroms that predated the movement by centuries. (Perhaps the Palestinians have a better moral case for driving the Europeans into the Arctic, after all.) You can argue all you want about what the Israelis may have intended to do or what they did (what both sides did) AFTER the war started. But it was the Arabs that chose door number 2, and they are responsible for the consequences of that choice.

And I was certainly aware enough to watch the Arab nations blockade Israel (an act of war) in 1967, and listen on the radio (in my high school government class, ironically) as the networks broadcast how the Arabs were about to avenge their 1948 defeat and destroy Israel once and for all — and the shock when the Israelis routed the Arab armies. I remember thereafter when the Arab “rejectionist front” formed and swore it would never negotiate peace.

I was aware when the Palestinians tried to turn Jordan into a launching pad for another war, and were forcibly expelled by that nation. They then set up shop in Lebanon, and spread war there.

I was around when the Arabs invaded Israel in 1973, and almost brought the world to nuclear war between the US and Russia when the attacking Egyptian army was surrounded. At least the Egyptians figured out that it might be better to live with the Israelis than keep trying to conquer them. And guess what, they got their land back.

Should I keep going, or do you get the point? If you can’t grasp that having a few million highly educated and inventive people from another culture as neighbors can be an asset and not a violation of your group rights, you are making a very bad life choice.

Try a new strategy. No Israeli government will ever again depend on non-Jews for Jewish safety. Accept the right to a Jewish state, stop the attacks, and then come and ask for the world’s sympathy. You do not have the right to kill living people today for injustices, even when real, inflicted on your dead ancestors by their dead ancestors.

That insanity has radicalized both the Israeli and the Arab “street” amd is leading the region to a self-fulfilling prophecy of catastrophic war.

Theodor Herzl, the late 19th-century founder of Zionism for our purposes (there were other ideas floating about, but no one made it all come together like he did), was as secular of a Jew as they came. He had seen the Dreyfus affair and the attempts at assimilation into European society and saw that they had failed. He just wanted to create a homeland for the Jews where they could be safe from persecution. Yes, Palestine would be nice, he thought, but other locales such as Argentina or even the American West fit his preferences nicely He just wanted to get away from the state-sponsored anti-Jewish terrorism of Europe. Interestingly, for the most part, Jews themselves didn’t buy it. More Jews came to America in the late 19th-century than went to Palestine during the same time.

As far as the religious nature of the movement, there were certain factions of it that were Christian or orthodox Jewish. They read into the Hebrew Bible to suggest that Harry S Truman or Herzl was somehow fulfilling the word of God. But for the most part, Jews saw the gathering as the work of God and that Herzl was being extraordinarily presumptuous. Rabbis in Basel gathered and issued an condemnation of his movement, saying he was usurping God’s authority. The gathering was God’s job, not his. I just talked to a professor who had a ancestor that was banished from his orthodox Jewish household for being a Zionist.

It would be like a secular, but sympathetic Mormon (think a well-connected, sympathetic, inactive Mormon) suddenly declaring that Mitt Romney’s candidacy proves our incompatibility with American society and that we should start the gathering process all over again. Missouri would be nice, but there are other good places too.

The Palestinians’ claim to Palestinian nationalism is no more legitimate for similar reasons–it’s an artificial nationalism born far too late in the game to be representative of historical reality.

Your lack of historical understanding is surprising to me, I expect it from Thomas he does not know any better. I guess those in the US have difficulties with the morality of this conflict because it is exactly the same thing that they did to the Native -Americans and according to Mormonism the “Northern” US was reserved for his choice people.

The British who raped half the world don’t try to deny there misdeeds by cloaking them in the divine providence, they were just inbred entitled misfits.

Firetag: If the goal of Zionism was for people to move back to Palestine and join the country, your argument might hold some water. But that tiny strain of Zionism was silenced early. The goal of mainstream Zionism (aptly labelled “Gun Zionism” by one analyst) was never to simply peacefully move to Palestine and join the place. The goal from the beginning was to take it over and dispossess the existing inhabitants if they refused to accept the racial superiority of their new overlords. The Zionists are the KKK, the Palestinians are the African-Americans and Native Americans. Your analogy is utterly upside down (and just as ridiculous as Thomas’ claim that the pieds noirs were ethnically cleansed or that the French were outgunned, the Algerians won their independence despite losing the war militarily, as was the case in many anti-colonial wars). And yes, anyone faced with a violent takeover of their entire country by foreigners, has the right to resist that violent takeover by force. I am always amazed that we Americans who went to war and killed for our independence over taxes, fail so often to have the least sympathy for people fighting for freedom from far worse oppression. I also find your group-individual notion bizarre in the extreme. A group of Zionists came to Palestine with a specific plan to take the place over, make it theirs and theirs alone, but you treat it like it was just some random process of individual immigration. If that were really the case, the conflict wouldn’t exist. A group of people acting in a deliberate and organized fashion as a group – Zionists – created the conflict and maintain it to this day. Whether one is a Palestinian or even an anti-Zionist Jew, that group of people will crush you by force of arms in Palestine if you resist them. African Americans are already Americans, KKK types are trying to deny them what is already theirs (hence the accurate comparison of the KKK to Zionists). Latinos and other immigrants to the US are not coming to the US to take it over and kick everyone else out if they refuse, but to be a part of the country or to make money and head back home, hence the inapplicability of the comparison to Zionists whose goal was and is explicitly to take the place over and ethnically cleanse the country whenever given the chance.

NAA seems to be saying that if people seek to immigrate for a better life (HOWEVER they define better) by buying land with the explicit or implicit permission of the government or the current population — after all someone is selling the land or buying their labor at at least black market rates — and do so in such numbers that the cultural character of the area is changing, the current population is justified in violence to keep the cultural character the same.

If I follow that principle, I would have to conclude that the KKK and skinheads who have resisted the rise of African Americans in many American cities are morally justified. I’d have to conclude that American citizens in the SW are justified in calling in the troops from Ft. Hood to expel all the Latinos from Texas, Arizona, and California.

Anybody really want to go to that kind of hell on earth?

Rights belong to people. Groups exist to help persons. When those groups start harming the very people they are claiming to protect, the group identity needs to diminish.

At the same time the promise that through Abraham all the people’s of the world would be blessed, I think, was taken to mean by early and current church leaders that through the LDS Church all the world should be blessed.