MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
My first language isn’t English, what does AUC mean?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pro-Palestinian Peaceful Protests
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
It’s alphabet soup for a defunct right wing paramilitary group fighting communist guerrillas of the FARC, who lobbed a cylindro de gas, a notoriously inaccurate weapon, blowing up the church.
It took 17 years for the people to get the bodies back.
Why would anybody confuse the people in the sanctuary of the church, with communist guerillas or with right wing death squads?
Obviously, the people belong in their own category.
Otherwise, you are claiming that the civilians are terrorists, and giving the other side more reason to murder the civilians, due to the disinformation.
We have the same problem here in this forum, where the right and the left are saying that they need guns to fight each other in a civil war.
They argue that the people should have no voice, due to their being religious.
Only the fundamentalists should have a voice.
If this happens, I’ve already informed these posters here that we’ll be forced to flee the country for our own safety.
This is a way for the gundamentalists to cleanse the people from the land here in the USA.
War is a part of their religion, just like it’s a part of my wife’s religion, but the weapons with which this religion of war fight with are much more omnipotent.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You are mistaken.That's false.
Israel-Gaza: What did the ICJ ruling really say?
The ICJ ruling has come under intense scrutiny, centring on the word "plausible". What did the court mean?www.bbc.co.uk
This wasn't an investigation, it was an ruling based on the claims being made and whether South Africa had a right to make their case of genocide and whether the people of Palestine had a right to be protected under international law. It was NOT an investigation into whether genocide was ACTUALLY occurring. It made no such ruling that there was "not enough evidence to determine genocide".
"Today's ICJ decision can be summarized with this sentence: The court does not have the evidence to decide whether or not Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, but directs Israel to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention."
Experts react: What the International Court of Justice said (and didn’t say) in the genocide case against Israel
South Africa asked the court to order an immediate cease-fire. Israel asked the court to throw out the case. Atlantic Council experts explain what the court did instead.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
So it is EXACTLY as I said -- there was insufficient evidence to conclude genocide.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Alright so I don’t know enough about that FARC and its history. If you are saying in what I think you are saying then sure, there are 2 sides of combatants and one side of non-combatant.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, that is not what you said. You wrote:You are mistaken.
"Today's ICJ decision can be summarized with this sentence: The court does not have the evidence to decide whether or not Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, but directs Israel to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention."
Experts react: What the International Court of Justice said (and didn’t say) in the genocide case against Israel
South Africa asked the court to order an immediate cease-fire. Israel asked the court to throw out the case. Atlantic Council experts explain what the court did instead.
So it is EXACTLY as I said -- there was insufficient evidence to conclude genocide.
"the International Court of Justice looked into this very deeply, and while they did warn Israel about the number of casualties, there was insufficient evidence to determine genocide"
That's not what the court was trying to determine, and to imply such is false. This decision is unambiguously NOT about determining whether or not the evidence is SUFFICIENT to determine genocide, and they did not "look into" the evidence with the aim of reaching that decision.
You implied the purpose of the court was to evaluate evidence to determine if Israel WAS committing genocide. It wasn't. That's categorically not what they were doing. They weren't assessing evidence OF genocide. They were assessing whether or not the claim CAN be raised for the people of Palestine and whether or not South Africa's claims, IF investigated and found to be credible, WOULD constitute genocide. Hence, they DID NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE because that wasn't what was being assessed, not "they determined the evidence was insufficient".
Read it again. From your own link:
"While today’s decision did not—and was not intended to—answer the question of whether Israel is committing genocide, the court held that “at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.”"
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And you really believe this?
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Yes the zionist are the oppressors and the Palestinians are the one being oppressed.
you don’t agree?
Hamas does fight Israeli injustice.
Alas, Hamas too uses injustice in its fight.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Agree, even tho Hamas fight against injustice, some hamas soldiers have shown in the past to make no distinction between combatant vs non-combatant.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, I don't agree as I well know the modern history of the region and I have studied that here and there. Are you familiar with the Intifadas and how they were conducted? Iran's role in this? etc.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
I have somewhat knowledge of the intifada’s but I don’t see that a reason why the zionisten aren’t oppressors.
And about Iran, we can all speculate how far irans involvement is in here but doesn’t change the facts, that Palestine is a open air prison
I can't think of any rebellion or major uprising where foreign powers weren't involved.
France had a role in the American Revolution. Germany had a role in the Russian Revolution. The US had a role in the Mexican Revolution... and on and on.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, Zionists are "oppressors" but killing Israeli civilians in the name of "Allah" isn't?
No speculation of one realizes that Iran is the main supplier of arms for Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, ...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, that somehow justifies what Iran has been and continues to do? See last post above.
It's not about Iran; it's about Gaza.
In the American Revolution, France's reasons for supplying the revolutionaries with money and weapons were about undermining and destabilizing the UK, not about aiding American freedom. Still, this fact doesn't delegitimize the revolutionaries' cause.
I have no doubt that Iran is supporting Hamas to further its own political goals and not to altruistically free the Palestinian people. Still, this fact doesn't mean that the Palestinian people deserve to be bombed or that a Palestinian state shouldn't be recognized.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
How does one "justify" the USA playing the same role as Iran, just on the other side?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, is it OK with you if Hamas sends rockets into Israel like it did yesterday? Was what was done on
10-7 OK with you? Are rockets and missiles from Hezbollah, which is another Iranian proxy, hitting northern Israel acceptable to you? 90,000 Israelis there have left their home and had to move south, so why haven't you complained about this?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We are simply not playing the same role. That's like blaming the U.S. for helping the UK during WWII.
I'm not okay with war in general, but it makes sense that if the IDF attacks Hamas, Hamas would counter-attack.
Weren't you the one spouting platitudes like "this is war" a page or two ago?
I think abuses happened that should not have happened, but I also won't be the one to say that an oppressed people shouldn't fight back to remove themselves from their oppression.
There's a passage from MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail that resonates with me in cases like this:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
In this spirit, I tend not to "set a timetable for another man's freedom" or dispute the methods that oppressed people use when I can't point to methods that would be more effective.
Again: I think war is never a good option. That being said, I think it's reasonable that Palestinian allies come to Palestine's aid.
Why do you think I haven't complained about this?
It's certainly an inconvenience for these people, but it's far, far down my priority list.
90,000 people is orders of magnitude fewer than the millions of people displaced by IDF bombing.
Israel has functioning infrastructure to make sure that none of these people will starve, and to make sure that people will still get the medication and treatment they need for their health conditions.
An orderly, precautionary evacuation is nothing like forced displacement because your city has been destroyed.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
We did help the UK during WW2, despite George Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements; should we have done this?
However, if we were to be consistent with what we did during WW2 in putting an end to the genocide in Nazi-occupied Europe, we'd be putting an end to the genocide in Gaza as well.