(11-17-2023 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:54 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, but if someone is anti-Jewish nation, it does not logically mean they are anti-Jew. And that is the order of operation being discussed.

I think this mental division has little substance in reality, and is a good excuse to campaign against the jews, if one is so inclined.

Essentially, it is someone saying "I am not against Jews - some of my best friends are Jews. I'm just against a nation where they can pass laws to accomodate and preserve their jewishness."

If you equate opposition to a country's policies with antipathy toward everyone of that country's ethnicity, that's your prejudice. Speak for yourself; stop projecting.

Abso-*******-lutely.

I am potentially more astonished then ever before at a post on this board, that fails to understand a simple and fundamental concept - disagreeing with the decisions of a country is not inherently connected with how one feels about said citizens of the country.

But the citizens electedt and support the ones making the country's decisions, right?

Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:54 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think this mental division has little substance in reality, and is a good excuse to campaign against the jews, if one is so inclined.

Essentially, it is someone saying "I am not against Jews - some of my best friends are Jews. I'm just against a nation where they can pass laws to accomodate and preserve their jewishness."

If you equate opposition to a country's policies with antipathy toward everyone of that country's ethnicity, that's your prejudice. Speak for yourself; stop projecting.

Abso-*******-lutely.

I am potentially more astonished then ever before at a post on this board, that fails to understand a simple and fundamental concept - disagreeing with the decisions of a country is not inherently connected with how one feels about said citizens of the country.

But the citizens electedt and support the ones making the country's decisions, right?

Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Well, during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to restore Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, wags noted that perhaps the Kuwaiti national anthem should be "Onward Christian Soldiers."

I know that's not really on point, but it is kinda funny.

(11-17-2023 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 10:54 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  If you equate opposition to a country's policies with antipathy toward everyone of that country's ethnicity, that's your prejudice. Speak for yourself; stop projecting.

Abso-*******-lutely.

I am potentially more astonished then ever before at a post on this board, that fails to understand a simple and fundamental concept - disagreeing with the decisions of a country is not inherently connected with how one feels about said citizens of the country.

But the citizens electedt and support the ones making the country's decisions, right?

Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 12:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Abso-*******-lutely.

I am potentially more astonished then ever before at a post on this board, that fails to understand a simple and fundamental concept - disagreeing with the decisions of a country is not inherently connected with how one feels about said citizens of the country.

But the citizens electedt and support the ones making the country's decisions, right?

Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the citizens electedt and support the ones making the country's decisions, right?

Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

To your two things

1) not 100% of any group will likely ever agree COMPLETELY on anything... nor would they support ALL of any group.... Heck... not all Americans support our Constitution.... yet certainly we can and should be able to make some relatively broad statements about the consensus of a nation. As a nation, we support private gun ownership.

I also would say that the more those politicians policies impact the broader nation, the more a vote for them is a vote for those policies... and this CAN be grey... but it can also be very black or white. While certainly you don't want them to roll over and play dead, the decision to be steadfastly opposed and armed against Israel in an offensive (beyond your borders) fashion is not a good place to start, especially given the power of Israel's military, the power of their allies and the general acceptance of their existence throughout the region

You've got a losing hand... quit raising the bet. The fact that they STILL haven't decided to put you 'all in' is a Mitzvah... unless I suppose being a martyr is your goal... in which case, should we let them win?


2) on here, of course not. Over there, it is not as clear. I say that because although plenty of non-Jews live in Israel, it is undeniable that someone choosing to live there (or forced to) is also choosing to (or forced to) conform to numerous social norms that are pervasive... same as you would in many (though certainly not all) Islamic nations. A simple example close to home might be Chic-Fil-A being closed on Sundays. There was a time in this nation where being open on Sunday could be punished. Those laws were rescinded, but still a business can make that choice to do so. That's the difference between policies/laws and practices.

Women here don't normally wear a burka or walk behind their husbands or ride in a car with a man who is not their husband... but they are certainly allowed to. In some nations, these are crimes... sometimes punished brutally.... so if you are against that, are you against their religion or against their policies?

More direct to your comment... sometimes those policies that you are against are directly related to religion. Some Muslims believe that it is their religious duty to eliminate non-Muslims.

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things:
1) not 100% of the citizens agree completely with the actions nor do they support all of the politicians
2) in this discussion, one’s opinion on policy is not inherently connected to their religious/ethnic background.

Imagine someone saying that one’s opposition to the US’s invasion of Iraq meant they were biased against Protestants.

Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

When a country attacks, it involves all the citizens on both sides, not just the ones who voted a certain way.Returning to WW II, when Japan attacked the US, all the citizens of both countries were involved, one way or another .I used Red Dawn to illustrate that. The kids inRed Dawn could not even vote yet. When war happens, it happens to everybody, whether they are movers and shakers, or the moved and shaken.

A ceasefire is a tacit admission that yes, Israel is a colonizer country, yes, they practice apartheid. THAT is where the PR war is being directed. It just makes their future actions and future existence less tenable. Does anybody think Hamas will live peaceably with Israel if there is a ceasefire? It just gives Hamas a free time to move munitions and dig tunnels, or whatever they need to do to further their cause of an Islamic world under sharia law.

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A ceasefire is a tacit admission that yes, Israel is a colonizer country, yes, they practice apartheid. THAT is where the PR war is being directed. It just makes their future actions and future existence less tenable. Does anybody think Hamas will live peaceably with Israel if there is a ceasefire? It just gives Hamas a free time to move munitions and dig tunnels, or whatever they need to do to further their cause of an Islamic world under sharia law.

I mostly agree with this.

At some point though... things need to stop. IMO, that begins with 'what does that look like to both sides'... so it is not just the laying down of arms... but more likely a 'we will stop 'here', and you will not return 'here' until later... a demilitarized zone.... The only thing you can do there, under significant supervision... is to collect your dead and if necessary, temporarily repair necessary infrastructure (that impacts the rest of the nation)... as in if a water line to the south runs through the north. Repairs can start later.

Have a regional force like Egypt or Saudi or perhaps all of them be there. Israel should have no problem with that is it is not their land anyway.... but they would no accept that they have pushed Hamas back, only to have them return during a cease-fire.

Hamas is just going to have to accept that as terms of a cease-fire. If they are truly suffering, this is a small temporary price to pay.

After that, the people of Palestine need to turn from Hamas. That would be like asking the people of the US to turn from the Klan. I dont care if the 'new' group also includes some of the old... but it cannot be the same... and 'peace with Israel' (which is ironically what their Muslim brothers were doing that set them off) must dominate that party... it must dominate that nation. This is not negotiable and they are not in a position of ANY power.

If it does not, then we all need to step back and wait until the fires are put out... and then go ask the victor what they want to do next.

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Imagine saying, in 1941, that the US should try to negotiate a ceasefire with Japan and/or Germany, on the grounds that some Japanese and German citizens did not agree with the actions of their governments and/or did not take part in the attack on Pearl.

When entities war,all the members of the entities are at risk. It is impossible to cherry pick who is guilty and who is innocent. The war is betweenIsrael and Hamas,not some of one and some of the other.

When we bombed Germany, when we bombed Japan, I am sure some innocents were killed, just as some were killed on Dec.7. Heck there were about 20 Allied POWs in Hiroshima. I think the term is collateral damage. We killed babies and children when we bombed German cities.

How do think Israel should go about protecting their citizens and their sovereignty from Hamas? The same way we went about protecting our citizens and aovereinty in 1941, or by saying “Thank you, sir, please give me another”? Serious damn question. I want an answer.

Ever see Red Dawn?

Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

I have not pointed a finger at anybody. Just explaining why I feel as I do.

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Serious damn question? This is a rambling and incoherent post when one considered what has actually been discussed.

So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-17-2023 09:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, what is your answer? Immediate capitulation? How does one respond to a sneak attack? I want your opinion.

Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Pretty sure that nobody here has made the case for a cease-fire. I brought up the idea that Israel had the world behind them directly after the attack but since then they seem to be losing the PR war. I also noted that it is not clear to me what they could’ve done differently.

Red Dawn? LOL

The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The protesters are demanding a ceasefire. We were discussing the protesters. Supporting the protesters is de facto support for a ceasefire.

I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears.

But I wouldn’t say “all”. Out of 2,000,000, there has to be at least one curmudgeon. Maybe just 95% or so.

What do you think is the point that you are making? That every group over 2 has differences of opinion? What the heck does that mean? That Israel should pack their guns and go home, and await Hamas’ mercy?


Might as well head straight to the killing fields.




Any ideas on how to fight the 95% without hurting the 5%? Quitting and running away, maybe?

Sounds to me like if any Gaza’s at all do not support the sneak attack and barbarism, you think the Israelis should just slink away. If that is not what you want, tell us what you want Israel to do.

(11-18-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I dont remember anybody supporting the protesters here. I pushed back on your labeling of some members of the squad as anti-semites.

We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears..

I believe that 93 and Frizzy have contributed similar thoughts as me.

I also know there are plenty of people who believe that there are innocent civilians on both sides of this war that are not being represented by the political or terrorist organizations that caused this war. It’s probably more shocking to believe that all citizens of a country are supportive of a terrorist organization and, as Illini said, give aid and comfort to them.

(11-18-2023 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears..

I believe that 93 and Frizzy have contributed similar thoughts as me.

I also know there are plenty of people who believe that there are innocent civilians on both sides of this war that are not being represented by the political or terrorist organizations that caused this war. It’s probably more shocking to believe that all citizens of a country are supportive of a terrorist organization and, as Illini said, give aid and comfort to them.

You just changed the subject from protesters to civilians.

(11-18-2023 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been talking about if protestors supporting Palestinian citizens were inherently supporting Hamas. The idea being, just like those that are anti-Israel are not inherently anti-Jewish.

"Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears..

I believe that 93 and Frizzy have contributed similar thoughts as me.

I also know there are plenty of people who believe that there are innocent civilians on both sides of this war that are not being represented by the political or terrorist organizations that caused this war. It’s probably more shocking to believe that all citizens of a country are supportive of a terrorist organization and, as Illini said, give aid and comfort to them.

But what do you want anybody to do? It is a given that in any large group, not all will agree. But so damn what. What do you want us to do with this startling revelation of the obvious?

(11-18-2023 10:32 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  "Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears..

I believe that 93 and Frizzy have contributed similar thoughts as me.

I also know there are plenty of people who believe that there are innocent civilians on both sides of this war that are not being represented by the political or terrorist organizations that caused this war. It’s probably more shocking to believe that all citizens of a country are supportive of a terrorist organization and, as Illini said, give aid and comfort to them.

You just changed the subject from protesters to civilians.

Good catch there, Illini. And to further put holes in the Lefty narrative and talking points:

Children as Young as 10 Took Part in Hamas's Oct. 7 Terror Attack, Survivors Say

Quote:EILAT, Israel—Eran Smilansky, a 28-year-old potato farmer, watched Gazan children go from house to house in his kibbutz on Oct. 7. Hamas terrorists followed. The boys laughed as the gunmen shot or dragged away Israeli families.

"They were like young, young kids," said Smilansky, who defended his home from terrorists for more than six hours that day. "They were going in front of the terrorists, laughing with their friends and looking very calm. I remember thinking, What the ****?"

Smilansky was one of a dozen survivors of the Nir Oz massacre who told the Washington Free Beacon they witnessed boys or women from the Gaza Strip looting the kibbutz, helping the armed terrorists, and apparently enjoying themselves. The youngest children were around 10 years old, according to several of the survivors, one of whom provided photographs of some of the women and children he saw. The survivors spoke at a hotel in Eilat, Israel's Red Sea resort town, where most of them have been temporarily relocated.

While the involvement of Gazan children and women in Hamas's terrorist attack is not widely understood, evidence exists in the public domain. An online video of a 12-year-old Israeli boy's abduction from Nir Oz, Israel, appears to show a Gazan boy of about the same age accompanying the kidnappers. Boys were among the mob of Gazans recorded crossing into Israel after Hamas terrorists breached the border. And a Hamas-linked Associated Press stringer photographed a Gazan boy entering Kfar Aza, a kibbutz about 15 miles north of Nir Oz.

Hamas has used its nearly two decades of rule over Gaza to weaponize a generation of Palestinians against the Jewish state, according to analysts. In addition to the children, hundreds of ordinary Gazans, including teenagers, joined in Hamas's bloody rampage across southern Israeli communities...

Barad said the ordinary Gazans vastly outnumbered the armed terrorists. He estimated that he saw at least a dozen children, who were between the ages of 10 and 15, and 30 women from Gaza.

The armed terrorists were in charge, Barad recalled. They gave orders to the ordinary Gazans, like sending the children to loot specific homes. At one point, Barad saw a woman run up to an armed terrorist and point him toward a house.

"I'm guessing she saw people she wanted him to go kill or kidnap or I don't know what," Barad said. "But I can say with 100 percent certainty that [the women and kids] were not just innocent bystanders or looters. They were part of the massacre. They were part of the horrors that we endured that day...."

Raziel Tamir, 26, was hiding in a citrus grove a few miles north of Nir Oz on the morning of Oct. 7. Tamir, a restaurant worker from Kiryat Ono, had fled the Nova music festival in Re'im, Israel, after terrorists showed up and began massacring at least 260 of his fellow partygoers.

When Tamir looked back toward the festival grounds, several hundred feet away, he said he saw Hamas commandos holding a group of Israelis at gunpoint. Several children, ages about 6 to 10, then emerged from a pickup truck wearing Hamas outfits, he said.

"You could see the people on their knees and like begging for their life," Tamir said. "I heard the screaming."

According to Tamir, the commandos gave some of the children rifles and directed them to execute hostages, which they did. The terrorists shot more of the hostages and loaded the survivors into the truck, he said.

At that point, Tamir said, he ran further into the citrus grove, where he met up with his friend Alex Kalinin, a 27-year-old sales manager from Yehud, Israel. They eventually located Israeli troops, who evacuated them to safety....

(11-18-2023 10:32 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 08:15 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  "Inherently": no. But given the current context:

Knowingly playing footsie with: yes.
Knowingly giving aid and comfort to: yes.
Undeserving of benefit of the doubt: yes.

Interesting idea that all Palestinians are playing footsie with Hamas and giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Because that’s the only way that statement is relevant.

Everybody is out of step but you, it appears..

I believe that 93 and Frizzy have contributed similar thoughts as me.

I also know there are plenty of people who believe that there are innocent civilians on both sides of this war that are not being represented by the political or terrorist organizations that caused this war. It’s probably more shocking to believe that all citizens of a country are supportive of a terrorist organization and, as Illini said, give aid and comfort to them.

You just changed the subject from protesters to civilians.

The discussion started about civilians, and that is what Illini, you were talking about… I didn’t think anyone was accusing people protesting as pro-Palestinians as playing footsie with Hamas. That seems like a bridge too far, to say the least. And not to mention pro-Palestinian protestors giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Who the hell is saying that pro-Palestinian protestors are doing that???

So that is where my comment came from. I assumed you were talking about Palestinians themselves in the second part of your post, since I don’t know of any accusations of protestors actively engaging with Hamas. But there are plenty of people who are making the argument that Palestinian citizens aren’t deserving of support because they do what you argue - they play footsie with and support Hamas.

See this post to refresh your memory: https://csnbbs.com/thread-978912-post-19...id19280489