Palestinian does not equal HAMAS

a reply to: Insurrectile

We never agreed with the election results of 2006 and went on to support Fatah in their fight with Hamas.

Who’s “we”?

The Palestinians? Because polling has consistently shown them with majority support.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Then what’s the difference?

How can you tell them apart?

Wait so in your myopic view all Palestinians are Hamas because Hamas won an election?

Or do you care to just not take the time to make the distinction between the two?

With that line of thinking then we are all Biden supporters. Hamas has more in common with a prison gang than a legitimate government. Acting like they have any autonomy is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Israel had the opportunity to use the Oct 7th tragedy to unite people around the globe to their cause possibly resulting in some sort of meaningful resolution. Instead Israel decided to take the sadist approach instantly loosing the support of millions around the globe.

Zionism is a cancer just like Wahhabism.

The mental gymnastics from people trying to justify collective punishment against women and children is repugnant. I hope these people at least have the decency to admit what side they were on when our grandchildren ask who they supported when the largest mass murder of our generation was occurring.

a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Just to jump in here before the thread gets too long.

About halfway through, Chomsky speaks of the shift that occurred in 1967.
Basically, that the U.S. and Israel started supporting religious nationalism as a means to counter secular nationalism.

My observation is that it seemed to be happening in the U.S. in the 1970s. Iran went in 1979, Turkey was early 2000s, Taliban in the 80s. I don't know if the Saudis are trying to get away from radical Islamic nationalism or not, but the crown prince has made noise to that effect anyway.

The whole U.S. invasion of Iraq made no sense to me whatsoever. It was taking down a secular socialist regime, to be quickly get taken over by religious extremism. Very counterproductive.

Now the U.S. is getting religiously extreme to try to counter Islamic extreme. Very bad move IMHO.

a reply to: JAY1980

Not all Germans were Nazis. Not all Japanese hated the US.

Civilians die in war. That is why they are so horrible. Innocent deaths.

Palestine needs to root out Hamas and turn them over to Israel.

If not, alot of innocent Palestinians are going to die.

Time for them to brave up and tell the Israels what they know about Hamas, who they are, where they hide.

a reply to: FullHeathen

What evidence do you have that the US is getting more religiously extreme?

a reply to: Klassified

Are you agreeing here with the topic post?

I'm only asking because you provided nothing of value, argument-wise, towards any position.

You have to imagine I am blind to sarcasm, if that is the aim, when you reply to my posts.

a reply to: FullHeathen

One could hardly believe the leaders of USA and Israel actually believe the way the War of Terror™ is still being conducted, after decades of escalation, is in such a way as to put an end to terrorism.

One could entirely make the connection that the topic disinformation would 100% support the age-old strategy of conducting the War on Terror™ by making little to no distinctions between the terrorists and the noncombatant civilians with whom the terrorists also terrorize.

a reply to: FullHeathen

If you wish to know why we went into Iraq, you must look back to the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam was issued some nasty toys by Bush the Elder. One was anthrax. To be used to kill our mutual enemy: Iran.

Saddam went rogue. US spanked him hard, but left him in power. So he helped fund 9/11 and did the anthrax attack on the US mail.

We had to take him out and clean up what toys he had left, that had not already been moved to Syria, that is.

It's not that hard to figure out when you take the longer view.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No, we as in "US & UK support" in their fight with Hamas.

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Then what’s the difference?

How can you tell them apart?

Wait so in your myopic view all Palestinians are Hamas because Hamas won an election?

Or do you care to just not take the time to make the distinction between the two?

The mental gymnastics from people trying to justify collective punishment against women and children is repugnant.

If it was mental-gymnastics, then there would be indication that they would be trying to come to an understanding, through civil discourse, because that would require an internal conflict of conscience.

Is it really mental-gymnastics, though, if they keep repeating the lie over and over and over, in the face of logical rebuttal?

Can we call it disinformation?

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

The current House Speaker for one.
The whole seven mountain dominionism seeking to religiously control all aspects of the secular cultural and political pillars of society.

Just the explicitly spoken premise that the U.S. is founded on Judeo-Christianity, which is not true. U.S. is founded on Enlightenment philosophy.

a reply to: FullHeathen

There are over 2 billion Christians on the planet.

Almost 2 billion Muslims.

There are 1.5 billion non-religious people.

Followed by Hindus and Buddhists with another billion.

Its very statistically likely that many Christians will be in US govt. And that is ok because we have a REPRESENTATIVE government.

The US has always had a Bible Belt. If you think it's bad now, you should have been here in the 50s.

a reply to: BiothermalReactor

by making little to no distinctions between the terrorists and the noncombatant civilians with whom the terrorists also terrorize.

Ideologies don't bleed, burn, or get crushed under rubble; people do.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Its very statistically likely that many Christians will be in US govt. And that is ok because we have a REPRESENTATIVE government.

Yes. Those who value liberty for all refrain from legislating religion.
Those who value their own personal beliefs dominating others don't refrain.

All it would take is a simple Constitutional Amendment to establish an official religion. Follow that with anti-blasphemy laws.

That would be bad; very bad.


I fear that this is going off topic.
I fear having posts deleted.
I fear I shall back away now.

a reply to: FullHeathen

There is not a requirement to legislate against your own belief system! You were sent to legislate and represent people that hold the same system.

You just wish everyone believed the same as you. Well, you are of that very large group that is not religious and your group is well represented in US govt as well.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: FullHeathen

There are over 2 billion Christians on the planet.

Almost 2 billion Muslims.

There are 1.5 billion non-religious people.

Followed by Hindus and Buddhists with another billion.

Its very statistically likely that many Christians will be in US govt. And that is ok because we have a REPRESENTATIVE government.

The US has always had a Bible Belt. If you think it's bad now, you should have been here in the 50s.

I’ve never been proselytize by a Jew. Don’t know anyone who was, unless they were marrying into the family.

Christianity proselytizes but believes you have a choice.

The Muslim religion is forced wherever they settle and it’s by any means necessary. See the videos in my first post in this thread.

Let’s not even mention which legal system is the most oppressive.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

There is not a requirement to legislate against your own belief system! You were sent to legislate and represent people that hold the same system.

Unless your office represents a whole nation, and you were sent to represent an entire constituency, not your sect only. Nice interview on al jazeera btw, I like the way you spun the death of all those kids like an absolute warmonger. #Feminism

a reply to: Insurrectile

Again, there is no requirement to suspend your religious beliefs to serve as a representative in govt.

NONE.

How about the non-religious become religious when they are elected? Chances are, statistically, there are twice as many religious people in their constituency group.

Majority rules in democracy.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

How about the non-religious become religious when they are elected?

That's exactly my point, because they might have to represent religious folks as well. Only all of them, right?

a reply to: Insurrectile

So you ARE saying that a non-religious person needs to represent their religious constituents so they need to adapt their belief system?

As you expect a religious person to do for their non-religious constituents?