Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[The Sultan]

How long are you gonna try to hammer home your flawed thinking? Repeating something a dozen times doesn't make it true, hey?

Crean sucks.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Crean sucks.

ND sucks

[Pakuni]

s/
Good post. I understand exactly what you're talking about ...

The Lebanese civil war of the 1970s/1980s saw the PLO drive the Christian population out. In other words, the PLO colonized Lebanon.

About a third of the Lebanese population is Christian. Nine of Lebanon's last 12 presidents, including two of the last three, were Christian. The presidents before, during and after the civil war were Christians.
Not only did the PLO not colonize Lebanon, but Palestinians aren't allowed citizenship in Lebanon.
You guys quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

How long are you gonna try to hammer home your flawed thinking? Repeating something a dozen times doesn't make it true, hey?

No, being true is what makes it true. Let me know when you are going to denounce these three.

Here are the receipts:

Tuckems

Tucker Carlson and the danger of antisemitism | The Spectator
Tucker Carlson is many things but stupid is not one of them. So when he describes Ukraine's Jewish president ('a man called Zelensky') as 'sweaty and rat-like', 'a persecutor of Christians' and 'our shifty, dead-eyed Ukrainian friend', I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing.

Tucker Carlson is leaving Fox — will veiled antisemitism and the Great Replacement Theory go with him? - St. Louis Jewish Light (stljewishlight.org)
He also frequently alluded to the great replacement theory, a conspiracy that Jews or other racial minorities are attempting to exterminate or replace white people, though Carlson's references to it were always just veiled enough to maintain plausible deniability against accusations of racism or antisemitism. Dog whistles were frequently employed on his show; he repeatedly vilified George Soros while lauding the nationalist and antisemitic leadership of Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban.

Greene

McCarthy Calls Out Marjorie Taylor Greene Over Holocaust Remarks : NPR
"This is deeply disturbing to the American Jewish community," he said. "This goes and goes and goes further and now Marjorie Taylor Greene is essentially saying wearing a mask — saving lives — is somehow equal to walking millions of innocent civilians to the gas chamber. It's just beyond the pale."
Greene has long embraced conspiracy theories and has a history of making racist and antisemitic remarks.

House Republican leaders condemn GOP candidate who made racist videos - POLITICO
The candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, suggested that Muslims do not belong in government; thinks black people "are held slaves to the Democratic Party"; called George Soros, a Jewish Democratic megadonor, a Nazi;

Marjorie Taylor Greene's space laser and the age-old problem of blaming the Jews - Vox
Let's get this out of the way: First-term Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's claim that the 2018 California wildfires were ignited by a space laser controlled by a corporate cabal, including the Rothschild banking firm, is objectively ridiculous. It's okay to laugh about it.

And yet it is, at the same time, kind of horrifying. It's the latest in a long line of conspiracies about the Rothschild family, and those conspiracies are always, at root, anti-Semitic: Since the 19th century, people have used claims that this one particular wealthy family controls the world to cast aspersions on Jews in general.

Nor is this an isolated anti-Semitic incident for Greene. In December 2018, she shared a video on her Facebook page, which features a prominent British anti-Semite explaining that "Zionist supremacists have schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation." This is a conspiracy theory that seemingly motivated the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter's rampage in October 2018, less than two months before Greene's post. Despite concrete evidence that these ideas were endangering American Jews, Greene chose to spread them anyway.

Gosar

Paul Gosar promoted an antisemitic website that praised him for condemning 'Jewish warmongers' (azmirror.com)
Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar on Sunday promoted an antisemitic website that denies the Holocaust, praises Adolf Hitler as "a man of valor" and features a large number of admittedly false articles.

Gosar to speak at confab featuring many with antisemitic ties – The Forward
When Orbán spoke at CPAC's conference in Dallas last August, he invoked the Holocaust and assailed Jewish billionaire George Soros in an unleashed attack on progressive Democrats and the mainstream media. Gosar has also lambasted Soros, floating the false theory that the Holocaust survivor funded the neo-Nazis who organized a deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks.

First thing ya got right this year, hey?

[Heisenberg]

Excellent Sam Harris podcast dropped tonight. He explains the Western progressive worldview, desperate for moral equivalence and secular explanations. It is like he has been reading this thread, and his podcast is a response to it.

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/340-the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil

Here is the transcript:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil

Some highlights

We imagine that people everywhere, at bottom, want the same things: They want to live safe and prosperous lives. They want clean drinking water and good schools for their kids. And we imagine that if whole groups of people start behaving in extraordinarily destructive ways—practicing suicidal terrorism against noncombatants, for instance—they must have been pushed into extremis by others. What could turn ordinary human beings into suicide bombers, and what could get vast numbers of their neighbors to celebrate them as martyrs, other than their entire society being oppressed and humiliated to the point of madness by some malign power? So, in the case of Israel, many people imagine that the ghoulish history Palestinian terrorism simply indicates how profound the injustice has been on the Israeli side.

These are religious beliefs, sincerely held. They are beliefs about the moral structure of the universe. And they explain how normal people—even good ones—can commit horrific acts of violence against innocent civilians—on purpose, not as collateral damage—and still consider themselves good. When you believe that life in this world has no value, apart from deciding who goes to hell and who goes to Paradise, it becomes possible to feel perfectly at ease killing noncombatants, or even using your own women and children as human shields, because you know that any Muslims who get killed will go to Paradise for eternity.

If you don't understand that jihadists sincerely believe these things, you don't understand the problem Israel faces. The problem isn't merely Palestinian nationalism, or resource competition, or any other normal terrestrial grievance. In fact, the problem isn't even hatred, though there is enough of that to go around. The problem is religious certainty.

-----

In the West, there is now a large industry of apology and obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these facts. The humanities and social science departments of every university are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars—deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other fields—who claim that Muslim extremism is never what it seems. These experts insist that we can never take jihadists at their word and that none of their declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy have anything to do with their real motivations.

When one asks what the motivations of jihadists actually are, one encounters a tsunami of liberal delusion. Needless to say, the West is to blame for all the mayhem we see in Muslim societies. After all, how would we feel if outside powers and their mapmakers had divided our lands and stolen our oil? These beleaguered people just want what everyone else wants out of life. They want economic and political security. They want to be free to flourish in ways that would be fully compatible with a global civil society, if only they were given the chance.

Secular liberals imagine that jihadists are acting as anyone else would given a similar history of unhappy encounters with the West. And they totally discount the role that religious beliefs play in inspiring groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda, or even the Islamic State—to the point where it would be impossible for a jihadist to prove that he was doing anything for religious reasons.

Apparently, it's not enough for an educated person with economic opportunities to devote himself to the most extreme and austere version of Islam, to articulate his religious reasons for doing so ad nauseam, and even to go so far as to confess his certainty about martyrdom on video before blowing himself up in a crowd. Such demonstrations of religious fanaticism are somehow considered rhetorically insufficient to prove that he really believed what he said he believed. Of course, if a white supremacist goes on a killing spree in a black church, and says he did this because he hates black people and thinks the white race is under attack, this motive is accepted at face value without the slightest hesitation. This double standard is guaranteed to exonerate Islam every time. The game is rigged.

Do not mistake what I'm saying now for anti-Muslim bigotry. I'm talking about the consequences of ideas, not the ethnic origins of people. Not a word I've said, or will ever say on this topic has anything to do with race. And, the truth is, I'm not remotely xenophobic. I'm a xenophile. The Middle East has produced some of my favorite parts of culture—some of my favorite foods, and music, and architecture. Despite my better judgment, I absolutely love the sound of the Muslim call to prayer. Everything I'm saying about the problem of jihadism is about the problem of jihadism—the triumphal belief by some percentage of the world's Muslims that they must conquer the world for the one true faith through force, and that Paradise awaits anyone who would sacrifice his or her life to
that end.

-----
In 2014, six jihadis affiliated with the Pakistani Taliban attacked a school in Peshawar. These jihadis came from outside of Pakistan—there was a Chechen, two Afghans, and three Arabs. They murdered 145 people, 132 of whom were children. They burned a teacher alive in front of her students, and then killed all the children they could get their hands on. They didn't take any hostages. They had no list of demands. They intended to die to achieve martyrdom. And they did die, so they got at least half of what they wanted. It is very difficult for secular people to understand how this behavior could be possible. They assume only madmen would do this sort of thing.

But that's the horror of it—you don't have to be mad to be a jihadist. You don't even have to be a bad person. You just have to be a true believer. You just have to know, for sure, that you and all the good people will get everything you want after you die, and that the Creator of the Universe wants nothing more than for you to kill unbelievers. Here is what a supporter of the Pakistani Taliban said when interviewed about the school massacre:

Human life only has value among you worldly materialist thinkers. For us, this human life is only a tiny, meaningless fragment of our existence. Our real destination is the Hereafter. We don't just believe it exists, we know it does.

Death is not the end of life. It is the beginning of existence in a world much more beautiful than this. As you know, the [Urdu] word for death is "intiqaal." It means "transfer," not "end."

Paradise is for those of pure hearts. All children have pure hearts. They have not sinned yet... They have not yet been corrupted by [their kafir parents]. We did not end their lives. We gave them new ones in Paradise, where they will be loved more than you can imagine.

They will be rewarded for their martyrdom. After all, we also martyr ourselves with them. The last words they heard were the slogan of Takbeer ["Allah u Akbar"].

Allah Almighty says Himself in Surhah Al-Imran [3:169-170] that they are not dead.

You will never understand this. If your faith is pure, you will not mourn them, but celebrate their birth into Paradise.

[Uncle Rico]

First thing ya got right this year, hey?

How's election night treat in' ya?

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

How's election night treat in' ya?

[Lennys Tap]

Excellent Sam Harris podcast dropped tonight. He explains the Western progressive worldview, desperate for moral equivalence and secular explanations. It is like he has been reading this thread, and his podcast is a response to it.

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/340-the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil

Here is the transcript:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil

Some highlights

We imagine that people everywhere, at bottom, want the same things: They want to live safe and prosperous lives. They want clean drinking water and good schools for their kids. And we imagine that if whole groups of people start behaving in extraordinarily destructive ways—practicing suicidal terrorism against noncombatants, for instance—they must have been pushed into extremis by others. What could turn ordinary human beings into suicide bombers, and what could get vast numbers of their neighbors to celebrate them as martyrs, other than their entire society being oppressed and humiliated to the point of madness by some malign power? So, in the case of Israel, many people imagine that the ghoulish history Palestinian terrorism simply indicates how profound the injustice has been on the Israeli side.

These are religious beliefs, sincerely held. They are beliefs about the moral structure of the universe. And they explain how normal people—even good ones—can commit horrific acts of violence against innocent civilians—on purpose, not as collateral damage—and still consider themselves good. When you believe that life in this world has no value, apart from deciding who goes to hell and who goes to Paradise, it becomes possible to feel perfectly at ease killing noncombatants, or even using your own women and children as human shields, because you know that any Muslims who get killed will go to Paradise for eternity.

If you don't understand that jihadists sincerely believe these things, you don't understand the problem Israel faces. The problem isn't merely Palestinian nationalism, or resource competition, or any other normal terrestrial grievance. In fact, the problem isn't even hatred, though there is enough of that to go around. The problem is religious certainty.

-----

In the West, there is now a large industry of apology and obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these facts. The humanities and social science departments of every university are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars—deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other fields—who claim that Muslim extremism is never what it seems. These experts insist that we can never take jihadists at their word and that none of their declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy have anything to do with their real motivations.

When one asks what the motivations of jihadists actually are, one encounters a tsunami of liberal delusion. Needless to say, the West is to blame for all the mayhem we see in Muslim societies. After all, how would we feel if outside powers and their mapmakers had divided our lands and stolen our oil? These beleaguered people just want what everyone else wants out of life. They want economic and political security. They want to be free to flourish in ways that would be fully compatible with a global civil society, if only they were given the chance.

Secular liberals imagine that jihadists are acting as anyone else would given a similar history of unhappy encounters with the West. And they totally discount the role that religious beliefs play in inspiring groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda, or even the Islamic State—to the point where it would be impossible for a jihadist to prove that he was doing anything for religious reasons.

Apparently, it's not enough for an educated person with economic opportunities to devote himself to the most extreme and austere version of Islam, to articulate his religious reasons for doing so ad nauseam, and even to go so far as to confess his certainty about martyrdom on video before blowing himself up in a crowd. Such demonstrations of religious fanaticism are somehow considered rhetorically insufficient to prove that he really believed what he said he believed. Of course, if a white supremacist goes on a killing spree in a black church, and says he did this because he hates black people and thinks the white race is under attack, this motive is accepted at face value without the slightest hesitation. This double standard is guaranteed to exonerate Islam every time. The game is rigged.

Do not mistake what I'm saying now for anti-Muslim bigotry. I'm talking about the consequences of ideas, not the ethnic origins of people. Not a word I've said, or will ever say on this topic has anything to do with race. And, the truth is, I'm not remotely xenophobic. I'm a xenophile. The Middle East has produced some of my favorite parts of culture—some of my favorite foods, and music, and architecture. Despite my better judgment, I absolutely love the sound of the Muslim call to prayer. Everything I'm saying about the problem of jihadism is about the problem of jihadism—the triumphal belief by some percentage of the world's Muslims that they must conquer the world for the one true faith through force, and that Paradise awaits anyone who would sacrifice his or her life to
that end.

-----
In 2014, six jihadis affiliated with the Pakistani Taliban attacked a school in Peshawar. These jihadis came from outside of Pakistan—there was a Chechen, two Afghans, and three Arabs. They murdered 145 people, 132 of whom were children. They burned a teacher alive in front of her students, and then killed all the children they could get their hands on. They didn't take any hostages. They had no list of demands. They intended to die to achieve martyrdom. And they did die, so they got at least half of what they wanted. It is very difficult for secular people to understand how this behavior could be possible. They assume only madmen would do this sort of thing.

But that's the horror of it—you don't have to be mad to be a jihadist. You don't even have to be a bad person. You just have to be a true believer. You just have to know, for sure, that you and all the good people will get everything you want after you die, and that the Creator of the Universe wants nothing more than for you to kill unbelievers. Here is what a supporter of the Pakistani Taliban said when interviewed about the school massacre:

Human life only has value among you worldly materialist thinkers. For us, this human life is only a tiny, meaningless fragment of our existence. Our real destination is the Hereafter. We don't just believe it exists, we know it does.

Death is not the end of life. It is the beginning of existence in a world much more beautiful than this. As you know, the [Urdu] word for death is "intiqaal." It means "transfer," not "end."

Paradise is for those of pure hearts. All children have pure hearts. They have not sinned yet... They have not yet been corrupted by [their kafir parents]. We did not end their lives. We gave them new ones in Paradise, where they will be loved more than you can imagine.

They will be rewarded for their martyrdom. After all, we also martyr ourselves with them. The last words they heard were the slogan of Takbeer ["Allah u Akbar"].

Allah Almighty says Himself in Surhah Al-Imran [3:169-170] that they are not dead.

You will never understand this. If your faith is pure, you will not mourn them, but celebrate their birth into Paradise.

What Harris is saying is so obvious I don't know why it's even a little controversial.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Will you say the same about evangelicals, who some 60% believe we are living in the end times, and their wholehearted support which is driven off the belief that the state of Israel is crucial to fulfilling biblical prophesy?

[Pakuni]

What Harris is saying is so obvious I don't know why it's even a little controversial.

Really going out on a limb with his bold take that fanatical religious terrorism is bad.

[forgetful]

I had an interesting discussion with my SIL about some of the "positive" side effects of the last month.  She sent me a couple Op-Eds and had some personal stories about a surprising number of Jews reconnecting with their cultural identity and heritage in the wake of 10/7 and the reaction.

It's not some gut reaction Zionism and Muslim hate, or a revenge on Gaza, but rather feeling a connection and solidarity with the Jewish community, especially in the wake of the rise in very visible anti-Semitism worldwide.  Yes it's been on the rise for some time but a profound catalyst obviously moves people differently.

Sure some people will use the sentiment for negative actions and others will accuse  people of using their Judaism to cover for Islamophobia or the like, but I think as a net it can be a positive.  I've certainly seen it in my wife's reconnecting feelings and emotions the last month as a secular, non practicing Jew.  The Jewish people have found strength and resilience in collectivism and community in the face of persecution or tragedy for hundreds of years, it's one of their most beautiful cultural touchstones.  It also powers their space lasers

I agree. A lot of my Jewish friends and colleagues have been feeling much more connected to their community. Honestly though, I've seen a rise in this since COVID lockdowns, but the recent terrorist attack has been a real catalyst.

[Heisenberg]

Will you say the same about evangelicals, who some 60% believe we are living in the end times, and their wholehearted support which is driven off the belief that the state of Israel is crucial to fulfilling biblical prophesy?

So, only when we start getting Christian suicide bombers ... then we can talk.

----

There have been nearly 50,000 acts of Islamic terrorism in the last 40 years—and the French group that maintains a database of these attacks [https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2021/] considers that to be an undercount. Ninety percent of them have occurred in Muslim countries. Most have nothing to do with Israel or the Jews. There have been 82 attacks in France and over 2000 in Pakistan during this period. You want France to be more like Pakistan? You just need more jihadists. You just need more people susceptible to becoming jihadists, which is a transformation that can happen very quickly—just as quickly as new beliefs can take root in a person's mind. You just need a wider Muslim community that doesn't condemn jihadism, but tacitly admits that the theology that inspires it will be true and perfect until the end of the world. You just need millions of people who will protest Israel for defending itself, or call for the deaths of cartoonists for depicting the prophet Muhammad, and yet not make a peep about the jihadist atrocities that occur daily, all over the world, in the name of their religion.

[Lennys Tap]

Really going out on a limb with his bold take that fanatical religious terrorism is bad.

It's not just that it's bad, it's how widespread and/or accepted it is. Or how many people blame someone other than the fanatics and their enablers for it. The West in general, and the US and Israel in particular, are not to blame for the fanaticism that pervades Islam. Until Islam purges itself of this cancer any real peace is impossible.

[Lennys Tap]

Will you say the same about evangelicals, who some 60% believe we are living in the end times, and their wholehearted support which is driven off the belief that the state of Israel is crucial to fulfilling biblical prophesy?

Dumbest comment in a thread full of them. Peaceful people can believe whatever whacky things they want and it matters little. People who think cutting off people's head or strapping suicide vests on their own children are not exactly the same thing.

[Heisenberg]

Why is it so hard for you to have a logical discussion?

I am not anti-Israel. I have made my point very clear. You are the one who tries to push that argument to the extreme because you can't address it otherwise.

The House just condemned Tlaib for trying to redefine "from the river to the sea." And for this to happen, 22 Democrats had to cross the aisle to do it. A similar censure failed last week. So, the difference in the previous week was her trying to redefine "from the river to the sea."

The House now has more moral clarity on the meaning of these phrases and statements than you.

This is how far you have sunk in your moral confusion.

So, I'll ask again, "river to the sea," Free Palestine," and "Apartheid state" are all calls, with nice words, to genocide the Jewish people.

Do you now agree?

----

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-votes-censure-rashida-tlaib-over-anti-israel-comments

The House of Representatives has voted to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., in a 234 - 188 vote on Tuesday night.

The punishment, while largely symbolic, was a formal public rebuke of her most recent anti-Israel comments made in the wake of the Jewish nation's war against terror group Hamas.

Twenty-two Democrats voted with 212 Republicans to censure Tlaib.

Her critics have pointed out that the rallying cry implicitly calls for the destruction of Israel as a state. Hamas has also co-opted the phrase.

"It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state," the Anti-Defamation League's website says. "It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

Tlaib has remained unrepentant over her use of the phrase.

[Heisenberg]

Really going out on a limb with his bold take that fanatical religious terrorism is bad.

How about the second part of his argument, whatever proportionality it takes to eliminate it is justified.

[Pakuni]

How about the second part of his argument, whatever proportionality it takes to eliminate it is justified.

I don't see that in the transcript you posted, but if that's what he said, he's obviously wrong.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

On November 7, anyone protesting using the terms "free Palestine" or "No Apartheid" (and "River to Sea") should know by now that these are calls for the genocide of the Jewish race. And once that is understood, these definitions need to be accepted and dissembled, like a poster here was implying.

So when 100 Madison students are carrying these signs outside last night of the hall of arguably the most influential Jewish commentator in the country is speaking, they have to understand they are acting exactly like the Nazis they abhor and accuse others of being.

----

Heisenberg was famous for his Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1927. It was this uncertainty principle that Walter White was referencing when he chose the Moniker Heisenberg, which was done before the creation of the Nazi party (1932).

Are all Heisenberg references assumed to be for his work done with the Nazi Atomic program? What if they are from his career in the 1920s, before the creation of the Nazi party in 1932? Is the use of Heisenberg still antisemitic? Should the Nobel Committee rescind his 1927 award? Are they antisemitic for not stripping him?

None of this disputes anything you are trying to respond to. My point is words and phrases can have multiple intended meanings...and even when the intended meaning is positive, they can still have negative impacts on others. Despite everything you wrote, Werner Heisenberg still designed weapons of mass destruction for the Nazis. It would not be unreasonable for a person to find your former moniker to be antisemitic even though your intent was not. Ultimately impact is more important, but intent is important context.

Analogy - Should the NFL strip OJ Simpson of all his awards for what he did later in life?

This is a terrible analogy. I have said nothing about past achievements being removed. The correct analogy here would be, should the NFL in 2023 name an award after O.J. Simpson? The answer is obviously no. That being said I acknowledge that I know you weren't trying to honor a former Nazi bomb maker with your former moniker. Just pointing out that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for someone to interpret it that way.

Sultan means "Leader of Muslims." And given his constant moral equivalence (which many Jewish leaders equate to antisemitism) under this moniker, is it equally as antisemitic as Heisenberg is? Or more so?

You'll have to connect those dots for me. I don't see the connection between being a leader of muslims and antisemitism.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A sign from this past weekend's rally in DC

----

Is it protected under the First Amendment or a call to violence?

What if this same sign had the rainbow flag and/or the BLM black square on it?



ADDED LATER

How about this one? Same rally?

For the third time in this thread, "call to violence" is not one of the exceptions for the first amendment. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't will that into existence.

To answer your question, yes, all of these signs and your hypothetical examples are/would be examples of protected free speech. Terrible, awful protected free speech that I denounce with my own free speech, I encourage others to denounce with their free speech, and I support private companies using their free speech by firing/refusing to hire them for their deplorable free speech.

I suspect you know this as you have claimed in the (recent) past to be a champion of free speech. But it is convenient to forget your commitment to free speech when you have the opportunity to wage a culture war on universities for having the audacity to follow the constitution. If you truly champion free speech, you would applaud (most) universities for standing strong in their commitment to free speech despite the financial repercussions some of them are facing.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Dumbest comment in a thread full of them. Peaceful people can believe whatever whacky things they want and it matters little. People who think cutting off people's head or strapping suicide vests on their own children are not exactly the same thing.

Substantially monetarily propping up a state and government who pays little thought to pouring billions in high powered explosives into exterminating others' children is perfectly acceptable though. So just an extra couple of steps.

Glad you have that line drawn in the sand.

Just say you don't like Muslims and save us the time instead of generalizing extremists from a religion of over a billion people worldwide.

There's plenty of Christian extremism/violence even right in all of our back yards. But just because they aren't currently in a phase of self immolation, it gets the moral high ground? They are a significant propagator of antisemitism in our country. Something it rightfully seems you do care a lot about speaking up against.

Extremism is bad in all regards and should be treated as such. As is bigotry, which I certainly hope you or anyone here do not engage in.

[4everwarriors]

How's election night treat in' ya?

How's that Tlaib censorship workin' out for ya, hey?

[Heisenberg]

For the third time in this thread, "call to violence" is not one of the exceptions for the first amendment. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't will that into existence.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74217/incitement-to-violence-aint-free-speech/

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-limits--fighting-words--hostile-audiences--and-t.html

[Heisenberg]

Substantially monetarily propping up a state and government who pays little thought to pouring billions in high powered explosives into exterminating others' children is perfectly acceptable though. So just an extra couple of steps.

This is an outrageous characterization of Israel.

Just say your antisemitic and save us all the time.

Just say you don't like Muslims and save us the time instead of generalizing extremists from a religion of over a billion people worldwide.

Muslims no

Palestinians and their Jihadist interpretations of Islam, yes. This ideology needs to be eliminated.

There's plenty of Christian extremism/violence even right in all of our back yards. But just because they aren't currently in a phase of self immolation, it gets the moral high ground? They are a significant propagator of antisemitism in our country. Something it rightfully seems you do care a lot about speaking up against.

I think we found the extremist on this board because only a very confused person would think that whatever Christian extremism exists in the United States, and you'll have to give us examples, is morally equivalent to what happened that October 7.

[The Sultan]

The House just condemned Tlaib for trying to redefine "from the river to the sea." And for this to happen, 22 Democrats had to cross the aisle to do it. A similar censure failed last week. So, the difference in the previous week was her trying to redefine "from the river to the sea."

The House now has more moral clarity on the meaning of these phrases and statements than you.

This is how far you have sunk in your moral confusion.

So, I'll ask again, "river to the sea," Free Palestine," and "Apartheid state" are all calls, with nice words, to genocide the Jewish people.

Do you now agree?

Not really.  And it most certainly is protected speech which was my point all along.

Regardless none of this matters. Israel isn't going away. It's existence isn't threatened. It has every right to defend itself.

But that doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

But honestly I am growing weary of your culture war and your desire to paint everyone who disagree with you as extremist. You constantly get facts wrong. You are dishonest. Really a great example of what's gone wrong with civil discourse in this country.