Student Protests Against Israel Are Wonderful

[We Never Know]

I do.

Jealous?
I don't post to boost my count.
It just happens.
If you want a higher count, try to be more
interesting. Then other posters will
engage you more.

Steering things to more relevance to the OP.....
Are you jumping into this discussion
to further derail the thread in order
to support Israel's genocide?

I do.

Bs

Jealous?

About what. That you spend most of your time here posting? Not a chance lol

I don't post to boost my count.

BS. That's the main reason you post.

It just happens.

Yep. Because its all you have.

If you want a higher count, try to be more
interesting. Then other posters will
engage you more.

My count doesn't matter. Its doesn't change or affect my life.

Steering things to more relevance to the OP.....
Are you jumping into this discussion
to further derail the thread in order
to support Israel's genocide?

Whine Whine Whine. Where was your concern before hamas attacked Israel?
Yep it didn't exist. Go back under your rock.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can expect protests to continue because
there'll be no cessation of violence. And we
can expect Bide to stay the course of no
action to stop the genocide.

Israel will launch Rafah invasion with or without ceasefire deal, says Netanyahu

Prime minister says war won’t stop until all objectives are achieved

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Revoltingest]

Bs

What an ironic thing to say.

That you spend most of your time here posting?

Does this upset you?

Not a chance lol

BS. That's the main reason you post.

Yep. Because its all you have.


My count doesn't matter. Its doesn't change or affect my life.


Whine Whine Whine. Where was your concern before hamas attacked Israel?
Yep it didn't exist. Go back under your rock.

Goodness, it appears that I touched a nerve.
And I see that you don't deny your support for genocide.
But why hostile posts about my post count?
This must be more than jealousy.
Do you resent that someone disagrees with you?
Or that you're unable to argue effectively, & so
often resort to personal criticism?

 

[Stevicus]

I understand that that's a peaceful, diplomatic sentiment. But I think it's not true and it soft pedals the situation. I do not believe peace can be achieved if we start with bad premises. We need to take Jihadis at their word.

Well, if we had a time machine, we could back and tell our past governments to not mess around in the Middle East at all. Unfortunately, that's not possible, our government got involved, and now we're stuck in a situation. The British and French were also involved in that area for a long time as well.

So, we've been messing around in their countries for quite a long time now, and now they're mad at us, with some even wanting to have some kind of jihad. Their grudge is similar to many other countries which have had a righteous grievance against us, with some even becoming radicalized and violent. In Latin America, the Far East, Africa - any place in the world where we've made our mark, we can find people who don't like us very much. It's not really that difficult to figure out the reasons why.

To be sure, U.S. policy has evolved and reformed somewhat. We're not as bad as we used to be, although there's still some room for improvement. But certain political factions seem to be in flux these days, so who knows what direction we might go, both in terms of foreign and domestic policies?

I'm not sure who the Jihadis are or what word from them we should take. I know what terrorists are capable of, although they come in different forms and often use different names. I still remember when those Israeli athletes were killed in the 1972 Olympics.

One thing I've noticed about terrorism is that the only thing they really create is terror (living up to the name, I suppose). Strictly speaking, at least looking at some terrorist groups in memory, they don't really seem to make that much of a dent in their target, when viewed from a military/tactical standpoint. They might create a lot of misery and heartache, but they never seem to be able to achieve their ultimate goal of prevailing over whatever enemy they are targeting. They have to operate underground because they are few in number and don't have the logistical support and training of a national army.

In other words, I'm not too worried that they could invade and take over the U.S. and impose Sharia law. I don't even think most of these protesters would go along with that. Yes, there may be a few who are dangerous and should be watched. But even that's something we should do with care. The idea of putting people on "watch lists" has a bad connotation. Before acceding to the government using that kind of power, we should first imagine President Lauren Boebert having that kind of power and ask ourselves "Do we really want to do that?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell.me the number of the post where I stated "it's absolutely fine to kill civilians".

You literally just said that if a civilian is being used as a human shield and, as a consequence, is killed by someone else, the blame is on the person using them as a shield. Ergo, there is no moral culpability on the part of the person killing the civilian.

I'll simplify it for you. There are two actions:

1) A terrorist using a civilian as a human shield.
2) Shooting a terrorist through a human shield.

Now, which one of these two acts is completely and totally fine and blameless?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you have to lie about someone and move goalposts you are losing the argument.

Like you just did?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is not only an excellent point

Hilarious.

Would you therefore argue that it's perfectly fine for me to, right now, kill your family and steal their home, and suffer no consequences for it?

 

[libre]

It sounds like you're pushing an "oppressed vs. oppressor"worldview, did I get that wrong?

I'm not 'pushing' anything.
A poster tried to suggest that natives in North America may find these white protestors hypocritical.
I pointed out that the events of the last 6 months have shown that hundreds of the First Nations have come out to overwhelmingly recognize Palestinians as Indigenous and demand a ceasefire.

If the protestors are hypocritical it would be because of their stances on the US and Canada, not Israel.

I'm not interested in arguing against whatever you are suggesting about all land being stolen land - I'd consider that to be both derailing the thread and flogging a dead horse.

 

[Ignatius A]

You literally just said that if a civilian is being used as a human shield and, as a consequence, is killed by someone else, the blame is on the person using them as a shield. Ergo, there is no moral culpability on the part of the person killing the civilian.

I'll simplify it for you. There are two actions:

1) A terrorist using a civilian as a human shield.
2) Shooting a terrorist through a human shield.

Now, which one of these two acts is completely and totally fine and blameless?

Where did I say any of it was fine and blameless? What I said is the blood of those deaths is on the hands of Hamas. Israel did not compel Hamas to put civilians in harms way. Israel has right to defend itself. Hamas has no right to put civilians in harms way. Hamas is far more evil and culpable

 

[Ignatius A]

Hilarious.

Would you therefore argue that it's perfectly fine for me to, right now, kill your family and steal their home, and suffer no consequences for it?

What did they do that made you so angry that would wanted to kill them and take their home? You want to focus only on one side of the issue. BTW Israel left gaza 25 years ago was it? Look the dilemma you have is you're defending a group of people we ho explicitly want kill every new on thd planet. As long as that's the case your whining falls on deaf ears.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where did I say any of it was fine and blameless?

So, to be clear, you DO believe that just because Hamas use civilians as human shields, it doesn't justify Israel killing them?

What I said is the blood of those deaths is on the hands of Hamas.

And what about Israel? Are Israel blameless or no?

Israel did not compel Hamas to put civilians in harms way.

But they did kill the civilians. And considering the history of the region, with Israel strictly controlling entrance to and exit from Gaza, it could be argued that they actually DID compel Hamas to put civilians in harms way, to an extent. When you effectively crowd millions of people after a decades long project of settler colonialism into an area roughly the size of Detroit, it seems to suggest you're at least a little culpable when you start bombing it.

Israel has right to defend itself.

To any extent, even if doing so includes war crimes and disproportionately killing civilians?

Hamas has no right to put civilians in harms way. Hamas is far more evil and culpable

"More" evil and culpable implies that there IS culpability and evil on both sides. Would you like to acknowledge that?

 

[libre]

BTW Israel left gaza 25 years ago was it?

No, it was not. They withdrew in 2005, but have continued to maintain a blockade since 2007.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What did they do that made you so angry that would wanted to kill them and take their home?

Ah, so a history of bad things happening to you CAN factor into a decision to harm civilians?

You want to focus only on one side of the issue.

Considering I've been very explicit in stating that both Hamas and Israel are at moral fault (even in the very last post I made that YOU READ AND RESPONDED TO) this is obviously a complete mischaracterization.

BTW Israel left gaza 25 years ago was it?

Israel's military occupation left 19 years ago. They still have extremely tight controls on the region to the extent that Israel have greater control on it than even Hamas do.

Look the dilemma you have is you're defending a group of people we ho explicitly want kill every new on thd planet.

But the question is: does that justify ANY level of response, up to and including war crimes and mass civilian casualties? Collateral damage, perhaps, can't be avoided when engaging in any kind of military response - especially against a group like Hamas who do not care about civilian casualties (if anything, they celebrate it as martyrdom). But there should be a distinct difference between unavoidable collateral damage and just plain flagrant disregard for civilian casualties. What is being argued is not that Hamas aren't a threat, or that no military response is possible or civilian casualties necessary, but that the military response that IS CURRENTLY ONGOING is disproportionate and carried out in such a way as to suggest a total disregard for the lives of civilians in Gaza, to the extent that what's happening can credibly be called a war crime and allegations of genocide are being made in international courts by multiple countries.

As long as that's the case your whining falls on deaf ears.

How wrong of me to "whine" over tens of thousands of civilian deaths. What a snowflake I am.

 

[icehorse]

You seem to be supporting genocide.
But without the courage to take a clear stand.

you seem to continue to be confused. perhaps it's because of your inability to ask honest questions on this topic?

 

[icehorse]

I'm not sure who the Jihadis are or what word from them we should take. I know what terrorists are capable of, although they come in different forms and often use different names. I still remember when those Israeli athletes were killed in the 1972 Olympics.

It's a loose definition to be sure, but I think Islamic terrorists are usually Jihadis. They claim to want to conquer other lands in a holy war. Hamas fits the bill. And to be sure, the US's foreign actions have been horrific for decades. But again, Jihadis have been around since before there was a US. Really Jihadis have been around since the establishment of Islam.

In other words, I'm not too worried that they could invade and take over the U.S. and impose Sharia law. I don't even think most of these protesters would go along with that. Yes, there may be a few who are dangerous and should be watched. But even that's something we should do with care. The idea of putting people on "watch lists" has a bad connotation. Before acceding to the government using that kind of power, we should first imagine President Lauren Boebert having that kind of power and ask ourselves "Do we really want to do that?"

Agreed. But I think what we do need to worry about is what I'll call a "soft invasion". There are signs of a soft invasion all over Europe. Large numbers of immigrants who have no interest in assimilating into their host country's culture. Immigrants who hold some core values or beliefs that are counter to the values of the host countries. Misogony, homophobia, and a desire for theocracy come to mind, among others.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not 'pushing' anything.
A poster tried to suggest that natives in North America may find these white protestors hypocritical.
I pointed out that the events of the last 6 months have shown that hundreds of the First Nations have come out to overwhelmingly recognize Palestinians as Indigenous and demand a ceasefire.

If the protestors are hypocritical it would be because of their stances on the US and Canada, not Israel.

I'm not interested in arguing against whatever you are suggesting about all land being stolen land - I'd consider that to be both derailing the thread and flogging a dead horse.

I'm just asking about a post you made. Maybe I have it wrong, but it seems you don't want to defend it? Like you want to do a hit and run?

 

[esmith]

To the question of are all protesters at the schools students the answer is a big fat NO.
Many arrested at Columbia University were professional protesters.

NYPD clears Hamilton Hall, encampment at Columbia; dozens arrested: police sources

Columbia University's Hamilton Hall was cleared after the NYPD moved in and made dozens of arrests on campus Tuesday night, according to police sources.

abc7ny.com

"Police sources say most of the protesters arrested were not Columbia students, but rather "mostly professionals.""

 

[Ignatius A]

So, to be clear, you DO believe that just because Hamas use civilians as human shields, it doesn't justify Israel killing them?


And what about Israel? Are Israel blameless or no?


But they did kill the civilians. And considering the history of the region, with Israel strictly controlling entrance to and exit from Gaza, it could be argued that they actually DID compel Hamas to put civilians in harms way, to an extent. When you effectively crowd millions of people after a decades long project of settler colonialism into an area roughly the size of Detroit, it seems to suggest you're at least a little culpable when you start bombing it.


To any extent, even if doing so includes war crimes and disproportionately killing civilians?


"More" evil and culpable implies that there IS culpability and evil on both sides. Would you like to acknowledge that?

I never said Israel was justified. The issue is the behavior of both sides is not morally equivalent. Hamas has an explicit goal of eradicating Jews and they sacrifice their own citizens to gain support for their genocidal agenda. Israel could do much more to help their own cause but they have a right to defend themselves against eradication. They have also tried peaceful means in the past to resolve conflict and to disastrous effects. Unless and until Hamas denounces their desire to eradicate Jews and stop sacrificing their own citizens I have less regard for their position.

 

[Ignatius A]

No, it was not. They withdrew in 2005, but have continued to maintain a blockade since 2007.

Ok 19 years. How many Palestinians live in Israel? How many Jews live in Gaza?

 

[Revoltingest]

you seem to....

Nothing useful followed that.