One of my pastor friends posted on social media today all upset about what is happening in Gaza, and calling for an immediate cease fire. What a strange position. Hamas still holds numerous hostages, many of them women and children. Hamas has months worth of necessities, but refuses to provide them to the people of Gaza. Hamas hides it's high value targets in places where civilians will be killed, knowing that the deaths of these civilians will spark outrage. Israel warns these human shields that they should leave, and Hamas makes sure they don't leave. It's like PR is more important than the people they allegedly govern. In short, it's absurd to even consider a cease fire until Hamas, at a minimum, surrenders all of the hostages they currently hold. To do so would be a win for Hamas, and their tactic of using the people they allegedly govern as cannon fodder.
What are the leaders of Hamas saying, from their homes outside of Gaza?
"We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza... so as to awaken our revolutionary spirit."
Ismail Haniyleh
"We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated: we are victims- everything we do is justified."
Ghazi Hamad
Why would any civilized person reward Hamas for sacrificing the women, children and elderly of Gaza, engaging in barbarous behavior, and taking innocent women and children hostage?
When a street thug tries to mug someone and gets their ass kicked, or worse, the street thug is responsible for whatever happens to them.
When an armed robber tries to rob a store and gets their ass kicked, or worse, the armed robber is responsible for whatever happens to them.
When someone breaks into a home to rob or murder the occupants and gets their ass kicked, or worse, the criminal is responsible for whatever happens to them.
When Hamas engages in a surprise attack, barbarously kills innocent civilians, kidnaps women and children, then hides behind "civilians", somehow any negative consequences are all the fault of the victim of the unprovoked attack.
168 comments:
WELL SAID!!!!
Thanks.
The MSM, the APL, and all the rest calling for a cease fire with out a demand that the hostages be released as a precondition are all supporting Hamas and advocating for Hamas to get exactly what they want. It's simply vile.
This is what I referenced in speaking of Greg Gutfeld's brilliant analysis, whereby he calls this "cease fire" crap a "free punch". Imagine if I punched you in the face, and before you could fully respond, Glenn comes up and suggests you cease fire. I just got a free punch with no consequences. A cease fire should be the consequence of no more Hamas and a total and unconditional surrender by all pallies.
Art,
That would be correct. Although in this case, I believe that any call for a cease fire without an immediate return of the hostages not even worth discussing. Of course, any permanent cease fire would involve the removal of Hamas and of their offensive weapons as they have been clear that they will never stop their attacks on innocent Israelis.
I agree. Thus, "the removal of Hamas" can only be their complete destruction. I'm not sure how we can confirm that's ever been done. We already know they're cowards of the worst kind and liars to boot. And of course...and this bears repeating...Hamas is only one Jew-hating terrorist organization out there, with the Iranian government being among the worst. This will likely go on until the 2nd Coming puts an end to all evil. Israel needs more allies and fewer leftists who are stupid and fewer muslims who hate.
When an armed robber tries to rob a store and gets their ass kicked, or worse, the armed robber is responsible for whatever happens to them.
When someone breaks into a home to rob or murder the occupants and gets their ass kicked, or worse, the criminal is responsible for whatever happens to them.
When Hamas engages in a surprise attack, barbarously kills innocent civilians, kidnaps women and children
Do you not see that one of these things is not like the others?
When the oppressor gets harmed in the act of the righteous seeking justice, that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm.
BUT, when those seeking justice against the ones causing harm intentionally choose to target and kill innocent people, then THEY have also become the oppressor, the one causing harm to innocents.
In just 25 days of war, more than 3,600 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings.
Those children were not the ones causing harm. Those thousands of children were quite literally innocent bystanders of Hamas and Israel fighters willing to cause harm/kill children in their thirst for "justice."
Israel is being played for a fool by the terrorists in Hamas. Israel and people like you (and to a lesser degree, Biden) are being played by the terrorists in Hamas.
This is the advantage of having a consistent moral rubric that says, "No, I will NOT intentionally cause harm to innocent bystanders in seeking Justice. I will find another way. I will not become a monster to fight monsters."
"Do you not see that one of these things is not like the others?"
Obviously there are superficial differences, but fundamentally in all cases the aggressor is reaping a logical consequence of their actions.
"When the oppressor gets harmed in the act of the righteous seeking justice, that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm."
Well, this would assume that Hamas is both "righteous" and "seeking justice", and that murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping are legitimate tactics for the "righteous" who are "seeking justice", but sure you go ahead and take that position. Well, it finally happened, Dan finally came out and blamed Israel. Ignoring history, the news, and reality, he really just did it. Dan is now on the side of those seeking genocide.
"BUT, when those seeking justice against the ones causing harm intentionally choose to target and kill innocent people, then THEY have also become the oppressor, the one causing harm to innocents."
This is bizarre, ridiculous, and confusing. Now you seem to indicate that Hamas is the aggressor.
"In just 25 days of war, more than 3,600 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings."
1. Because their parents didn't take advantage of the opportunity they were given to move out of the zone where the IDF was going to attack Hamas.
2. Because Hamas intentionally and willfully put them in positions where they would be used as human shields.
3. By all means let's ignore the Israeli children who were raped, mutilated, killed, and kidnapped.
4. Let's also ignore the fact that Hamas refuses to release those kidnapped.
"Those children were not the ones causing harm. Those thousands of children were quite literally innocent bystanders of Hamas and Israel fighters willing to cause harm/kill children in their thirst for "justice.""
See above.
"Israel is being played for a fool by the terrorists in Hamas. Israel and people like you (and to a lesser degree, Biden) are being played by the terrorists in Hamas."
What in the hell are you talking about. Hamas engaged in barbaric actions against innocent civilians, kidnapped innocent civilians, hide themselves in places where collateral damage will be high, and that is somehow Israel's fault. What an idiotic hunch. The people who are getting played are folx like you who ignore what the leaders of Hamas have said (that they are intentionally sacrificing women, children, and the elderly) because it generates bad PR for Israel. As someone who's done a fair amount of research and study, is well aware of the history, and who does not support any organization who's stated goal is genocide, I,m pretty confident I'm not being "played". You, on the other hand are doing exactly what Hamas wants you to do when they sacrifice their women, children, and elderly.
While I'm not sure that killing every member of Hamas is the only possible option, I would agree that with a group like Hamas it will be necessary to kill many of them.
Dan keeps prattling on about his "consistent moral philosophy" and how many people worldwide agree with his personal hunches on the subject.
What's interesting is that Hamas most certainly does NOT agree with his hunch. Further Hamas would argue (right or wrong) that their moral philosophy comes directly from Allah, through the Quran, as the 100% accurate words of Mohamed the one and only prophet of Allah. They clearly believe (as do many/most/millions) that the harming of "innocents" is not only moral, but that Allah demands it as a part of spreading of Islam across the world.
What I'd like to propose is that we take up a collection, buy Dan a ticket to Gaza, and give him the opportunity to use his highly developed NVDA skills, and his "moral philosophy" shared by the majority of reasonable/rational people in the world to sit down with some Hamas representatives and see how that goes.
Dan's "In just 25 days of war, more than 3,600 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza. They were hit by airstrikes, smashed by rockets, burned by blasts and crushed by buildings." is problematic.
1. The source is the Gaza Health Ministry, which is controlled by Hamas.
2. The "official" Hamas sources haven't been particularly accurate in any of their claims (the hospital bombing being the worst).
At a minimum it's completely reasonable to not simply take these numbers at face value and uncritically believe and repeat them. Just because everyone else is doing that, doesn't make the numbers accurate.
I had said...
"When the oppressor gets harmed in the act of the righteous seeking justice, that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm."
You responded...
"Well, this would assume that Hamas is both "righteous" and "seeking justice", and that murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping are legitimate tactics for the "righteous" who are "seeking justice","
You misunderstand. Let me clarify...
When the oppressor
(Hamas, or any criminal or oppressor)
gets harmed in the act of the righteous
(Israel, the police or any group seeking to stop harm and act for justice)
seeking justice...
that harm is on the oppressor/killer/one causing harm. (Ie, Hamas, terrorist, killer)
BUT
When those seeking justice cause harm NOT to the terrorists but to innocent bystanders, and that, intentionally, they are then in the wrong.
I did not say or suggest that Hamas was righteous or acting for justice (at least, outside of their own minds).
Dan
"You misunderstand. Let me clarify..."
I know it's hard for you to acknowledge, therefore you always blame the reader, but your original statement certainly wasn't clear at all as to who the "oppressors" were.
"BUT
When those seeking justice cause harm NOT to the terrorists but to innocent bystanders, and that, intentionally, they are then in the wrong."
This is quite the claim. Can you verify that the IDF is specifically and intentionally targeting "innocent bystanders"? Can you demonstrate to a high degree of certainty that every single person killed is an "innocent bystander"? Can people who actively support Hamas, who cheered the barbaric attack on 10/7, who raise their children to idolize Hamas and their terrorist behavior really be called "innocent bystanders"? If Hamas has prevented these "innocent bystanders" from leaving as they were warned by the IDF to do, then doesn't the responsibility for their deaths rest on Hamas? Are you really suggesting that Israel not pursue Hamas, punish those responsible for the barbarity of 10/7, and try to rescue the hostages, simply because Hamas uses human shields?
It's interesting, in all of your condemnation for Israel in it's attempt to protect their citizens and visitors from unprovoked barbarous attacks, you have yet to mention that Hamas' refusal to release those (innocent women and children) they've kidnapped. You've failed to mention that Hamas releasing the hostages would affect the IDF response.
Nah, Israel must turn the other cheek as it's citizens (innocent bystanders) are raped, mutilated, murdered, and kidnapped, because the perpetrators of those barbarities are willing to sacrifice women, children and the elderly as human shields.
Hell, you're completely ignored the rockets that Hamas has been using to kill "innocent bystanders" for years.
Your sudden concern for these "innocent bystanders" while maintaining your silence on the innocent Israelis killed tells me that I want no part of your "moral philosophy".
I did not say or suggest that Hamas was righteous or acting for justice (at least, outside of their own minds).
My point stands. Anything that doesn't require Hamas to release the hostages, and surrender everyone who was involved in the 10/7 barbarous attack is a win for Hamas. Anyone who supports any resolution that doesn't include those two items (at a minimum), is supporting a Hamas victory. Hamas is buying this PR victory with the lives of the men, women, children, and elderly of Gaza who they are willing to hide behind as see killed to keep themselves safe.
"This is quite the claim. Can you verify that the IDF is specifically and intentionally targeting "innocent bystanders"?"
This isn't hard to understand.
Israel has targeted and attacked a refugee camp. Their INTENT may be to kill a handful of Hamas villains, BUT, they do the attack with full knowledge that it will kill the hundreds of innocent men, women and children Hamas is hiding behind. Rather than say, "We want to get the bad guys hiding behind hostages and innocents, but we will NOT take this action when we know innocent people will be killed and maimed..." they deliberately take the action knowing full well that THEIR choice will kill and maim innocent people. They don't have to take that action, they choose to.
It is, from a straightforward reading of war crimes law, a violation of those laws.
Do you think that Israel thinks their bombs will magically only get the bad guys?
Neither you nor Israel believe that.
Dan
"We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza... so as to awaken our revolutionary spirit."
NO, Hamas is not responsible for the harm to the "women, children, and the elderly of Gaza", not one little bit.
What vile, barbarous, evil, people.
"This isn't hard to understand."
Really, you seem to be having difficulty.
"Israel has targeted and attacked a refugee camp."
So are you saying that Israel knew with 100% certainty that this "refugee camp" which Hamas was using to hide had not been evacuated as they were warned to do?
"Their INTENT may be to kill a handful of Hamas villains, BUT, they do the attack with full knowledge that it will kill the hundreds of innocent men, women and children Hamas is hiding behind."
Interesting, your ability to read minds is impressive. It's pathetic that you don't seem bothered by the fact that Hamas is "hiding behind" non combatants.
"Rather than say, "We want to get the bad guys hiding behind hostages and innocents, but we will NOT take this action when we know innocent people will be killed and maimed..." they deliberately take the action knowing full well that THEIR choice will kill and maim innocent people. They don't have to take that action, they choose to."
So, your alternative is to not go after the barbarians who killed, raped, mutilated, and kidnapped innocent bystanders in an unprovoked attack simply because they're hiding behind non combatants. Excellent plan, allow Hamas to engage in whatever barbarities they choose, then escape justice by hiding behind non combatants. Again, I note that you have nothing negative to say about the Hamas barbarians who "hide behind" non combatants, nor do you assign any responsibility to Hamas for placing those the rule in danger.
"It is, from a straightforward reading of war crimes law, a violation of those laws."
So, you're desperately convinced that Israel must abide by your hunches about "those laws", yet remain silent about Hamas violation of "those laws"? As usual, there is no citation of what "those laws" are, just your claim that "those laws" are what you say they are.
"Do you think that Israel thinks their bombs will magically only get the bad guys?"
No. I've addressed this multiple times. Are you stupid, or willfully ignoring what I've said?
"Neither you nor Israel believe that."
Again, your ability to read minds is amazing.
I said...
"Neither you nor Israel believe that."
You responded...
Again, your ability to read minds is amazing.
You DO believe in magic bombs that only harm the guilty? If so, man, I've got bad news for you.
I've addressed this multiple times. Are you stupid, or willfully ignoring what I've said?
You HAVE said multiple times that if Hamas hides with innocents and if Israel chooses to blow up that building/location and innocents are hurt, that, in your mind, Israel holds no consequences for their actions. I disagree. War crime laws disagree.
I asked you earlier if you were unfamiliar with the various rules about war crimes. You didn't answer but given your repeated credulity that I would suggest that nations can't just target and kill civilians at civilian sites with no legal repercussions... it appears you are ignorant of the rules of engagement that nations - including Israel - have agreed to abide by.
Some info about those rules:
The conflict falls under a complex international system of justice that has emerged since World War Two.
Even if states say they are acting in self-defence,
international rules regarding armed conflict apply to
all participants in a war...
Directly targeting civilians or civilian objects is strictly forbidden.
Intentionally attacking personnel and material involved in
humanitarian assistance
is a separate war crime as long as those providing the humanitarian aid are civilians.
A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine the military capabilities of a force like Hamas, or if found to be disproportionate.
I'm out of time, but more can be found here and other places. Educate yourself:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-war-crimes-laws-apply-israel-palestinian-conflict-2023-11-02/
Also, you asked:
So, you're desperately convinced that Israel must abide by your hunches about "those laws", yet remain silent about Hamas violation of "those laws"?
No. I have NOT remained silent. I've been quite clear that Hamas has clearly committed war crime atrocities. I've been quite clear that they should be held accountable. Of the two of us, I am the only one saying that NO ONE should be given a pass on war crimes. YOU are the one who has been arguing that Israel can commit war crimes and that the blame goes to Hamas. But either you're ignorant of the law and adult reasoning as it relates to war crimes or you're just deliberately lying.
So, your alternative is to not go after the barbarians who killed, raped, mutilated, and kidnapped innocent bystanders in an unprovoked attack simply because they're hiding behind non combatants.
HERE is yet another example of you engaging in either/or thinking. It's not like we ONLY have two options. Hold the guilty accountable unless they're hiding behind innocents. Then you have to let them go.
Life is not either/or. Complex scenarios require complex, not grade-school, answers.
If you don't want to be told you're engaging in either/or thinking, stop writing sentences like that.
Do you think it's the case that THE ONLY way to catch Hamas is to kill civilians if they're hiding behind them?
Grow your thinking, don't be so small-minded, brother. As has been rightly noted and as you demonstrate: War is a failure of imagination/thinking.
https://www.thetruthaboutisrael.org.il/uncategorized/comprehensive-guide-truth-refugees/
https://www.thetower.org/article/the-real-palestinian-refugee-crisis/
Next is old info, but speaks to how common and numerous are the lies of the pallies:
https://www.takeapen.org/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=628
https://www.politico.eu/article/ten-deadly-lies-about-israel-ambassador-myths-palestine/
What follow is more relevant to the recent murderous behavior of the pallies against Israel:
https://aish.com/5-big-lies-about-israels-war-with-gaza/
This one, from an article at AmericanThinker.com...a site those like Dan and his kind can never truly find legitimate fault as they dismiss them simply for leaning toward the right and truth...contains a short video explaining why the pallies find to refuge in arab nations. It makes a point I believe could have been made more strongly, which is that the palles has ALWAYS supported rulers who perpetuate Jew-hatred as Job 1. Thus, I'm not convinced ridding the world of Hamas is anywhere near sufficient for ending the centuries of murder Israel continues to endure.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/11/mustsee_video_why_muslim_nations_dont_want_palestinians.html
Now, about those "refugee camps".
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/11/darwin_award_gaza_protestors_who_shouted_we_wont_go_when_warned_by_israel_to_leave_the_war_zone_before_strike.html
This last one above was not what I was looking for, but does indeed imply the label "refugee camps" is an intentional falsehood used to perpetuate the lie of "Israeli war crimes" Dan loves to believe without the slightest evidence to support the claim. He takes it for granted they'll commit them simply because non-combatants...though not necessarily pallie Jew-lovers...might be killed in a just and righteous Israeli response to the murderous actions of the democratically elected Hamas government.
Within at least one of the first two links I've provided above are descriptions of the so-called "refugee camps" as no less than basic apartment buildings from which Hamas launches attacks, or uses as bases or storing military supplies, but which were warned of the impending Israeli response to the murder, rape and torture of their people. I read of one such place, constructed over, or had constructed beneath it, one of the many miles of tunnels the murderers use to transport and store supplies of all kinds for use in their pursuit of Israel's destruction. Indeed, a "refugee camp" could thus itself be collateral damage of a strike against a tunnel.
I don't see any way Israel can prevent more deaths by allowing Hamas to exist, and Hamas cannot be destroyed without collateral damage because that's how Hamas wants it. Dan would have Israel and it's innocent civilians all die in order that no pallie "civilians" die during military responses to pallies murdering Israelis.
This is just more proof of what a moron Dan is. I would insist that his purpose is to posture as "Christian" by all this nonsense, not really caring what's really at stake, who the actual "innocent" people are and what's necessary to protect themselves against a group of people with a fake name exploiting whatever is available to pretend they're the victims. They are not, and the lives of their own are of no value to themselves.
"HERE is yet another example of you engaging in either/or thinking. It's not like we ONLY have two options. Hold the guilty accountable unless they're hiding behind innocents. Then you have to let them go."
No, it's more of an acknowledgement that your simplistic, naive, platitudes don't actually address the complex situation we find in Israel right now. Especially when you focus your platitudes on one side not both. The reality is that you have no answer except your platitude to the situation.You've offered zero options to achieve justice, while doing more to protect the "innocents". You barely acknowledge that Hamas bears most of the responsibility for endangering the "innocents" at all. Hell, Hamas has started firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel from the south part of Gaza. Which is exactly where Israel has been telling people to go because they won't be in danger there. This is what happens when one adopts a narrative as one's guiding principle.
"Life is not either/or. Complex scenarios require complex, not grade-school, answers."
Answers that you haven't provided, just a simplistic, naive, platitude. I've been trying to get you to address the reality, but you just keep repeating your platitude.
"If you don't want to be told you're engaging in either/or thinking, stop writing sentences like that."
It's interesting that your platitude is an excellent example of either/or thinking. While your inability to offer anything beyond a platitude just reinforces my conclusions about your shallow understanding of the situation in Israel.
"Do you think it's the case that THE ONLY way to catch Hamas is to kill civilians if they're hiding behind them?"
No, by all means, enlighten us. Tell us of your miraculous technique for catching Hamas, with zero civilian casualties. especially on option that minimizes IDF casualties.
"Grow your thinking, don't be so small-minded, brother. As has been rightly noted and as you demonstrate: War is a failure of imagination/thinking."
For someone who can only repeat a platitude, instead of offer anything of substance, this sounds like a way to hide from actually having to offer anything.
Craig...
Really? Where exactly have you specifically said that Hamas should be prosecuted for "war crimes"? Quote and link.
Dan:
The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people...
The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were...
It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents...
We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack.
Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards.
I have been abundantly clear in this conversation with you that Hamas committed evil, atrocious attacks the "clearly" rise to the level of war crimes. That last quote was from Nov 1 at 9:46am on this post...
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8840366335457642958&postID=4952195484492529392
But again, one does not HAVE to wonder what my position is because I have always and consistently been clear: CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY HARM INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG. People always find ways for THEM to justify that sort of harm when THEY think it's right, but that people - Hamas, Israel, you, the US in various times and places - make such excuses doesn't make it moral. At the very best, one MIGHT be able to make the case that it's a justifiable evil or a "lesser evil" (ha!) but one must never forget that it's an evil action to deliberately choose to cause harm.
As to potential solutions. We use more of a policing action. IF someone from neighborhood 2 were to have raped and killed ten women in neighborhood 1, we can't just say, "Well, the ONLY possible action is to rape and kill 100 women in neighborhood 2!" That's a ridiculous suggestion.
The same is true for Hamas. They committed crimes. What we HAVE to do is treat them like crimes. Find those responsible and bring them to justice. That they committed atrocities does NOT justify attacking and killing other innocents.
More...
I've asked repeatedly if you were not familiar with war crimes and instead of answering, you say, "well, you're just referencing war crimes without a citation..." I assume you're adult enough to KNOW already about war crimes and what one can and can't do during war. And even if not, I assume you are adult enough to just google it yourself.
But here, let me hold your hand and help you...
Wilful killing
Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
...
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
For starters.
Again I ask you: Are you NOT aware of these kinds of laws/rules?
How do we stop such terroristic attacks such as done by Hamas? We fully support international laws, international courts and pursue criminal charges and penalties when they happen.
Am I saying this is easy? No. But neither is it "easy" to simply bomb ambulances, medical centers and refugee sites. NOR is it as simple as saying, "We're getting ready to destroy your refugee center, leave now..." WHEN there is no safe passage. Let's assume the worst of ALL the adult Palestinians - that they are deliberately staying in support of Hamas (this is not true, of course, but let's assume that): There STILL are innocent children who have no choice. IF their parents have an opportunity to safely leave and don't, that still doesn't make it not a war crime to deliberately target the places where a few Hamas are hiding behind dozens/hundreds of innocent children.
If you're not familiar with war crimes, then study them and learn what we and other civilized nations have agreed to.
I said...
"You DO believe in magic bombs that only harm the guilty? If so, man, I've got bad news for you."
You responded...
Where have I ever said this? Please show me the quote. I'll wait.
sigh. Okay.
I had said...
Do you think that Israel thinks their bombs will magically only get the bad guys?
Neither you nor Israel believe that.
You responded...
Again, your ability to read minds is amazing.
That is, I SAID you don't believe in magic bombs. To THAT comment, you responded, "your ability to ready minds is amazing..." Indicating that I was mistaken when I said you don't believe in magic bombs.
Talking with you is so much work, man. Same for nearly every instance of you making either/or type claims in response to my comments, suggesting I'm advocating letting Hamas go when, of course, I'm not. Suggesting I'm supporting of Hamas when of course, I'm not.
I think the problem is that once you've established yourself in a conservative silo, you have to assume the very worst of all those who dare to disagree with you. In spite of my repeated clear condemnations of Hamas vulgar attacks on innocents, you keep suggesting I've not condemned them and demand I support what is evident and what SHOULD be evident even if I hadn't said anything. Because, once again class, let's say it together: Dan and people like him are ALWAYS opposed to actions that harm, maim and kill the innocent. Period.
"Did Hamas harm innocent people? I wonder what Dan thinks??" No, you don't have to wonder.
"Did some liberal harm innocent people? I wonder what Dan thinks??" No, you don't have to wonder.
Again, that's the advantage of establishing clear moral boundaries and being consistent about them.
"That is, I SAID you don't believe in magic bombs. To THAT comment, you responded, "your ability to ready minds is amazing..." Indicating that I was mistaken when I said you don't believe in magic bombs."
So, you can't actually find a quote that says what you claimed I said, so you decide that it's better to use your mind reading powers to try to make a snarky, sarcastic comment say whatever you want it to say. Again, show me the quote where I said what you claim I said, not some convoluted, inference from sarcasm.
"Talking with you is so much work, man. Same for nearly every instance of you making either/or type claims in response to my comments, suggesting I'm advocating letting Hamas go when, of course, I'm not. Suggesting I'm supporting of Hamas when of course, I'm not."
Not as much work as talking with you. Especially when you just make shit up. I'm "suggesting" that you are focusing the vast majority of your outrage at Israel, while throwing in a token condemnation of Hamas to cover your ass. If you were serious, you'd be pointing out instance where both have committed "war crimes", not focusing on Israel.
"I think the problem is that once you've established yourself in a conservative silo, you have to assume the very worst of all those who dare to disagree with you."
Then you'd be wrong once again. This isn't a "conservative" issue necessarily. It's simply a matter of looking at history, looking at the two sides, and taking a principled stand in favor of not randomly attacking, mutilating, torturing, murdering, and kidnapping innocent women, children. and men. It's taking a stand against holding innocent people hostage and using the people who you claim to govern as human shields and cannon fodder.
"In spite of my repeated clear condemnations of Hamas vulgar attacks on innocents, you keep suggesting I've not condemned them and demand I support what is evident and what SHOULD be evident even if I hadn't said anything. Because, once again class, let's say it together: Dan and people like him are ALWAYS opposed to actions that harm, maim and kill the innocent. Period."
Because repeating this false claim will make it True.
The real question should be, "Are liberal people in the US and elsewhere protesting, chanting slogans that call for the genocide of the Jews, the removal of Israel as a nation, and the support of terrorist organizations like Hamas?" to which the answer is yes. Did they storm and deface the White House? Yes. Are liberal people actively engaging in antisemitism? Yes. Are institutions of higher learning allowing antisemitism? Yes. IS Dan actively, loudly, vehemently, and with vitriol condemning those of his political persuasion who are calling for genocide, or engaging in antisemitism? No, not that anyone can see,
You see, when you only ask the questions you think help your cause, and ignore the rest, it doesn't help at all.
"Again, that's the advantage of establishing clear moral boundaries and being consistent about them."
Yes. Your subjective, flexible, personal, "moral boundaries" definitely help you confirm you self appointed moral superiority.
From Dan's Reuters link:
"Under these laws there are instances in which otherwise civilian objects can become legitimate military targets if they are being used to effectively contribute to military action."
It would be difficult to prove which civilian object can't be regarded as legit military targets given the fact that the vast majority of Gaza specifically and the West Bank most likely are "civilian objects" "being used to effectively contribute to military action". The scum have no legit military installations as normal, moral people think of them. They simply set up within their population as they see fit. There's not so much as an outhouse which can be overlooked as a potential terrorist facility.
Even if we were to focus solely on "war crimes" statutes, the scum intentionally exploit them for advantage, both strategically in a military sense and propaganda-wise. Given the great lengths Israel goes to prevent the deaths of non-combatant Jew-hating pallies, to accuse them of war crimes because of how the scum has set things up to result in such charges being leveled against any who oppose them or respond to their murderous actions is to be complicit with the scum...to be allied with them despite posturing as caring for "innocents".
And again, who are the innocents? Infants and small children who are not even old enough to understand the Jew-hatred being taught to them? How many Israelis must die in order to avoid the deaths of any such used as shields by the scum while the Israelis seek to end the murder of their own?
So Dan says that if a scumbag is hiding behind and infant, the Israelis must not engage. So how do the Israelis protect themselves from the ongoing attacks by scumbags hiding behind infants? Until Dan can provide a legitimate workable strategy which can be implemented quickly enough to prevent the murder of Israeli infants, he's proving his fealty to the scumbags quest to exterminate all Jews.
It's not complex at all. As the scum insists on continuing, and continuing in the manner they've established and abide consistently, concern for the non-combatant segment of the pallie population is suicidal.
Dan made a snarky comment about "magic bombs" only harming the guilty. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Shannon Bream was interviewing some Dem senator about the crisis. This guy spoke of telling the IDF about how to target only the scum as if the IDF isn't already doing all it can to do just that. The modern progressive is stupid and dishonest as a rule...as a requirement to be in the modern progressive club. They're every bit responsible for the Oct 7 attack as are the scum the IDF is hunting for destruction.
"The fact is that I HAVE condemned Hamas for their barbarous attacks on innocent people..."
That's not what I asked. Answer the question that was asked, not a different question. Where have you done this "condemnation" without being with no prodding from anyone else? Where are the FB posts, and blog posts decrying the history of Hamas attacking innocent civilians?
"The attacks by Hamas on innocent people were evil and a grotesque injustice. Period. Because, of course they were..."
Again, answer the question asked.
"It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to innocents..."
Ah the trite platitude returns.
"We have international war crime laws that limit where and how a nation can attack."
"Hamas clearly broke these laws, standards."
OK, where have you specifically called for Hamas to be prosecuted for these "war crimes"? Why are so many on the left supporting these perpetrators of "war crimes", where is your condemnation for those who support Hamas?
"I have been abundantly clear in this conversation with you that Hamas committed evil, atrocious attacks the "clearly" rise to the level of war crimes. That last quote was from Nov 1 at 9:46am on this post...""
Yet, you continue to focus the majority of your outrage on Israel. The link was to a thread, not a comment, and there was no specific quote.
"But again, one does not HAVE to wonder what my position is because I have always and consistently been clear: CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY HARM INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG. People always find ways for THEM to justify that sort of harm when THEY think it's right, but that people - Hamas, Israel, you, the US in various times and places - make such excuses doesn't make it moral. At the very best, one MIGHT be able to make the case that it's a justifiable evil or a "lesser evil" (ha!) but one must never forget that it's an evil action to deliberately choose to cause harm."
Blah, blah, blah, platitude, self serving bullshit, look how awesome I (Dan) am.
"As to potential solutions. We use more of a policing action. IF someone from neighborhood 2 were to have raped and killed ten women in neighborhood 1, we can't just say, "Well, the ONLY possible action is to rape and kill 100 women in neighborhood 2!" That's a ridiculous suggestion."
Yet, no one is suggesting that. The bigger question is why is the Arab/Muslim world not only allowing Hamas to engage in these "war crimes", not only refusing to help the "innocents", and in some cases actively supporting Hamas?
"The same is true for Hamas. They committed crimes. What we HAVE to do is treat them like crimes. Find those responsible and bring them to justice. That they committed atrocities does NOT justify attacking and killing other innocents."
Ok, you've covered your ass so now you can go back to bashing Israel.
Art,
Are you really surprised that Dan didn't read the entire article he linked to, and selectively left out pertinent information?
Hamas engaged in barbaric actions against innocent civilians,
And HAMAS was wrong to do that. It was a vile and barbaric and criminal act and HAMAS should be held accountable. HAMAS, not Palestinians around Hamas.
kidnapped innocent civilians,
And HAMAS is wrong to do that. It is a vile and barbaric and criminal act and HAMAS should be held accountable. HAMAS, not Palestinians around Hamas.
hide themselves in places where collateral damage will be high,
And HAMAS is wrong to do that. It is a vile and barbaric and criminal act and HAMAS should be held accountable. HAMAS, not Palestinians around Hamas.
and that is somehow Israel's fault. What an idiotic hunch.
But it is NOT "my hunch" that Hamas hiding behind human shields is somehow Israel's fault. I've not said that. I don't believe that. It's not a correct understanding of my viewpoint. It is NOT my position.
Do you understand?
It is NOT Israel's fault that Hamas is cowardly hiding behind human shields. BUT, if Israel drops a bomb on a handful of Hamas terrorists and does so knowing that dozens of innocent humans will be killed in that process, that would be Israel's decision and Israel would be the ones to be held accountable for their violation of war crimes rules.
It helps to argue the actual points being made, not these ridiculous false extrapolations of what I'm saying.
Do you agree that if a gang of killers runs into a church full of church-goers to hide, that the GANG is wrong... but if the police drop a bomb on that church, then the POLICE are wrong?
Do you agree that there are limits on what nations/police can do in the pursuit of killers? And that nations themselves should be responsible if they decide to go past those limits and they kill innocent people in the process?
"Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:"
Is Hamas a signatory the the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949? Do they abide by all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949? Is there a requirement that nations or organizations that they treat non signatories as if they were signatories?
Doesn't the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 require that combatants wear a uniform in order to be protected?
"
Wilful killing
Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
Taking of hostages."
Well, let's see. Just since 10/7/2023 Hamas has violated numbers 1,2,3,4,6,7,and 8 of just this initial section. Where is the ICC? Why have they not even started to deal with this brazen, egregious violation of "war crimes laws"? Why hasn't the ICC taken steps to release the hostages and stop the rocket attacks on civilians?
I'm not going to copy/paste the whole thing but section B, paragraphs 1,2,4,5, and 13 allow for the attacks on military targets, even though civilians might he harmed. While paragraphs 1,2,4,5,11,16,21,22,and 23 all address things that Hamas has done/is doing.
Finally, section C seems to cover the Israel/Hamas situation reasonable well, which points out that the items in sections a and b do not all apply.
Once again, Dan doesn't read deeply enough.
"Are liberal people in the US and elsewhere protesting, chanting slogans that call for the genocide of the Jews, the removal of Israel as a nation, and the support of terrorist organizations like Hamas?" to which the answer is yes. Did they storm and deface the White House? Yes. Are liberal people actively engaging in antisemitism? Yes. Are institutions of higher learning allowing antisemitism? Yes.
Bullshit claims mean nothing more than you're willing to make bullshit claims.
Is it POSSIBLE that some low-life people who might call themselves liberal are doing any of that? Sure, it's possible. But there are NO serious progressives out there calling for the genocide of the Jews. That is vile bullshit you're spewing in the world. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Stop it. Repent. Be a better man than that.
Disagreeing with Israel bombing and killing thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women and children is NOT anti-semitism and it is NOT defending Hamas.
Be a better man than this.
Is Hamas a signatory the the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949? Do they abide by all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949?
ALL of your questions about Hamas are irrelevant. The people in Hamas who did the killing committed crimes. Period. They should and can be held accountable and one doesn't need to be a signatory of the Geneva Convention for that to happen.
But ISRAEL and the US are signatories of the Geneva Convention and various war crimes agreements. They/we should follow those laws. And where there are questions about "does it reach the level of war crimes...?" they/we should be wary about going there.
I don't know what in the name of all that is holy and good you're blathering about Hamas is supposed to indicate. NO ONE is disputing (well, except for Hamas and their defenders) that the murders and crimes committed by Hamas are criminal and they should be held accountable.
"Do you understand?"
Yes, I understand that you have finally, under duress, been fairly specific in how you categorize the actions of Hamas. I also understand that you've made a pro forma call for Hamas to be punished. Unfortunately, you watched in silence for so long before doing so,
"It is NOT Israel's fault that Hamas is cowardly hiding behind human shields. BUT, if Israel drops a bomb on a handful of Hamas terrorists and does so knowing that dozens of innocent humans will be killed in that process, that would be Israel's decision and Israel would be the ones to be held accountable for their violation of war crimes rules."
1. You are assuming facts not in evidence, and treating those unproven facts as if they were the Truth.
2. As I pointed out in a recent comment, the attacking of sites of military significance is allowed under your "war crimes laws" even though such attacks might result in civilian casualties.
"It helps to argue the actual points being made, not these ridiculous false extrapolations of what I'm saying."
It helps when you hold yourself to the standards you demand of others. It also helps when you actually make unequivocal, and definitive statements instead of remaining silent, offering platitudes, and not being one sided in your criticism. If you won't give definitive, unequivocal, specific answers, remain silent, or throw out vague platitudes then one is forced to extrapolate from that scarce information.
"Do you agree that if a gang of killers runs into a church full of church-goers to hide, that the GANG is wrong... but if the police drop a bomb on that church, then the POLICE are wrong?"
Not enough information in your vague attempt at an analogy to give an answer beyond noting that it's theoretically possible to come up with a scenario where the police are wrong, as well as a scenario where the police are right. I'm not going to play these bullshit hypothetical games.
"Do you agree that there are limits on what nations/police can do in the pursuit of killers? And that nations themselves should be responsible if they decide to go past those limits and they kill innocent people in the process?"
Sure. Although, acknowledging accurately what those limits are and applying them equally to both sides is hard. In this case, your accusations lack proof.
"Bullshit claims mean nothing more than you're willing to make bullshit claims."
Yeah, what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears on various media outlets is all "bullshit".
"Is it POSSIBLE that some low-life people who might call themselves liberal are doing any of that? Sure, it's possible. But there are NO serious progressives out there calling for the genocide of the Jews. That is vile bullshit you're spewing in the world. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Stop it. Repent. Be a better man than that."
If by "some" you mean thousands, then you're on the right track. I love it when you automatically classify people as "right wing" or "conservative" when it suits your narrative, but reflexively deny the reality that the only people who are protesting in support of Hamas right now are on the left side of the political spectrum. Of course, as usual, you throw up bullshit excuses rather than vitriolically condemn them.
"Disagreeing with Israel bombing and killing thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women and children is NOT anti-semitism and it is NOT defending Hamas."
Again Danthustera has spoken. Hell, if it helps you to ignore the instances of antisemitism that are so blatant that the MSM can't ignore them, go right ahead. If it helps you to pretend that the vast majority of US colleges and universities aren't led by folx on the left, go ahead. I understand that pretending that folx on your side never do bad things makes it easier to cling to the rose colored grasses, Pollyanna narrative you cling to.
"Be a better man than this."
Yeah, because wanting hostages released, innocent civilians not to be mutilated, killed, tortured, and kidnapped, the people of Gaza to be free from Hamas, and wanting Hamas to be eradicated for it's barbarism is such a horrible thing.
"Unfortunately, you watched in silence for so long before doing so,"
Again I've been taking care of a dying family member
And again, I don't comment on everything
And again, I am a finite mortal.
Again, thanks for the stark object lesson (by way of bad example) on why we humans need to live lives of grace.
Dan
"ALL of your questions about Hamas are irrelevant."
That's one way to avoid answering questions and to display your ignorance in one short sentence.
"The people in Hamas who did the killing committed crimes. Period. They should and can be held accountable and one doesn't need to be a signatory of the Geneva Convention for that to happen."
Really? Are you suggesting that Hamas should get the benefits of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, without being a party to the treaty or following any of the rules established by the GC49?
"But ISRAEL and the US are signatories of the Geneva Convention and various war crimes agreements. They/we should follow those laws. And where there are questions about "does it reach the level of war crimes...?" they/we should be wary about going there."
Is Israel a signatory? Are signatories required to behave the same way toward other signatories as they are to non signatories? As I pointed out, section b (I believe) allows the actions Israel has taken up to this point.
"I don't know what in the name of all that is holy and good you're blathering about Hamas is supposed to indicate. NO ONE is disputing (well, except for Hamas and their defenders) that the murders and crimes committed by Hamas are criminal and they should be held accountable."
I'm merely pointing out that you really have no functional knowledge of the GC49 beyond copy/pasting a small section of it out of context. The fact that you've chosen to blatantly hide from my question sis just a bonus.
"Again I've been taking care of a dying family member"
Maybe you are unaware that Hamas has been launching indiscriminate rocket attacks at Israeli civilian targets for years. Maybe you aren't aware that Hamas has been engaging in suicide bombings, and other indiscriminate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians for years. The recent death of your mother is no excuse for your years of silence.
"And again, I don't comment on everything"
No, you only comment on things that you believe help your narrative. You ignore and remain silent on the sufferings of innocent people when they're not at the hands of white, conservative, "Christian", rich, oppressors. I not only understand this, it's literally my entire point. Your outrage is selective and almost always aimed at your boogymen.
"And again, I am a finite mortal."
As am I, yet you demand that I comment on every negative thing a "conservative" does.
"Again, thanks for the stark object lesson (by way of bad example) on why we humans need to live lives of grace."
You appearing to suggest that you live a "life of grace" to be emulated is amusing in a pathetic sort of way.
"As am I [finite], yet you demand that I comment on every negative thing a "conservative" does."
Of course, the reality is I have never suggested this.
Look, I've never had a post on my blog about Israel, Palestine, Rwanda, the coal wars in Kentucky, the Tulsa Race Massacre, and any number of violent situations in the world or history.
No one has.
Of course.
Not posting a blog entry on any misdeeds is not a sign of being in favor of the misdeeds. Of course.
It is entirely irrational and graceless to make that suggestion, which is why I have never demanded you condemn every negative a conservative has done.
For my part, I tend to focus on wise principles and specific policies of our nation. I hope that meets your approval, but if not, that's your problem, not mine.
Dan
"Maybe you are unaware that Hamas has been launching indiscriminate rocket attacks at Israeli civilian targets for years."
Of course, I'm not unaware of that OR the harm and death of Palestinian citizens by Israel/Israelis.
I'm aware of all kinds of harm and oppression happening all the time.
But I don't comment on all of it, nor do you.
We are finite humans.
So, what of it?
Dan
"Of course, the reality is I have never suggested this."
Sure you have, multiple times. You asking why I haven't addressed the "conservative" outrage du jour is a frequent tactic of yours.
"Look, I've never had a post on my blog about Israel, Palestine, Rwanda, the coal wars in Kentucky, the Tulsa Race Massacre, and any number of violent situations in the world or history."
Yes, I'm aware of your silence on multiple issues.
"No one has."
Really? No one has ever written a blog post about these topics, no one? Really?
"Not posting a blog entry on any misdeeds is not a sign of being in favor of the misdeeds. Of course."
I never suggested it was. It is, however, an indication of the value you place on certain things as opposed to other things.
"It is entirely irrational and graceless to make that suggestion, which is why I have never demanded you condemn every negative a conservative has done."
Again, it's irrational for you to claim that your made up bullshit is accurately representing what I said.
"For my part, I tend to focus on wise principles and specific policies of our nation. I hope that meets your approval, but if not, that's your problem, not mine."
Yes, I know that this is your excuse.
"Of course, I'm not unaware of that OR the harm and death of Palestinian citizens by Israel/Israelis."
I guess the fact that you're aware of the barbarism of Hamas is something. I guess awareness and silence is how you show concern.
"I'm aware of all kinds of harm and oppression happening all the time."
Good for you.
"But I don't comment on all of it, nor do you."
No you don't. You pick and choose which "oppression" you comment on so that you can support the narrative you are committed to.
"We are finite humans."
Yes, thanks for restating something so obvious. The fact that you feel the need to restate this so often makes me wonder why you bother. But then I realize that restating this, and wasting two comments with this bullshit, means that you have an excuse for ignoring the questions you've been asked.
"So, what of it?"
Nothing. Your silence on topics that conflict with your worldview, or that might place "your side" in a negative light is expected.
"But again, one does not HAVE to wonder what my position is because I have always and consistently been clear: CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY HARM INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG."
Says the boy who defends the right of women to murder their child in utero.
"People always find ways for THEM to justify that sort of harm when THEY think it's right..."
Just like the modern progressive, fake Christian defenders of pro-abortion laws. But what you call "justification" is in reality "cheap rationalizations". What's happening with the Israeli response is justification and it does not include any desire to see "innocents" suffer or die. That's just more modern progressive, fake Christian cheap rationalization for denying Israel the right to defend against those who seek their total annihilation.
If the modern progressive, fake Christian truly cares about "innocent" pallies, honest people would expect all attention by said fakes would be aimed toward destroying those who intentinoally put those "innocent" pallies in harm's way. But then it would be much more difficult for the fake Christian modern progressive to pander and posture for self-aggrandizement and promotion. They need dead or suffering people..."innocent" or simply said to be so...in order to do that.
"As to potential solutions. We use more of a policing action."
"A policing action" isn't appropriate when war is declared, as has always been the situation with regard the islamists and the Jews. The pallies, through Hamas and other jihadist asshats, are attacking militarily and using the worst forms of butchery and murder to terrorize their victims as they have been since the mid 600's. It's not as if a few murderers or rapists can be stopped, arrested and tried and then expect that others won't take up the cause in their absence while others seek their release. But then, Dan's a moron who pretends human nature is something it isn't and thus, stupidity can be tried to resolve human suffering other leftist stupidity either causes or enables.
""Well, the ONLY possible action is to rape and kill 100 women in neighborhood 2!""
Yet, leftists are indeed calling for a "proportional" response, which in this case would mean for the IDF to cross the border into Gaza and murder pallie civilians in the exact same manner the pallies murdered 1400 Israeli citizens.
But I don't want to see a proportional response. I want to see total annihilation of the pallie people or total and unconditional surrender. That's how wars are won. This is a war.
Art,
I also find the contradiction regarding the folx uproar over Gaza contradictory given their silence on so many instances of harm coming to children, the fact that children in Afghanistan have been condemned to a grim future, children in China are making the phones they use, and abortion. Obviously of we were to assume a connection between the volume of their outcries and the furtherance of their agenda I think we could reasonably conclude that not all children have the same value.
By all means, let's send some cops into the middle of a war zone. I guess I was confused, I thought cops were the bad guys and needed to be defunded. Hell, folx up here won't even support sending MPLS cops into certain neighborhoods to investigate actual crime.
I agree with the irony of the proportional response. A proportional response would, at a minimum, involve shooting hundreds of unguided rockets into areas where innocent civilians live and work, multiple rapes, murders, mutilations, kidnappings of innocent men, women, and children. Of course, if the IDF actually did do a proportionate response these some folx would be calling them out for barbarity.
"Art,
Are you really surprised that Dan didn't read the entire article he linked to, and selectively left out pertinent information?"
Not in the least. I expect no better. It would demand integrity. That ain't Dan's thing.
Your silence on topics that conflict with your worldview, or that might place "your side" in a negative light is expected.
This is a childish and inane ineptitude of reasoning, divorced from decency and reality.
I don't comment on every topic for the same reason that EVERYONE doesn't comment on every topic: It's humanly impossible. A point you will acknowledge on the one hand, but then suggest my "silence" has something to do with conflicting with my worldview.
Vomitous bullshit. Don't be stupid or try to be a bully. Use grace and adult-level reasoning in your comments. You'll be better for it. You can't bully people into speaking on topics that YOU say they ought to be talking about. YOU are a pissant. No one cares that you expect I should comment on this topic or that. You are nothing but a childish and impotent bully.
Stop it and be a better person.
Being concerned about innocent Israelis being killed IS a concern in my worldview, of course. I'm opposed to it, of course. Guatemala's rightly elected president potentially being kept from office IS a concern within my worldview. Innocent Palestinians being killed IS a concern within my worldview. Barbarous US citizens calling for the decimation of Palestinians - including innocent Palestinians, including children - IS a concern within my worldview.
But I don't make posts on all the potential things that are a concern within my worldview precisely for ONE reason: I AM FINITE. Of course. This is an obvious reality that rational people recognize. Hell, even YOU recognize it. So when you vomit up a hellacious lie like that, it's easily recognizable to all but the useful idiots of those who perpetrate violence.
Don't be a useful idiot. Don't make stupidly false claims. You are better than this. Denounce such damned lies, apologize for making them. Denounce Marshal when HE calls for the decimation of innocent lives.
Shame on you both. Repent.
There are so many shameless diabolical falsehoods and lies in your comments, I pray that your eyes would be open and you would be the better man that you should be.
Dan:
"But I don't comment on all of it, nor do you."
Craig and some of his nonsense responses to that reality that NO one comments on EVERy evil/wrong being done in the world...
No you don't. You pick and choose which "oppression" you comment on so that you can support the narrative you are committed to....
It has NOTHING to do with that. Are you "picking and choosing which oppression you comment on to support YOUR 'narratives'" when you don't comment on problems in Morocco, on the Tulsa race massacres, on Palestinian deaths by Israel, etc, etc, etc? Or is it just the reality that sometimes you comment on things because maybe you're more informed (ha!) or it's on your mind/heart or for any number of reasons that DON'T mean the ones you're "silent" on are any less worrisome for you?
This is just childish levels of attack and irrationality, Craig. You're letting your blathering partisanship undo you as a rational, moral person. Stop it.
Craig...
I guess the fact that you're aware of the barbarism of Hamas is something. I guess awareness and silence is how you show concern...
No, not commenting on ALL atrocities is ONLY a sign of my being a finite human being. That's all. It has nothing to do with worldview or politics and everything to do with humanity. BUT, when some idiot on the internet suggests you're being "silent" because you don't comment on a topic that THAT IDIOT thinks you should have commented on... that is a sign of ONE thing only: That the idiot is just not a fully rational or moral adult and who is willing to read ill-will into the simple human limitations of people as finite people. Shame on you. Be better.
Craig...
I never suggested it was. It is, however, an indication of the value you place on certain things as opposed to other things...
As I've made clear by now, and as was already clear to rational adults, it has NOTHING to do with the value being placed on one topic as opposed to another topic. The suggestion that it does is just vulgar and pedantic and entirely devoid of grace. It is the height of Pharisaical hypocrisy.
"This is a childish and inane ineptitude of reasoning, divorced from decency and reality."
No, it's just an observation of your behavior over the time I've interacted with you.
"I don't comment on every topic for the same reason that EVERYONE doesn't comment on every topic: It's humanly impossible. A point you will acknowledge on the one hand, but then suggest my "silence" has something to do with conflicting with my worldview."
Blah, blah, blah, excuse, rationalization, self serving bullshit.
"Vomitous bullshit. Don't be stupid or try to be a bully. Use grace and adult-level reasoning in your comments. You'll be better for it. You can't bully people into speaking on topics that YOU say they ought to be talking about. YOU are a pissant. No one cares that you expect I should comment on this topic or that. You are nothing but a childish and impotent bully."
Ad Hominem attack. But a great way to avoid answering the questions you've been asked.
"Being concerned about innocent Israelis being killed IS a concern in my worldview, of course. I'm opposed to it, of course. Guatemala's rightly elected president potentially being kept from office IS a concern within my worldview. Innocent Palestinians being killed IS a concern within my worldview. Barbarous US citizens calling for the decimation of Palestinians - including innocent Palestinians, including children - IS a concern within my worldview."
Then where is your criticism of leftists calling for the elimination of Israel? Essentially, this is just a paraphrase of "All Lives Matter", even though you ridiculed anyone who used that in 2020. It's just you trying to establish a moral equivalence that doesn't exist.
"But I don't make posts on all the potential things that are a concern within my worldview precisely for ONE reason: I AM FINITE. Of course. This is an obvious reality that rational people recognize. Hell, even YOU recognize it. So when you vomit up a hellacious lie like that, it's easily recognizable to all but the useful idiots of those who perpetrate violence."
More repetitious, self serving bullshit.
"Don't be a useful idiot. Don't make stupidly false claims. You are better than this. Denounce such damned lies, apologize for making them. Denounce Marshal when HE calls for the decimation of innocent lives."
More Ad Hominem attacks
"Shame on you both. Repent."
Look how self righteous and condescending Dan can be."
"There are so many shameless diabolical falsehoods and lies in your comments, I pray that your eyes would be open and you would be the better man that you should be."
which means that you can't actually demonstrate anything to actually be false, and you really don't want to answer the questions you've been asked.
I get it.
"It has NOTHING to do with that."
Then it's just a coincidence.
"Are you "picking and choosing which oppression you comment on to support YOUR 'narratives'" when you don't comment on problems in Morocco, on the Tulsa race massacres, on Palestinian deaths by Israel, etc, etc, etc? Or is it just the reality that sometimes you comment on things because maybe you're more informed (ha!) or it's on your mind/heart or for any number of reasons that DON'T mean the ones you're "silent" on are any less worrisome for you?"
1. No.
2. I'm not the one who regularly trumpets the line about being concerned about everyone who is "oppressed" and the like. I also regularly go after people on "my side" of things and don't have problems criticizing people that I generally agree with when they do stuff I don't agree with.
3. I comment on things that interest me, an don things where I see hypocrisy in many cases.
"No, not commenting on ALL atrocities is ONLY a sign of my being a finite human being. That's all. It has nothing to do with worldview or politics and everything to do with humanity. BUT, when some idiot on the internet suggests you're being "silent" because you don't comment on a topic that THAT IDIOT thinks you should have commented on... that is a sign of ONE thing only: That the idiot is just not a fully rational or moral adult and who is willing to read ill-will into the simple human limitations of people as finite people. Shame on you. Be better."
Blah, blah, blah, excuses, rationalizations, self serving bullshit, same old shit.
"As I've made clear by now, and as was already clear to rational adults, it has NOTHING to do with the value being placed on one topic as opposed to another topic. The suggestion that it does is just vulgar and pedantic and entirely devoid of grace. It is the height of Pharisaical hypocrisy."
Blah, blah, blah, repetition, Ad Hominem, bullshit.
Then where is your criticism of leftists calling for the elimination of Israel?
Sigh.
As a starting point, you'd have to provide SOME SUPPORT - ANYTHING - that this is a real thing that happens in the real world. What it is, right now, is simply an unsupported made-up talking point put out by abusers of truth and their useful idiots.
WHAT "leftist" is calling for the "elimination of Israel..."?
Hamas?
Hamas is not a leftist group.
The Democrats? Don't be obtuse.
You're making up stuff then asking people to respond to your fictional narrative as if it's a reality.
Apologize for the lie. Retract it. Repent.
Be a better man, Craig. I believe in you.
"As a starting point, you'd have to provide SOME SUPPORT - ANYTHING - that this is a real thing that happens in the real world. What it is, right now, is simply an unsupported made-up talking point put out by abusers of truth and their useful idiots."
Seriously, are you unaware of what's happening on college/university campuses and in the streets of DC? Are you so sheltered in your echo chamber that you don't see what's actually happening.
"WHAT "leftist" is calling for the "elimination of Israel..."?"
Rashida Tlaib for one. The sign carriers on college/university campuses. Look around.
"Hamas?"
Yes, it's in their charter.
"Hamas is not a leftist group."
Which is supported by leftist groups in the west.
"The Democrats? Don't be obtuse."
I'm not, I'm just seeing what's happening.
"You're making up stuff then asking people to respond to your fictional narrative as if it's a reality."
No.
"Apologize for the lie. Retract it. Repent."
No lie, no apology.
Rashida Tlaib for one.
Prove it. Empty, brainless, unsupported charges are meaningless.
Dan
If I had to guess, you're listening to people who are trying to TELL Ms Tlaib what she has said rather than LISTEN to what she's said.
In Her own words, she says...
“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” she said. “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”
Bigots and sexists don't have the privilege of TELLING women or Muslims what they mean. Of course.
Get out of your godless echo chambers.
Dan
It's like when conservative evangelicals presume to tell actual Muslims what jihad means, as if conservative evangelicals are the arbiters of what Muslims believe.
The arrogance is overwhelming.
Dan
"It's like when conservative evangelicals presume to tell actual Muslims what jihad means, as if conservative evangelicals are the arbiters of what Muslims believe."
I'm not sure what your point is, how it relates to the topic, or why you feel the need to broad brush "conservative evangelicals", but OK. Although it seems reasonable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can read the Quran,other Muslim teachings, listen to Muslim clerics, and observe Muslim countries actions and draw reasonable conclusions regarding the teachings of Islam and the beliefs of it's adherents.
"The arrogance is overwhelming."
Yes, it is incredibly arrogant for you to try to act as if I bear responsibility for the actions of others you perceive to be "conservatives".
"If I had to guess, you're listening to people who are trying to TELL Ms Tlaib what she has said rather than LISTEN to what she's said.
In Her own words, she says...
“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” she said. “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”"
Except that's not what "From the river to the see means or has ever meant.", it's always been a war cry intended to motivate Muslims to "reclaim" a land that has never been theirs historically. I know it's hard, but read Hamas charter. Talib supports Hamas, and Hamas's founding documents are vary clear about their goals and intentions. Listen to the leaders of Hamas, they've been very public about their desire to eliminate Israel from existence.
"Bigots and sexists don't have the privilege of TELLING women or Muslims what they mean. Of course."
Ahhhhhhhhh more of the Ad Honinem attacks. I guess you're going with there being some secret meaning behind "From the river to the sea.", the Hamas charter, and Hamas leaders that means the exact opposite of what has been said publicly.
"Get out of your godless echo chambers."
The arrogance, and hubris in this one sentence is mind boggling. Your assumptions are fantastic, and it's amusing to see you engage in the sort of thing your criticize when others do it.
"Prove it. Empty, brainless, unsupported charges are meaningless."
Her words are literally publicly available to anyone with a tiny bit of ability to work Google. Strangely "Empty, brainless, unsupported" claims are perfectly fine when you make them.
Sigh.
"From the river to the sea..."
It LITERALLY SAYS NOTHING, not one blessed thing, about eliminating Israel.
Can you acknowledge that simple, observable reality?
Literally. Nothing.
Right?
Now, for those who have a hard time understanding reading and stuff, Talieb TELLS you precisely what she means...
"From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,”
Now, she has told you precisely what she means and yet, you need to mansplain to her what she actually means, the poor little Muslim lady...
That is where the bigotry and chauvinism comes in, the false witness, the slander.
Muslims, like Christians, are not a monolith. That SOME religious people believe awful things doesn't mean that all do.
Now, listen to HER actual words and apologize for your false claim and arrogance.
Lord, Lord.
Dan
"Her words are literally publicly available to anyone with a tiny bit of ability to work Google. Strangely "Empty, brainless, unsupported" claims are perfectly fine when you make them..."
As you've seen, I found her literal words and they literally don't say what you claim with no basis. Indeed, she expressly clarified her words mean the exact opposite of your unsupported claim.
I note that you say on Stan's site:
I do see people who insist that Jesus came to do one things in particular, and pulling out one proof text to support their entire theological construct. The problem is that to do so they need to ignore or minimize a multitudes of other things Jesus came here to do.
And if that is directed towards folk like me who point out the overwhelming theme of God's concern for the poor and marginalized and preaching good news to them... IF that's what you're referencing, you would have another case of you reading people's words and reaching false conclusions.
Many Muslims do not interpret "from the river to the sea" that you insist they do/must interpret it. Many Muslims do not interpret jihad the way that many conservative evangelicals tell them they do. Many progressives find Jesus' clear teachings about the poor and marginalized but DO NOT insist that is the only reason Jesus came.
fyi.
I suspect we have a case of you presuming too much that you know what the Other is speaking of and thus, reaching false conclusions. But you tell me.
DO you think you know better than many Muslims what Jihad or "from the river to the sea" means? DO you think that I'm actually saying there is only ONE reason that Jesus came?
If so, what if you are just wrong?
Palestinians explaining what THEY mean by the phrase, "From the River to the Sea..." and it ain't what YOU and your ilk claim.
So, when someone says "Palestinians think this message means KILL THE JEWS!" and Palestinians reply, "But that's literally NOT what I'm/we're saying. We're literally saying we just want to be free, as Palestinians..." On what rational, moral basis would we say the Palestinians don't know what they mean by that phrase?
"Palestinians explaining what THEY mean by the phrase, "From the River to the Sea..." and it ain't what YOU and your ilk claim.
So, when someone says "Palestinians think this message means KILL THE JEWS!" and Palestinians reply, "But that's literally NOT what I'm/we're saying. We're literally saying we just want to be free, as Palestinians..." On what rational, moral basis would we say the Palestinians don't know what they mean by that phrase?"
Because I've studied the history, read what the leaders of the various groups have said, read the Hamas charter, and paid attention.
But you go right ahead and tell us what the "palestinians" really mean, they're very lucky they have you to speak for them.
"As you've seen, I found her literal words and they literally don't say what you claim with no basis. Indeed, she expressly clarified her words mean the exact opposite of your unsupported claim."
Shocking, her PR folks told her that calling for the Jews to be completely expelled from the land where Israel currently exists is a bad look and she "clarified".
The problem with your bullshit, is that the actions of the PLO, Hamas, and the rest don't align with what you claim they really mean. Hell, your claims don't even align with what actual Hamas leaders are saying since 10/7. But thank goodness they have you to tell us what they really mean.
The PLO, Hamas and others do not speak for all Palestinians or all Muslims, of course. YOU don't want to be judged by the most racist, awful Christians, you shouldn't try to judge ALL Palestinians based on what some think.
Your attacks on Tlaib are vulgar, shameful lies. If you think you have evidence that Tlaib wants to destroy Israel, then prove it. You can't and you were caught in your devilish lie (you accusers think alike, after all), have the decency to admit your claim is false and unsupported.
Be a better man.
Dan
The stunning display of ignorance, partisan gullibility, and sheer blindness on display in this one comment is stunning.
"It LITERALLY SAYS NOTHING, not one blessed thing, about eliminating Israel.Can you acknowledge that simple, observable reality? Literally. Nothing. Right?"
1. The phrase refers to the geographic land area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea.
2. This is the area that the Arabs claim is the land where the "palestinians" should have a nation.
3. This is the area currently filled by the state of Israel.
4. Is there any possible way for a "palestinian" nation to simultaneously exist in the exact same land area where Israel currently exists?
5. Do you not pay attention to the Hamas leaders (and many Muslim leaders) who regularly claim that Israel must be destroyed?
6. Are you unaware that in '48, '67, and '73, the Arab nations surrounding Israel unleashed millions of well equipped military formations (supplied by the Soviets) with the express intent of eliminating every Jew in Israel, and conquering the land "Between the river and the sea."?
"Now, for those who have a hard time understanding reading and stuff, Talieb TELLS you precisely what she means..."
Because she can unilaterally wipe out the historical meaning of the phrase magically.
""From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,”"
That's amazing. The fact that she's supporting those who are trying to wrest the land "between the river and the sea" using actual "death, destruction, and hate" by claiming that "freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence" can be brought about by attacking, raping, mutilating, killing, and kidnapping "innocents". By all means, show us the Muslim nations that are paragons of "freedom, human rights (including freedom of religion), and peaceful coexistence"?
FYI, name one Muslim nation that gives Jews the same rights as Muslims?
"Now, she has told you precisely what she means and yet, you need to mansplain to her what she actually means, the poor little Muslim lady..."
Ok, Mr Mansplaining. I'm simply pointing out what the phrase has always meant, and now how her bullshit PR attempt to redefine the meaning is bullshit, and doesn't agree with what the leaders of Hamas are saying or doing.
"That is where the bigotry and chauvinism comes in, the false witness, the slander."
None of the above. Simply pointing out the reality of what that phrase has meant historically, and what the majority of the Hamas supporters still mean by it.
"Muslims, like Christians, are not a monolith. That SOME religious people believe awful things doesn't mean that all do."
The false equivalency card. I've never claimed that "all" Muslims "believe" anything. I have pointed out that the historical use of the phrase has been to call for the extermination of the Jews and the complete destruction of Israel.
"Now, listen to HER actual words and apologize for your false claim and arrogance."
I have nothing to apologize for.
"Lord, Lord."
Don't you mean Allahu Akbar"?
The Anti-Defamation League says the "hateful phrase" is a denial of Israel's right to exist and can leave Israelis and their supporters feeling "unsafe and ostracized."
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free
The problem is that to remove this war cry from the reality of Arab attacks on Israel with the intention of destroying Israel as a nation, and exterminating the Jews is only possible by ignoring the historical context.
"The PLO, Hamas and others do not speak for all Palestinians or all Muslims, of course. YOU don't want to be judged by the most racist, awful Christians, you shouldn't try to judge ALL Palestinians based on what some think."
Well, the PLO was the official governing group of the "palestinians" for years, and Hamas is the elected governing party of Gaza as we speak. Hamas is supported by a majority of Gazans and is (in fact) the government of Gaza, so yeah, they pretty much do speak for them.
"Your attacks on Tlaib are vulgar, shameful lies. If you think you have evidence that Tlaib wants to destroy Israel, then prove it. You can't and you were caught in your devilish lie (you accusers think alike, after all), have the decency to admit your claim is false and unsupported."
I haven't attacked Tlaib, I've merely pointed out that the phrase she used has a historical meaning and a significant degree of baggage attached, as do all racist statements. The fact that you and thousands of ignorant western protesters don't know or choose to ignore the reality of the phrase and the history of the conflict is the bigger problem. It's as if some GOP representative started calling for "separate but equal" facilities for the "races", but tried to cover it by pouring some new and different meaning to the phrase than what it has meant historically. You'd be calling for such a person to be lynched, not trying to enable their racism. The fact that Tlaib's bullshit fairy unicorn version of what the phrase means is being contradicted by those in Gaza, Hamas, and others doesn't seem to quite sink in.
"Don't you mean Allahu Akbar"?"
Well, since that is simply Arabic for "God is most great," I certainly have no problem with it. Does your xenophobic and ignorant prejudices make you unable to appreciate it?
Do you think your little white godling prefers English?
Grace, man. It's a good thing.
Dan
"I haven't attacked Tlaib, I've merely pointed out that the phrase she used has a historical meaning and a significant degree of baggage attached, "
You've made a vulgar, bigoted and unsupported false claim that she wants to eliminate Israel. It is a dangerous and disproven lie. Lies and attacks like yours put this woman's life at risk.
You can't just make genocidal claims like that about people. You're not just putting her life at risk, but this sort of anti-muslim bigotry puts the life and livelihood of all Muslims at risk.
It's a damned diabolical lie. Apologize. You've been caught in a lie that you can't support because it IS a lie. Humble yourself. Admit you misspoke.
Apologize.
Be better than this.
Dan
1 Timothy 2:12 (and really, the whole Bible!) has historically been used to deny basic human rights to women. It's been used historically to deny women the vote, the right to be elected and the right to make certain career choices. It's been used to demean and diminish and oppress women. Historically, this is just a fact.
THEREFORE, by your reasoning, we must assume ANYONE who cares this passage (or the Bible) IS an oppressor of women.
Is that your position?
Or does the reality that different people can mean different things seem more appropriate and gracious way of understanding such people and we should let people speak for themselves as to what it means?
Dan
Let me just add that, if you're the type of person who recognizes the existence of so-called dog whistle words and phrases -like the racists who use welfare queen or thug to take not-so-subtle racist jabs at people - that's one thing. You can rightly note that SOME Palestinians have used the phrase in an anti-semitic manner.
But, there's a deadly world of difference between raising that concern, versus accusing an innocent woman falsely of wanting to see the elimination of Israel.
I hope you do the same when white racists sneeringly attack using those dog whistles.
Dan
All of Trabue's comments prove one main thing:: He has no idea of the history of Islam, the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith, not idea of the history of Israel vs the surrounding Muslims, etc, etct. Trabue hasn't a clue.
"Well, since that is simply Arabic for "God is most great," I certainly have no problem with it. Does your xenophobic and ignorant prejudices make you unable to appreciate it?"
No. But the way that it's commonly used, does give me pause.
"Do you think your little white godling prefers English?"
Since I have no "little white godling", I have no basis to answer your question.
"Grace, man. It's a good thing."
You talk about grace, yet rarely practice it. Holding others to standards and expectations you refuse to hold yourself to is nothing new.
"You've made a vulgar, bigoted and unsupported false claim that she wants to eliminate Israel. It is a dangerous and disproven lie. Lies and attacks like yours put this woman's life at risk."
No, I have made no such claim. Pointing out what the phrase "From the river to the sea" generally means is simply pointing out reality.
"You can't just make genocidal claims like that about people. You're not just putting her life at risk, but this sort of anti-muslim bigotry puts the life and livelihood of all Muslims at risk."
Again, I haven't made "genocidal" claims about anyone. It's strange that you spend this much time making shit up about some bullshit claim you've invented, yet spend zero time on the actual "genocidal" claims being made by Hamas and those who support Hamas.
"It's a damned diabolical lie. Apologize. You've been caught in a lie that you can't support because it IS a lie. Humble yourself. Admit you misspoke."
You repeating this idiocy doesn't make it True.
"Apologize."
I see no reason to apologize for reality.
"1 Timothy 2:12 (and really, the whole Bible!) has historically been used to deny basic human rights to women. It's been used historically to deny women the vote, the right to be elected and the right to make certain career choices. It's been used to demean and diminish and oppress women. Historically, this is just a fact."
It's interesting that you pull out this proof text, and insist that your hunch about this proof text is "fact", while ignoring what the Quran has to say about "basic human rights" and how those "rights" apply to women. Further, I was unaware that teaching an having authority over men are "basic human rights". Where are those specific "basic human rights" delineated?
"THEREFORE, by your reasoning, we must assume ANYONE who cares this passage (or the Bible) IS an oppressor of women. Is that your position?"
Therefore, by your reasoning, as long as you can conjure some bullshit, and apply it to some vague, undefined group of people you must assume that your bullshit is actually True. Is that your position? Since, I have no idea what the relevance of your bullshit is to this topic, I have never said anything remotely similar to your bullshit, and it appears to be off topic, my answer is no.
"Or does the reality that different people can mean different things seem more appropriate and gracious way of understanding such people and we should let people speak for themselves as to what it means?"
I guess if someone whats to take a call to conquer and commit genocide and redefine it to mean something entirely different, they can. But to ignore the more common usage of a term seems more like hiding one's head in the sand. Or one could question the intelligence of taking a phrase that his historically been a call to conquest and genocide, trying to have a personal, unique, individual, secret meaning and expecting people to ignore the context.
"Let me just add that, if you're the type of person who recognizes the existence of so-called dog whistle words and phrases -like the racists who use welfare queen or thug to take not-so-subtle racist jabs at people - that's one thing. You can rightly note that SOME Palestinians have used the phrase in an anti-semitic manner."
This is quite the claim. Made up and entirely bullshit, but quite the claim. By all means, prove this bullshit to be True.
"But, there's a deadly world of difference between raising that concern, versus accusing an innocent woman falsely of wanting to see the elimination of Israel."
Again, since I haven't done so, I fail to see the point of you repeating this made up bullshit. Unless it's a smoke screen to avoid answering questions about the Geneva Conventions that you've ignored.
I hope you do the same when white racists sneeringly attack using those dog whistles.
I asked...
"WHAT "leftist" is calling for the "elimination of Israel..."?"
You replied...
"Rashida Tlaib for one. "
As I've clarified with her own words, this claim that you are making - in your own words - is literally a false claim. It is a diabolical and empty-headed lie.
Words have meanings.
Apologize.
Dan
And, just to be clear about the false claim you've made, I said...
"But, there's a deadly world of difference between raising that concern, versus accusing an innocent woman falsely of wanting to see the elimination of Israel."
And YOU replied...
"since I haven't done so, I fail to see the point of you repeating this made up bullshit"
And that is why I cited YOUR words and YOUR definitive claim that Representative Tlaib wanted to see Israel eliminated. It's your literal claim and it is a lie. Look, you were caught in the middle of a stupid lie. You messed up. Just admit it and move on.
Dan
Craig...
"I guess if someone whats to take a call to conquer and commit genocide and redefine it to mean something entirely different, they can. But to ignore the more common usage of a term seems more like hiding one's head in the sand."
From Wikipedia...
"Numerous scholars and authors, both Muslim and non-Muslim have testified to the underlying rejection of violence, cruelty, coercion, and intolerance of the Quran and its embrace of justice and self-defence. According to Fawzy Abdelmalek, "many Muslim scholars speak of Islam as a religion of peace and not of violence. They say that the non-Muslims misunderstand the Quran verses about Jihad and the conduct of war in Islam."[16]
Nissim Rejwan asserts that "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims."
Prove your claim that is "the more common usage..." of "from the river to the sea... " is what YOU say it is.
I'll wait for you to ignore that and presume arrogantly to speak for Muslims.
That SOME Muslim extremists find violence acceptable, that doesn't at all mean that they speak for all or even a majority of Muslims.
If you don't want to be judged by violent Christian extremists, then do unto others...
It's biblical, you know?
Dan
As I've clarified, Tlaib publicly used a phrase irreversibly connected with the removal of Israel, and the extermination of the Jews who live there. The fact that she's constructed some fanciful explanation that denies the history of the phrase doesn't mitigate the reality that many/most of those who hear her will accept without question that a US Representative is publicly using their battle cry.
The reality is that my comment was pointed at the reality of the usage of the phrase, less than her individual/personal/secret redefinition of the phrase.
Glenn...
"He has no idea of the history of Islam, the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith, not idea of the history of Israel vs the surrounding Muslims, etc, etct."
I'm not a Muslim scholar, any more than you are. But I'm generally aware of world conditions and history. I'm aware that LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations JUST LIKE they used to be in the US and West. You probably share that in common with Muslim extremists, is that right? Would you join Muslim extremists in criminalizing homosexual acts, if you could?
I'm also aware that women's rights are often woefully lacking in Muslim nations, just like they used to be here not so long ago.
I'm generally aware of the Quran AND I'm generally aware that many Christian conservatives will presume to tell Muslims what it teaches and how it should be interpreted and I'm very aware of that kind of arrogance.
Dan
Tlaib KNEW what the phrase meant when she said it and she supports the "Palistinians" 100%. She made up her own meaning becasue she got caught.
The problem with Dan's hunch, is that he is 100% focused on Tlaib's personal, individual, secret meaning redefinition of "Between the river and the sea". He clearly has little or no interest about how the Hamas Holy Warriors might take a high level US elected official using a battle cry that they use to psych themselves up to kill Jews and "reclaim" the land. Dan is also ignoring the fact that Hamas, The PLO, and Hezbollah have a long history of rejecting agreements that would entail them sharing the land "Between the river and the sea" with a Jewish state. It's literally a matter of taking Tlaib's comment completely out of context and focusing only on what she said after she had to walk back her original statement.
If I was to say that I support "separate but equal", but when I use that phrase I really mean that everyone gets the same amount and quality of flowers, rainbows, and unicorns, I'd be rightly ridiculed.
If I was to come out in favor of Redlining, but clarify that I mean that every neighborhood should be outlined in Chiefs red to celebrate last year's super bowl, I'd be rightly ridiculed.
If was was to start publicly shouting Seig Heil, or Heil Hitler, but claim that I mean those phrases as compliments to the Jewish people, I'd be rightly ridiculed.
Tlaib was engaging in a political stunt, chose to use a phrase that many/most people realize calls for an Arab nation to occupy the land between the Jordan and the Med and that many/most of her followers would resonate with. She could have said what she said in her rollback up front. She could have painted her vision of hearts, flowers, and unicorns instead of using a catchphrase known to be a call to conquest and genocide.
But, by focusing on the meaning of the phrase to a large number of people around the world, instead of her CYA walk back version, I'm the one who's a liar.
Strange. I guess I'm guilty of taking that phrase at it's common, historical meaning instead of the magical, secret, rainbow/unicorn/flowers version rolled out after the original statement caused problems for her.
But as long as we can focus on this bit of bullshit, not on the reality of the GC and the questions asked, then I guess it's a minor win for Dan.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free
I've posted this earlier, but I guess that wasn't good enough. Dan's on a jihad against me and I must prove that I'm innocent of his made up charges.
"Nissim Rejwan asserts that "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims.""
Oh, well if Dan can find one alleged Muslim who Dan believes can speak for every Muslim on earth, then he must be 100% correct.
"Prove your claim that is "the more common usage..." of "from the river to the sea... " is what YOU say it is."
1. Interesting that you haven't proven any of your claims, yet demand that I prove this.
2. I've read enough history and studied this issue enough to be confident that the phrase calls for an Arab nation on the land between the Jordan and the Med, and that the Arabs have repeatedly rejected peace plans that would result in a Jewish nation on that land.
3. the very charter of Hamas, which I've quoted extensively and you've ignored.
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian
movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is
Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over EVERY INCH of
Palestine.'
'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession]
consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one
can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'
(Article 11)
'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the
Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem
wherever he may be.'
'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the
individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation,
it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)
'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses
everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the
call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will
reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is
achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.'
'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and
international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of
the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than
a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of
Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a
waste of time, an exercise in futility.'
"I'll wait for you to ignore that and presume arrogantly to speak for Muslims."
I'm not speaking for anyone, although you are, as above I'm allowing the Muslims to speak for themselves. Perhaps you missed the quotes from the leaders of Hamas in the original post.
"That SOME Muslim extremists find violence acceptable, that doesn't at all mean that they speak for all or even a majority of Muslims."
If one chooses to ignore the history of Islam, one could make this argument with a straight face. If one chooses to ignore the specific Suras of the Quran that call for Jihad, one could make this argument with a straight face. If one could ignore the madrassas that exist in almost every Muslim country where Muslim clerics teach the vilest sort of things, one could make this argument with a straight face. If one could ignore the thousands of Muslims who cheered for the actions of Hamas on 10/7, the events of 9/11. or chant "Death to America/Israel, one could make this argument with a straight face.
The fact that there is some minority of Muslims who don't buy into the teachings of Islam, doesn't mean that the millions/billions of Muslims who do are irrelevant?
What % of the population of Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, are Jewish? What % of Israel is Arab? What rights to women, and homosexuals have in countries where Sharia law rules?
"If you don't want to be judged by violent Christian extremists, then do unto others..."
I don't want to be judged by anyone buy YHWH. As for this bogyman of some "violent Christian extremists" as if some microscopic subset of "Christians" somehow excuses the millions/billions of Muslims who actually rule multiple countries according to Sharia, it's merely a fantasy designed to give you another false equivalence.
"It's biblical, you know?"
If "do unto others" is biblical as you say, then why shouldn't Israel kill, mutilate, rape, torture, and kidnap "innocents"?
What's interesting is that I am virtually certain that, in the abstract, Dan is vehemently opposed to kidnapping.
Yet, in his lengthy quest to demonstrate that Israel is guilty of multiple "war crimes", he's completely ignored the reality that Hamas still holds innocent Israeli women and children hostage and that Hamas could end this retaliation by returning those innocent hostages to their homes and families.
"I'm aware that LGBTQ rights are very limited in Muslim nations JUST LIKE they used to be in the US and West."
Really, the Sharia strictures and punishments for homosexuality are "JUST LIKE" those at any time in the history of the US or any other western nation?
I guess the fact that Islam clings to these laws an punishments so long after the rest of the world has abandoned them is irrelevant, right?
Dan spends so much time bitching about how horribly homosexuals have been "oppressed" in the US, while billions of people across the world live in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death?
This notion that simply reading the words of the Quran and Muslim scholars, applying the most common meaning to the words, is "telling Muslims what to believe" is simply stupid.
https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/From-the-River-to-the-Sea
SLOGAN ADOPTED BY HAMAS
“From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
Advertisement
By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Young women hold placards during a pro-Palestinian demonstration, in Frankfurt, Germany, Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. The Jordan River is a winding, 200-plus-mile run to the east of Israel and the West Bank. The sea is the glittering Mediterranean to its west. But a phrase about the space in-between, “from the river to the sea,” has become a battle cry with new power to roil Jews and pro-Palestinian activists in the aftermath of Hamas’ murderous rampage across southern Israel Oct. 7 and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. (Boris Roessler/dpa via AP)
Young women hold placards during a pro-Palestinian demonstration, in Frankfurt, Germany, Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. The Jordan River is a winding, 200-plus-mile run to the east of Israel and the West Bank. The sea is the glittering Mediterranean to its west. But a phrase about the space in-between, “from the river to the sea,” has become a battle cry with new power to roil Jews and pro-Palestinian activists in the aftermath of Hamas’ murderous rampage across southern Israel Oct. 7 and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. (Boris Roessler/dpa via AP)
“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
"The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter.
Which, as quoted above, is unequivocal in it's notion that there is zero room for an Jewish state between the Jordan and the Med.
But hey, let's just ignore anything that doesn't promote the lie that the Arabs want to share the land with a Jewish state.
Dan cites Wikipedia as his authority on Islam. LEFTIST revisionist.
Part of Muslim teachings is to LIE to your enemy about your beliefs and intentions until you are in a position of power.
The REAL teaching of Islam IS violence --Read the bloody Qur'an for starters and try studying the history of Islam. Their ideology is world conquest. History proves violence is endemic in their belief systems, history proves part of their conquering is alway raping women before killing them, IF they don't keep them as sex slaves.
I knew Dan was ignorant before but, man, when it comes to Islam (which I have studied for 20+ years-- since 9/11 especially) Dan listens to all the BS Muslim propaganda rather than actually study their history, their writings, etc. Dan disgusts me.
1. Your insistence on ignoring what I've already made clear makes conversation way more difficult and tedious than it need be.
2. NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD OF DECENT HUMANITY IN ALL THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE IN ALL THE KNOWN UNIVERSE AND EVEN IN PARTS UNKNOWN ANYWHERE WHATSOEVER IN ANY TIME WHATSOEVER (do you get the point?) is saying that Hamas are the "good guys," that their atrocious evil actions are anything but atrocious and evil. They are bad, brother. BAD. BAD BAD BAD. Killing babies is BAD, evil, atrocious. Raping women is bad, evil atrocious. It is accursed, pathetic, cowardly EVIL EVIL EVIL behavior and attitudes they have engaged in.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT POINT? (asking so that you don't have to repeat inane, nonsense questions/allegations again ever in all the known universe.)
3. NO ONE IS IGNORING THAT HAMAS has engaged in bad-awful terrorism and atrocious behavior. That includes Representative Tlaib, who said THE DAY AFTER the terrorist attacks on Israelis...
“I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day. I am determined as ever to fight for a just future where everyone can live in peace, without fear and with true freedom, equal rights, and human dignity."
She has made it clear always that she is pro-peace, anti-terrorism and, of course, opposed to terrorist attacks and evil like occurred on Oct 7.
4. Thus, when I asked "WHO on the left supports the 'elimination of Israel,' (YOUR DAMNED WORDS AND FALSE CLAIM), YOU said, "Representative Tlaib does."
THAT IS A DAMNED LIE. It is a vile, evil dangerous attack on a religious minority that is at threat because of damned lies like yours.
5. Now, you may have thought IN YOUR HEAD, "I don't REALLY MEAN she supports the elimination of Israel," BUT THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS. THAT IS THE DIABOLICAL FALSE CLAIM YOU MADE.
6. So, whatever in the name of all that is atrocious and evil that you MEANT to say, YOUR WORDS were a false claim and a dangerous attack. Literally.
7. And so, before you do anything else, you need to apologize for that diabolical and grade-school false claim.
Is it the case that your arrogance and bigotry prevents you from humbling yourself and admitting you made a stupidly false claim? Then let me help. It's really quite easy:
"I said earlier that Representative Tlaib supports the elimination of Israel. That was a damned lie, stupid on the face of it. OF COURSE, she doesn't support that. I was reacting to her using the phrase, 'from the river to the sea,' which HAS been used by some who seek violence against Israel, even the elimination of Israel. But I recognize now that, just because SOME Muslims have invoked that phrase to mean the genocide/elimination of Israel does NOT mean that my fellow citizen and congressional leader, Representative Tlaib means SHE seeks the elimination of Israel. In these days of irrational violence against Israelis, Muslims and other religious minorities by religious bigots, I recognize that it's dangerous to Ms Tlaib to make that sort of stupidly, stupidly false claim. For THAT, I'm sorry."
Something like that. It's really quite simple.
Humble yourself and stop being a useful idiot for the bigots and other Accusers (sons of the Devil).
"It's biblical, you know?"
If "do unto others" is biblical as you say, then why shouldn't Israel kill, mutilate, rape, torture, and kidnap "innocents"?
What an anti-Christ, vile, disgusting, evil, diabolical thing to say. Do you understand NOTHING of grace and the Gospel and just basic human decency?
I'm not speaking for anyone, although you are, as above I'm allowing the Muslims to speak for themselves. Perhaps you missed the quotes from the leaders of Hamas in the original post.
Another stupidly pathetic false claim. I made clear that Muslims (and Christians and others) are NOT a monolith. SOME MUSLIMS believe bad things. SOME CHRISTIANS believe bad things. Other Muslims disagree with things like genocide and terrorism... because of course they do.
I AM THE ONE saying that you can't say "the Muslims believe..." as if YOU are speaking for all Muslims.
You're not this inept at understanding words and stuff, Craig. Be a better, more intelligent/rational man.
Re:
“From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
For centuries, traditionalist/conservative folks in the Christian tradition have tried to define the "Gospel of Jesus" as fairly exclusively being a theology that defines "good news" as "the good news that most of humanity is going to be condemned to an eternity of torment by a 'loving god' who rejects most of humanity as unworthy of God's grace..." etc and MANY folks in other Christ-ian traditions have rejected that vision of "evangelism" and "good news" as being representative of Jesus' teachings. But rather than just releasing "good news," "gospel" and "evangelism" as words that conservatives own and can define, WE use those words in ways that we believe to be more faithful to Jesus' actual teachings.
In other words, EVEN IF a majority of a given tradition use a phrase in one manner (something you have NOT proven - or even TRIED to prove - in the case of "river to the sea...") that does not mean all who use those phrases are willing to concede to the popular/traditional definition.
For my part, I do not know at all that the majority of Muslims mean "genocide" by "from the river to the sea..." and you have not demonstrated that this is normative.
Just to be clear.
Again: Just because SOME people in a tradition may use a phrase in a certain way does NOT define that phrase as the abusers/terrorists mean it.
Really, the Sharia strictures and punishments for homosexuality are "JUST LIKE" those at any time in the history of the US or any other western nation?
In US/"Christian America" history, homosexuals were arrested, locked up, beaten and killed for being gay. In many (NOT all) dominant Muslim nations, homosexuals are arrested, locked up and otherwise abused by the dominant religio-fascist culture.
Were you not aware of that?
I mean, sure, there are some slight differences, but for LGBTQ folk, the essential end result was remarkably similar: They did not enjoy their human rights to be who they were or date/marry those they wanted to.
Were you not aware of that?
Just how blind to/ignorant of history are you?
For what it's worth, it's probably worse for LGBTQ folks and women in many (NOT all) Muslim nations than in US history, but that's a matter of degrees.
If you're not aware of this, ask LGBTQ folk,they'll tell you.
I guess the fact that Islam clings to these laws an punishments so long after the rest of the world has abandoned them is irrelevant, right?
No, that's not what I said. I've been clear that nations with a fundamentalist/extremist religious leadership are ALL being horrible in their treatment of LGBTQ folk and women. This is true in "christian" nations in Africa that are criminalizing being gay and in Muslim nations that criminalize being gay. The common enemy is religious extremism.
Do you doubt that there is a significant segment of conservative Christian believers in the US who WOULD re-criminalize "being gay" IF they could... and that it's just progressive leadership led predominantly by brave LGBTQ folks who've made it impossible for that level of oppression to continue in progressive nations?
Don't be naive.
Dan spends so much time bitching about how horribly homosexuals have been "oppressed" in the US, while billions of people across the world live in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death?
Oppression of any sort is awful. Some religious extremists who have power (Christian AND muslim and otherwise) are more awful than other nations that are more progressive, but I don't think you can attribute that to conservative Christians.
But by all means, step up and be an ally to LGBTQ folks in the US and show you're on their side and opposed to steps/policies to demonize and criminalize them.
I'll wait.
In the meantime, let's see if your comrades Glenn and Marshal will affirm that they will stand opposed to criminalizing being gay or gay marriages.
Don't be naive.
Tlaib KNEW what the phrase meant when she said it and she supports the "Palistinians" 100%. She made up her own meaning becasue she got caught.
So, GLENN imagines in his feverish and unsupported fantasies, that Representative Tlaib ACTUALLY wants to see Jewish genocide. I half expect that you, Craig, harbor that same graceless and ignorant bigotry.
But you all tell me: DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?
Be honest.
And if you do, can you at the least acknowledge that you can't prove your vile, evil, devilish accusations in any way whatsoever as factual or reality? Can you acknowledge that it's based mainly on your Islamophobic bigotry that ASSUMES that Muslims believe in evil things, in spite of what they actually say and demonstrate in their daily lives?
The devil is known as an accuser, too, boys.
Craig...
The fact that there is some minority of Muslims who don't buy into the teachings of Islam, doesn't mean that the millions/billions of Muslims who do are irrelevant?
The "fact..."? PROVE IT, liar, accuser.
"...don't buy into the teachings of Islam..."
You mean, what YOU SAY, as a Islamphobic bigot, are the "teachings of Islam..." BUT who says that YOU get to dictate to actual Muslims what "the teachings of Islam" are?
Do you not recognize the arrogance and bigotry exist in your unsupported claims that YOU are the one who gets to define Islam to Muslims?
Be a better and more rational human.
"millions/billions of Muslims..."
The fact is that YOU do not know and can not prove your bigoted, ignorant hunches about what percentage of Muslims actually believe, do you admit that reality? There are roughly 2 billion Muslims in the world. It may well be the case that millions of them (let's say 20 million) believe in the "elimination of Israel," as you falsely accused Representative Tlaib believes. EVEN IF it's 20 million (which you haven't and can't prove), that is ONE PERCENT of Muslims.
Do you acknowledge you have NO support for any of your diabolic accusations?
Stop being an ignorant and bigoted accuser. Don't be a son of the father of lies.
Craig...
"This notion that simply reading the words of the Quran and Muslim scholars, applying the most common meaning to the words, is "telling Muslims what to believe" is simply stupid."
Well, given the observable, documented reality that many people can read ancient holy texts and come away holding opposite conclusions about what ARE the most common meaning to the words, yes, it remains arrogant for a non-believer, non-scholar to tell the faithful of a given tradition what THEIR holy text means and how those believers "should " rightly interpret their text.
How is that NOT arrogant?
You and I both read the Bible and manage to come away with conflicting ideas of the most common meaning to the words, after all. Why can that NOT be the case for believers in Islam.
I think one difference between you and folks like me is that you routinely think YOU can decide for everyone else what given texts MUST mean. What is most reasonable to YOU is generally just that and nothing more.
Dan
Glenn, you are not an expert or a scholar. You "study" bigoted writers to find support for your bigoted bad opinions. Any true actual scholar is educated enough not to believe in nutty conspiracy theories and childishly naive and simplistic sweeping charges.
Understand that much: you sir, are not a Muslim scholars.
Bigotry isn't scholarship.
You do not get to speak for all Muslims. Your arrogant bigotry undermines you as a credible witness.
Dan
1. Your insistence on ignoring the history, context, and larger picture makes conversation way more difficult and tedious than it need be. I'm not ignoring your repetitious bullshit, I've responded to or addressed it and see no reason to do so further.
2. This is simply a false statement. Most of the time when you make some pronouncement that starts with "Everyone or No one", it's followed by something that is easily proven false. you trying to speak for the entire world simply makes you look delusional and narcissistic.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT POINT? (asking so that you don't have to repeat inane, nonsense questions/allegations again ever in all the known universe.)"
I understand that you've made a claim that you can't prove, yet insist must be True. I understand that you feel compelled to do so because, as you note, you don't want to answer the questions you've been asked.
3. Again, when you start with "NO ONE", it's highly likely that your claim is not followed by proof and is very likely false.
4. Yes, I made the point repeatedly, that her use of the phrase "From the river to the sea" points in that direction.
"THAT IS A DAMNED LIE. It is a vile, evil dangerous attack on a religious minority that is at threat because of damned lies like yours."
Speaking of lies. Islam is one of the most oppressive religious/government systems on the planet. They're hardly a minority, and they are still actively trying to expand their religion by force. Muslims far outnumber Jews, and are on pace to be the largest religion in the world.
5. Wrong.
6. Wrong.
7. No, I don't. You virtually never apologize for your false claims, yet demand I do what you won't. You taking something out of context, doesn't help your case.
"Is it the case that your arrogance and bigotry prevents you from humbling yourself and admitting you made a stupidly false claim? Then let me help. It's really quite easy:"
And you making false claims somehow makes things better.
"Humble yourself and stop being a useful idiot for the bigots and other Accusers (sons of the Devil)."
And we're back to the Ad Hominem attacks.
"What an anti-Christ, vile, disgusting, evil, diabolical thing to say. Do you understand NOTHING of grace and the Gospel and just basic human decency?"
What an example of how Dan embraces and extends grace to those who disagree with him. I just took his out of context "scriptural" reference and asked a question about taking his words to the logical extreme.
"Another stupidly pathetic false claim."
This notion that making false claims to counter alleged false claims, is like advocating having promiscuous sex to support virginity.
"I made clear that Muslims (and Christians and others) are NOT a monolith. SOME MUSLIMS believe bad things. SOME CHRISTIANS believe bad things. Other Muslims disagree with things like genocide and terrorism... because of course they do."
Well, as long as you made it "clear", then the actual words of actual Muslims advocating things you'd like to pretend "NO ONE" in the entire history of the world has ever advocated, then your claim must be accepted without proof or without question. But hey, anything to ignore the actual words of actual Muslims.
"I AM THE ONE saying that you can't say "the Muslims believe..." as if YOU are speaking for all Muslims."
Strange. Somehow you seem to have granted yourself the right to make these sorts of pronouncements simply because you say so. You keep speaking for Muslims, while complaining that I'm doing what you do. What a bizarre double standard. Hubris, narcissism, and ignorance on full display.
Unfortunately, you are this inept any understanding this stuff.
"I just took his out of context "scriptural" reference and asked a question about taking his words to the logical extreme."
You think that the "logical conclusion " of Jesus/Biblical teaching of "do unto others..." is to rape rapists, and to kill killers?
Your mind can't possibly be that warped, can it?
What in the name of all that is decent and rational are you trying to say?
And of course, my reference to the Golden Rule was in no way out of context. Just another false witness.
Dan
"In other words, EVEN IF a majority of a given tradition use a phrase in one manner (something you have NOT proven - or even TRIED to prove - in the case of "river to the sea...") that does not mean all who use those phrases are willing to concede to the popular/traditional definition."
given that this claim is based solely on your hunches, I'm not sure how to respond. I think it'll suffice to point out that when you base your analysis on a false premise (That I ever said "all who use those phrases") the rest of the conclusion becomes pointless. The problem is that thousands/millions/billions of Muslims DO 100% ascribe to the notion that Israel must be completely eradicated and the Jews exterminated regardless of what Dan represents as some minority view. This still raises the question of why this minority would secretly redefine an inflammatory and antisemitic phrase, instead of formulating a new chant that more accurately expresses their alleged views?
"For my part, I do not know at all that the majority of Muslims mean "genocide" by "from the river to the sea..." and you have not demonstrated that this is normative."
Well, as ling as you personally, individually only apply your biased, prejudiced, flawed, worldview to be the standard by which everything else is judged, than of course you never find anything that contradicts yourself. It's a narcissistic form of circular reasoning, but you seem attached to it. FYI, you've never even attempted to prove that your hunch even represents a significant minority view within Islam and the Pro "palestinian" folx.
Again, just to be clear. The fact that you repeat and unproven claim or trite truism doesn't make that bullshit anything more significant that it was the first time your spewed it.
"In US/"Christian America" history, homosexuals were arrested, locked up, beaten and killed for being gay. In many (NOT all) dominant Muslim nations, homosexuals are arrested, locked up and otherwise abused by the dominant religio-fascist culture."
That's not what I asked. You said that gays in the US and the west were treated "Just Like" they are in Muslim countries/Sharia law. Yet your response demonstrates that your original claim was false. Please show us the specific criminal code sections where gays were imprisoned or executed by any US or western government simply for being gay. The fact that you, even now, pretend that gays aren't executed in Muslim countries is pathetic and worthless.
'Were you not aware of that?"
Yes, I'm aware that yoru claim of "Just Like" was bullshit.
"I mean, sure, there are some slight differences, but for LGBTQ folk, the essential end result was remarkably similar: They did not enjoy their human rights to be who they were or date/marry those they wanted to."
Again, you haven't pointed to one specific piece of US criminal code that is "just like" the Sharia law code regarding gays. Therefore your self serving, self referencing, circular arguments remain bullshit.
"Just how blind to/ignorant of history are you?"
As I've demonstrated, I've got a reasonably good grasp of the history of the Arab/Jewish conflict, and a fair amount of world history. I've also got a desire to educate myself on those areas where I might not know as much, if and when those areas become a significant topic.
"For what it's worth, it's probably worse for LGBTQ folks and women in many (NOT all) Muslim nations than in US history, but that's a matter of degrees."
That's quite the attempt to make life in the US/west sound way worse than it it, and life in Muslim nations way better than it is. Hell, you probably cheered when Iran got put in charge of the UN commission on human rights.
"If you're not aware of this, ask LGBTQ folk,they'll tell you."
Because LGBT folx are now the experts on everything. I tend not to get all my information from one sides, biased, sources with an inherent conflict of interest or something to gain.
"No, that's not what I said. I've been clear that nations with a fundamentalist/extremist religious leadership are ALL being horrible in their treatment of LGBTQ folk and women. This is true in "christian" nations in Africa that are criminalizing being gay and in Muslim nations that criminalize being gay. The common enemy is religious extremism."
And the false equivalency rears it's head again. Please show me the specific criminal code sections in the US or other western theocracy where gays are imprisoned or executed?
"Do you doubt that there is a significant segment of conservative Christian believers in the US who WOULD re-criminalize "being gay" IF they could... and that it's just progressive leadership led predominantly by brave LGBTQ folks who've made it impossible for that level of oppression to continue in progressive nations?"
1. Absolutely.
2. Please cite the specific sections of US criminal code that "criminalized being gay".
"Oppression of any sort is awful. Some religious extremists who have power (Christian AND muslim and otherwise) are more awful than other nations that are more progressive, but I don't think you can attribute that to conservative Christians."
This makes no sense.
"So, GLENN imagines in his feverish and unsupported fantasies, that Representative Tlaib ACTUALLY wants to see Jewish genocide. I half expect that you, Craig, harbor that same graceless and ignorant bigotry."
This is quite the distortion of what anyone has actually said. I do agree with Glenn that Tlaib chose that specific phrase because she knew it would be more appealing to parts of her constituency than the vague and meandering bullshit she was force to conjure up to cover her ass.
"But you all tell me: DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?"
I think that Tlaib intentionally used a phrase that is loaded with the notion of the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the elimination of all of the Jews in Israel. I think that she's playing to an audience, many of whom 100% want to see the genocide of the Jews, and she gave them enough to make them think she was on their side, while giving herself the wiggle room to dodge the bullet personally. I hope that she does not actually want what Hamas wants.
U asked...
"But you all tell me: DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?"
Craig didn't answer but said, instead...
"I think that Tlaib intentionally used a phrase that is loaded with the notion of the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the elimination of all of the Jews in Israel. I think that she's playing to an audience, many of whom 100% want to see the genocide of the Jews"
So, I ask again,
DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?
Saying you hope she doesn't want a genocide implies you think it's possible.
If so, you think this contrary to what she's made clear, by her life and service and actual words.
The question then becomes, why the distrust?
The answer appears to be, because she's Muslim and you want to treat Muslims as an evil monolith. In other words, overt religious bigotry.
But you tell me.
Dan
"The "fact..."? PROVE IT, liar, accuser."
Prove what? That there are millions/billions of Muslims who believe in the complete and utter victory of Islam and the removal of all other religions? That the Quran teaches things like Jihad? That there is a widespread system of madrassas where children are taught to hate Jews, that the US is evil and must be destroyed, and the suicide bombers are heroes to be emulated?
"You mean, what YOU SAY, as a Islamphobic bigot, are the "teachings of Islam..." BUT who says that YOU get to dictate to actual Muslims what "the teachings of Islam" are?"
No. I am able to read and comprehend what is written in the Quran, and what is being taught publicly by Muslim clerics. My pointing out the reality of what the holy writings of Islam say is merely that. I'm not interpreting those writings, I'm letting them speak for themselves. Much like I've posted extensively from the Hamas charter, and allowed those excerpts to speak for themselves. I'll also note that you've not dealt with any of those excerpts as they relate to your favorite slogan. Also your false charge of "Islamophobia" is simply that false, bullshit, something you need to believe to further your stereotyping of me. I live in the metro with one of the highest Muslim populations in the US, I interact with Muslims daily, I in no way fear them.
"Do you not recognize the arrogance and bigotry exist in your unsupported claims that YOU are the one who gets to define Islam to Muslims?"
No, but I recognize the hubris of you making these bullshit false claims.
"The fact is that YOU do not know and can not prove your bigoted, ignorant hunches about what percentage of Muslims actually believe, do you admit that reality? There are roughly 2 billion Muslims in the world. It may well be the case that millions of them (let's say 20 million) believe in the "elimination of Israel," as you falsely accused Representative Tlaib believes. EVEN IF it's 20 million (which you haven't and can't prove), that is ONE PERCENT of Muslims."
Well, according to the actual math, 1% of 1.8 billion is 18,000,000. So, my estimate of "millions/billions" was not incorrect based on your arbitrary 1% figure. But, for the sake of discussion, I'd suggest that 18,000,000 Muslims bent of the genocide of the Jews is s serious problem. Especially given that the 18,000,000 Muslims you posit are genocidal outnumber the 16,1000,000 Jews worldwide. But who cares about math when you're making shit up.
"Do you acknowledge you have NO support for any of your diabolic accusations?"
No.
Craig...
"I think that she's playing to an audience, many of whom 100% want to see the genocide of the Jews..."
You "think that," based on what? Anti-Islam bigotry? Or do you access to secret plots amongst Rep Tlaib and American Muslims?
I think we know the answer, but you tell me.
Dan
If one was to take the population of Iran (who supports Hamas and Hezbollah), you come up with a total number of people well in excess of the number of Jews worldwide. Well into the tens of millions. While this might be a "small fraction" of the 1.8 billion Muslims, it still represents a significant number of people dedicated to eliminating Israel and all Israelis.
"Well, given the observable, documented reality that many people can read ancient holy texts and come away holding opposite conclusions about what ARE the most common meaning to the words, yes, it remains arrogant for a non-believer, non-scholar to tell the faithful of a given tradition what THEIR holy text means and how those believers "should " rightly interpret their text."
I think the problem here is that you assume that Muslims regard the Quran in the same way progressive christians regard the bible. The Muslim belief about the Quran is much closer to the Mormon belief about the BOM, than the Christian belief about the Bible. For someone to copy/paste the exact words that are considered direct/diving revelation is NOT telling anyone what to believe, it's allowing the text to speak for itself. I've never once told any Muslim how they should interpret their text that came from divine revelation.
"How is that NOT arrogant?"
Well, since I haven't engaged in the behavior you call "arrogant", it seems reasonable to conclude that not engaging in "arrogant" behavior is not "arrogant".
"You and I both read the Bible and manage to come away with conflicting ideas of the most common meaning to the words, after all. Why can that NOT be the case for believers in Islam."
Again, when you start with a false premise, you reach false conclusions. When you believe both your false premise and your false conclusions to not be false, you look foolish. GIGO.
"I think one difference between you and folks like me is that you routinely think YOU can decide for everyone else what given texts MUST mean. What is most reasonable to YOU is generally just that and nothing more."
And once again, what you "think" is incorrect and the conclusions you draw from this incorrect "think" are false. But somehow you doing this is not "arrogant".
"You think that the "logical conclusion " of Jesus/Biblical teaching of "do unto others..." is to rape rapists, and to kill killers?"
No, as I said, I think that your taking "do unto others" out of context is the problem. You thinking that your out of context snippet is actual "Jesus/Biblical teaching" is the problem. Of course, I'd suggest that perhaps part of the problem is that Hamas isn't following Jesus actual, in context, teaching.
"Your mind can't possibly be that warped, can it?"
Compared to your, no.
"What in the name of all that is decent and rational are you trying to say?"
I'm trying to say that Hamas has engaged in years of rocket attacks on innocent civilians, culminating in the recent attack during which they raped, mutilated, killed, and kidnapped, innocent civilians. For Israel to simply "do unto others" would mean engaging in the same actions as Hamas. Fortunately, Israel chose NOT to "do unto others" and to focus on eliminating the military arm of Hamas and rescuing the hostages.
"And of course, my reference to the Golden Rule was in no way out of context. Just another false witness."
Except you didn't "reference" "the Golden Rule", you edited it to leave out part of the "Golden Rule". Had you chosen to include the whole thing instead of being lazy, the problem would have never arisen. Much like Hamas has the power to stop virtually all of the IDF response.
"U asked..."
Who the hell do you think U R? Prince?
"I think that Tlaib intentionally used a phrase that is loaded with the notion of the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the elimination of all of the Jews in Israel. I think that she's playing to an audience, many of whom 100% want to see the genocide of the Jews"
"DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?"
"I think that Tlaib intentionally used a phrase that is loaded with the notion of the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the elimination of all of the Jews in Israel. I think that she's playing to an audience, many of whom 100% want to see the genocide of the Jews"
"Saying you hope she doesn't want a genocide implies you think it's possible."
Of course it's possible to some degree. Or are you really claiming that you have 100% perfect knowledge of every thoughts she's ever had?
"If so, you think this contrary to what she's made clear, by her life and service and actual words."
I think that people regularly say things that don't always completely and accurately reflect their beliefs. I think politicians tend to do this more than others.
"The question then becomes, why the distrust?"
1. Politician
2. Liberal Politician
"The answer appears to be, because she's Muslim and you want to treat Muslims as an evil monolith. In other words, overt religious bigotry."
No, that's just one more bullshit false accusation you've made up and decided to apply to me with no actual evidence to support your false claims.
But you tell me.
"You "think that," based on what?"
Because she's a politician. Specifically a liberal politician.
"Anti-Islam bigotry?"
No.
"Or do you access to secret plots amongst Rep Tlaib and American Muslims?"
No.
"I think we know the answer, but you tell me."
I have and you insist that you know better than I what I think.
Because she's a politician. Specifically a liberal politician.
So, it's even worse??! You think that LIBERAL POLITICIANS, as a group, support genocide of Israel? In spite of the reality that this would be a grossly insane and immoral and dangerous suggestion to make?
Well, at least it's not anti-Muslim bigotry (although the reasons you provided all had to do with her being a Muslim, but let's let that slide for now...).
Do you realize how INSANE it is to suggest that liberals or liberal politicians support Israeli genocide??
That CAN'T be what you mean, but again, you tell me.
as I said, I think that your taking "do unto others" out of context is the problem.
Good God, have mercy! The Golden Rule is one of THE MOST universally known and believed ideas. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." It is so commonly known that most people fully understand that if one says "the Golden Rule" or "do unto others" precisely what they're talking about.
That does not make it "out of context."
Come on, brother. You aren't that obtuse to misunderstand what I meant by that, are you?
What in the name of all that his holy and good did you THINK I was referencing? "Do unto others until you get a chance to rape them, then rape the hell out of them..."?
This is just mind-boggling obtuse, son.
Or are you really claiming that you have 100% perfect knowledge of every thoughts she's ever had?
I'm saying that, without SOME EVIDENCE that Tlaib is supporting genocide, that it is an obviously insane conspiracy theory nutty-land, crazy as hell thing to say.
You can't just make accusations of "genocide" without SOME data/support AND that data has to be something more than words that YOU want to interpret in a bad way, in spite of how CRAZY it is.
Do you not understand how crazy it is to suggest that Tlaib, Jimmy Carter, liberals, progressives, "the left," US politicians in general, liberal politicians in general... that they support genocide?
It's entirely crazy.
It's the sort of Q-Anon-level of insane conspiracy theory that sent a nut with a rifle to a pizza joint to kill "Hillary and the liberals from running their child sex ring."
It's insane, I don't know how else to tell you that. It's not rational. It's not the kind of thing that rational moral adults make WITHOUT some evidence. AND that evidence has to be more than "Well, she's Muslim and the Quran teaches (says conservative white Christians) world domination and genocide for non-believers..."
2. Please cite the specific sections of US criminal code that "criminalized being gay".
I'm talking historically. Historically and in the VERY recent past, gay folk have been imprisoned based upon sodomy laws. You know that, right? You know that Sodomy laws of that sort didn't go away fully until this century?
You know, don't you, that gay folk did not have the liberty to marry the people they wanted to marry? You know that gay people were kept out of the military and if they were discovered in the military, they were punished, often beaten, sometimes killed?
Do you not know our own history? Our recent history.
And there are Christian dominant nations in Africa that, today, have laws outlawing homosexual acts. Uganda, for instance:
"Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has signed one of the world's harshest anti-LGBTQ laws, including the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality"
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UGANDA-LGBT/movakykrjva/
And it was Christian preachers who lent support to places like Uganda in creating those types of laws.
Are you not aware of that?
All the more reason to lend support to our actual history teachers, instead of demonizing them and preventing them from teaching actual history.
"So, it's even worse??! You think that LIBERAL POLITICIANS, as a group, support genocide of Israel? In spite of the reality that this would be a grossly insane and immoral and dangerous suggestion to make?"
No, but by all means keep making up outrageous shit and pretend that It represents anything I've said. This is too stupid to respond to.
"Well, at least it's not anti-Muslim bigotry (although the reasons you provided all had to do with her being a Muslim, but let's let that slide for now...)."
Now you can stop telling that lie. You could, but you won't.
"Do you realize how INSANE it is to suggest that liberals or liberal politicians support Israeli genocide??'
Then it's a good thing I've never done so.
"That CAN'T be what you mean, but again, you tell me."
I did, you keep ignoring what I say in favor of your fanciful bullshit.
"Good God, have mercy! The Golden Rule is one of THE MOST universally known and believed ideas. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." It is so commonly known that most people fully understand that if one says "the Golden Rule" or "do unto others" precisely what they're talking about.
That does not make it "out of context."
Come on, brother. You aren't that obtuse to misunderstand what I meant by that, are you?
What in the name of all that his holy and good did you THINK I was referencing? "Do unto others until you get a chance to rape them, then rape the hell out of them..."?
This is just mind-boggling obtuse, son."
Not at all, just taking the specific words you used(you could have even used ... to indicate your laziness) exactly as you used them. I can't be expected to read your mind, can I?
"I'm saying that, without SOME EVIDENCE that Tlaib is supporting genocide, that it is an obviously insane conspiracy theory nutty-land, crazy as hell thing to say."
1. No, that's not exactly what you said.
2. No, that's not what I said.
"You can't just make accusations of "genocide" without SOME data/support AND that data has to be something more than words that YOU want to interpret in a bad way, in spite of how CRAZY it is."
Strange, you keep making accusations that I want to see gays, Muslims, and all sorts of people harmed, and that my comments will definitely cause harm to these people (including death), but you pull this shit on me because of something you imagine I said.
"Do you not understand how crazy it is to suggest that Tlaib, Jimmy Carter, liberals, progressives, "the left," US politicians in general, liberal politicians in general... that they support genocide?"
Do you not understand how crazy it is to pretend like I said something I didn't say?
"It's entirely crazy."
Yet you keep making shit up and pretending like I said it.
"It's the sort of Q-Anon-level of insane conspiracy theory that sent a nut with a rifle to a pizza joint to kill "Hillary and the liberals from running their child sex ring.""
Wow, staying on topic at someone else's blog means nothing to you.
"It's insane, I don't know how else to tell you that. It's not rational. It's not the kind of thing that rational moral adults make WITHOUT some evidence. AND that evidence has to be more than "Well, she's Muslim and the Quran teaches (says conservative white Christians) world domination and genocide for non-believers...""
Again, you can't seem to grasp the fact that your fantasies about me having said things that I haven't said, are not real and that you arguing against your fantasies is actually nuts.
Dan,
I've studied the Qur'an, not bigoted scholars!!! You ignorant fool.
I've also studied history, including the history of Islam; don't you ever pick up a history book by anyone other than a person who revises history to fit the LEFTIST agenda?!! All your comments on this string demonstrate maximum abject ignorance of the topic.
After further reading of Trabue's comments I've come to the conclusion that his not only abjectively ignorant of Islam but that he is also abjectly stupid about Islam, let alone abjectly stupid and ignorant of Christianity.
"DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?"
Actually, yes I do. She's a Muslim and she knows exactly what that phrase meant. She's playing CYA because she's a politician. EVERY Muslim following Muslim teachings wants Jews eradicated. Again, read a history book so you won't sound so foolish.
"I'm talking historically. Historically and in the VERY recent past, gay folk have been imprisoned based upon sodomy laws. You know that, right? You know that Sodomy laws of that sort didn't go away fully until this century?"
1. You can't actually answer the question that I asked, but you can't bear to acknowledge that.
2. Sodomy laws were laws against specific sexual acts, acts that are not limited to gays.
3. Sodomy laws are NOT laws against "being gay".
4. You claimed that US laws were "JUST LIKE" Sharia laws. Yet your response literally disproves your claim.
5. Nice dodge.
"You know, don't you, that gay folk did not have the liberty to marry the people they wanted to marry? You know that gay people were kept out of the military and if they were discovered in the military, they were punished, often beaten, sometimes killed?"
1. That's not exactly true, but again, that's not a law against "being gay".
2. Yes, gay people were excluded from the military. Where in the UCMJ is the punishment of being "beaten" specified? Specific section please.
3. Where does the UCMJ specify death for "being gay"?
4. If someone was actually killed for "being gay" what happened to their killers given that murder is punishable under the UCMJ. Vigilantism is also likely prohibited under the UCMJ.
"Do you not know our own history? Our recent history."
I do, I wonder about you given the problems with your original claim ("JUST LIKE"...) and your inability to provide any US Criminal statutes or UCMJ statutes preventing "being gay".
FYI, there is not right to serve in the military, many people are excluded for many reasons.
"And there are Christian dominant nations in Africa that, today, have laws outlawing homosexual acts. Uganda, for instance:"
Which is NOT outlawing "being gay". You made the claim that in the US/west "being gay" was treated "just like" it was under sharia law. Uganda is NOT either in the US or "the west". Do you not understand that offering "examples" that don't align with your original claim, doesn't prove your original claim.
"And it was Christian preachers who lent support to places like Uganda in creating those types of laws."
Let me clarify.
"And it was (some few) "Christian preachers" (unnamed, unidentified, unquoted, unproven) who lent support to places like Uganda (one small non western, non US country) in creating these types of laws."
As you provide no proof, I see no reason to trust you. Of course your argument that just because "some" leaders of a religion say or do something, that it doesn't mean that many or all of their coreligionists agree with them, seems to undermine your point. Or to indicate that you pull these excuses out and deploy them selectively when it benefits you, not consistently.
"Are you not aware of that?"
Yes. Unfortunately your original claim was that laws in the US and west were "just like" the Sharia laws applied in Muslim countries. As this one example does not match ANY of the criteria of your original claim, it's therefore irrelevant.
"All the more reason to lend support to our actual history teachers, instead of demonizing them and preventing them from teaching actual history."
I absolutely do support the teaching of actual history, if that was the case there wouldn't be so many people ignorant of the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, and the actual history of the land Israel sits on.
For Dan, since he thinks Islam is a religion and we are religious bigots:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/islam_is_not_a_religion.html
Not sure if you've moved on from this, given your most recent post as of this writing, but I was amazed at how many more comments there are here since the last time I looked (my desk top being in the shop for a couple of days). But I went and found this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/glaring-anti-semitism-of-rashida-tlaib/ar-AA1idYyz
I know I could find more, but this is a good summary of all that Tlaib has done in recent years. To suggest she has a care in the world about the lives of Israeli requires incredible suspension of honesty. To fete terrorists and praise them indicates something more than stupidity or ignorance on her part (except for the stupidity and ignorance it takes to pretend one is "palestinian"...a fictitious people). She's tries to balance her hatred with enough politics to make the stupid (read: those like Dan) believe she's an honorable person. She's antisemitic and indeed a vulgar person. Craig pointing to her absolutely satisfies Dan's challenge to find a Democrat (I believe that was the challenge) who seeks Israel's extermination. One can't support organizations and nations who boldly express such a desire without thus expressing it one's self. True Christian grace would acknowledge that fact and it wouldn't pretend this vile woman is not vile at all, and more so, it would not use her sex and "nationality" (which doesn't exist) to accuse Craig of islamaphobia or misogyny. What a cheap tactic, indeed!
In the meantime, Dan tries to find some muslim who claims that islam is a religion of peace, which requires...just as Dan does with Christian Scripture...making clearly understood words, and the clearly understood sentences those words are assembled to create mean something entirely different to excuse what is well known about the "faith's" followers. Are there muslims who want nothing but to live in peace and harmony with all people regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, etc.? I wouldn't bet against it. But that has nothing to do with the fact that vast majority of them do not and are willing to kill everyone who won't get on board with their ideology.
This is a case when speaking in generalities is rational, but because it indicts a certain group among whom Dan wants to pretend are "innocent" people without ever defining what he means by that in this context, while at the same time continuing to speak in generalities about "Christian extremists" without making any effort to describe who those people are, what "extremist" actions they've ever taken and how comparable they might be to jihadists, just to make a point he couldn't back up if we helped him lie.
I think it's more than a little reasonable to view islam with extreme suspicion given its history. If facing reality makes me a bigot, I'm not at all concerned. I'm prejudiced against a host of immoral, murderous things and those who perpetrate them. I'm absolutely bigoted against Kentucky assholes who pretend to care about "innocents" while defending the murder of innocents in utero. They're worse than Hamas.
"If someone was actually killed for "being gay" what happened to their killers given that murder is punishable under the UCMJ. Vigilantism is also likely prohibited under the UCMJ."
How blindly naive and ignorant of history are you?
Dan
"DO YOU REALLY think that Tlaib wants to see Jewish genocide?"
Glenn's answer...
"Actually, yes I do. She's a Muslim and she knows exactly what that phrase meant."
There it. Literal ignorant bigotry. Dangerous false claims like this contribute to a culture of violence and hatred towards Muslims.
Will you be rebuking Glenn for his actual verbal assault on Tlaib and basic reality and decency, Craig?
Dan
"If someone was actually killed for "being gay" what happened to their killers given that murder is punishable under the UCMJ. Vigilantism is also likely prohibited under the UCMJ."
"How blindly naive and ignorant of history are you?"
Excellent job!! Instead of answering the multiple questions I asked you, you respond to this specific one with another question. For someone who finds so much pride in "answering every question" asked, this is incredibly disappointment.
Although, on the other hand it really is an answer. It's admitting that you have no actual instance of the things you claim happened, as well as no understanding of the UCMJ.
FYI, the UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's the US military version of criminal law. Although it has some differences. In many ways the UCMJ is harsher than US Criminal Code.
"There it. Literal ignorant bigotry...."
There is that LEFTIST abused term--bigotry. It is NOT bigotry to speak/write truth.
Instead of answering the multiple questions I asked you, you respond to this specific one with another question. For someone who finds so much pride in "answering every question" asked, this is incredibly disappointment.
I don't have endless time to jump every time you ask every question. I asked you ONE reasonable question in response to ONE comment you made.
In absence of a direct answer, it appears that you either don't know or are ignorant of our history.
1. No. It was not part of the military legal code to beat and kill gay folk.
2. Nonetheless, beatings and murder of gay folk regularly happened and was not investigated and no legal repercussions happened to the guilty. I'm guessing you did not know about the beatings and murders? Well, now you know. The same thing happened for Conscientious Objectors doing their non-violent service in the military. Are you ignorant of that part of our history, as well? The same was true for black service members as the military was integrated. Are you ignorant of that, as well?
If you're not aware of this part of our history, you really should educate yourself.
3. HOW does that deal with your questions? IF the US did not openly endorse/legalize the murder and abuse of LGBTQ people BUT, they turned a blind eye when LGBTQ people were literally oppressed, beaten, imprisoned and killed, then that is not significantly different from nations where they legalized the oppression.
Do you understand that and "get" why it's a distinction without a significant difference?
If not, again, educate yourself. Listen to the oppressed and become their ally, not an ally to those who'd oppress them.
Craig...
Sodomy laws were laws against specific sexual acts, acts that are not limited to gays.
Sodomy laws are NOT laws against "being gay".
Your ignorance would almost be quaint if it were so tragic and complicit in the oppression of people.
4. Sodomy laws were nearly exclusively used to oppress gay people (mostly gay men) at least since the 1960s (and probably before that). Were you not aware of that?
I don't blame you for being ignorant of history. But if you choose to continue to be ignorant when it's way past time for conservatives to recognize the abuses of power for minority groups. You can't credibly claim ignorance forever. At some point, you're choosing to remain ignorant.
In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexual couples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
https://www.aclu.org/documents/why-sodomy-laws-matter
Craig, Glenn believes in a conspiracy theory that makes him say Muslims in general and Tlaib specifically believes in genocide.
Do you have ANY objections to that sort of crazy position?
Do you not recognize why the demonization of a religious minority (Muslims, in this case - and Jewish folk and Arabs in general) is leading to a literal increase in threats of harm and oppression of US citizens who happen to be Muslim, Jewish and Arab? That it's led to people making death threats on people like Representative Tlaib?
Does that not bother you?
If not, why not?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/jewish-muslim-arab-communities-rise-threats-federal-agencies/story?id=104138715
It's still early, but if actual harm increases against Muslims by 10%, will that concern you then? What if it increases by 25%? What about an actual attempt to harm Rep Tlaib happens? At what point would it concern you enough to say that maybe Glenn shouldn't make such stupidly false and dangerous charges?
The difference between my mere disagreeing with you and using strong language to disagree with you (and really, it's quite vulgar how you falsely charged Rep Tlaib with wanting to see the elimination of Israel and when caught in the lie, you STILL refuse to apologize) and what you and Glenn are doing is that people aren't being placed in harms way by my trying to hold you accountable to your own literal words.
Of course, I can, to some degree, document that which has been covered up, in those instances have been exposed. But that's why I'm asking you if you're unaware of the history of abuse and killings in the military of gay folks (men, predominantly)? If you're not ignorant of it, then I don't have to provide the data. If you are, I can.
But seriously, given the high testosterone history of the military, do you seriously doubt it? Again, I have to ask how naive are you?
Here's one story from the 1990s...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-01-09-mn-1001-story.html
Dan
I mean, come on. You grew up in the relatively enlightened decades of the 70s and 80s. Were boys/young men/lunkheads NOT regularly threatening to beat up any guys they suspected of being gay where you grew up? Because it was a given where I grew up... and I mostly hung out with the more clean cut fellas.
I'd be willing to bet that a week didn't go by that I didn't hear some toxic masculinity fella say some form of, "if a f** ever hit on me, I'd kill him!"
Do you NOT remember the 70s/80s?!
And let's not get started on the decades before that!
Dan
More examples...
Say their names...
Barry Winchell
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Barry_Winchell
Allen Schindler
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Allen_R._Schindler_Jr
August Provost...
https://aver.us/august-provost-1/august-provost-1.htm
Harassment of gay soldiers tolerated by military (from 2000!!)...
"In a worldwide survey of 71,500 service personnel, 80 percent of the respondents said they had heard offensive comments about gays in the past year. Thirty-seven percent reported witnessing harassment, defined as insults, hostile gestures, threats, graffiti, vandalism, physical assaults, career discrimination or unfair punishment..."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-03/25/018r-032500-idx.html
And that was in the very recent past, in 2000. Do you honestly guess that things weren't much worse prior to the 1970s?
You can't possibly be that naive and ignorant of our shared history.
Dan
1. 2000 is not exactly the "recent past".
2. None of that adds up to military members being "killed".
3. In none of those few examples did you mention what the punishment of the "offenders" was.
4. Military members don't totally give up the very free speech rights that risk their lives for. Speech that offends is protected free speech.
5. I guess a generation of soldiers who get their feeling hurt when people say mean things to them is exactly who we want defending our country in the future.
"I don't have endless time to jump every time you ask every question. I asked you ONE reasonable question in response to ONE comment you made."
The old, "I just don't have time to answer any of your questions, so I'll ask you more questions and I expect that you take the time to answer every single one in exactly the way I want." smoke screen. Well, it least you finally admit that your "I always answer every question" crap was a lie.
1. Well, you got that one correct. Yet I suspect you still maintain that people breaking the provisions of the UCMJ is still tantamount to the government sanctioning killing gays.
2. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.
3. Well, IF your hunch is True then you should be able to prove it.
"Do you understand that and "get" why it's a distinction without a significant difference?"
Since you haven't done anything to prove your hunch, no.
4. When Dan contradicts himself, I see no reason to waste any time.
"Do you have ANY objections to that sort of crazy position?"
If I deleted any comment that contained a "crazy position" that I disagreed with, I'd delete lots more of your comments. Since I've explained my position of allowing people's comments to speak for themselves, and why I rarely delete comments, I see no reason to belabor something you've chosen to ignore.
"Do you not recognize why the demonization of a religious minority (Muslims, in this case - and Jewish folk and Arabs in general) is leading to a literal increase in threats of harm and oppression of US citizens who happen to be Muslim, Jewish and Arab? That it's led to people making death threats on people like Representative Tlaib?"
I recognize that offensive speech is protected speech under the first amendment of the constitution. Unless you can draw a line directly between a comment made here, and a specific "death threat", then shut up. You didn't find death threats to SCOTUS judges problematic enough to specifically address publicly, did you?
"Does that not bother you?If not, why not?"
No. because free speech includes offesnsive speech.
"It's still early, but if actual harm increases against Muslims by 10%, will that concern you then? What if it increases by 25%? What about an actual attempt to harm Rep Tlaib happens? At what point would it concern you enough to say that maybe Glenn shouldn't make such stupidly false and dangerous charges?"
It's strange that you choose to ignore the increase in antisemitic threats, harm, and the like which have been increasing for several years. Given your one sided concern, I'm done with this idiocy.
"The difference between my mere disagreeing with you and using strong language to disagree with you (and really, it's quite vulgar how you falsely charged Rep Tlaib with wanting to see the elimination of Israel and when caught in the lie, you STILL refuse to apologize) and what you and Glenn are doing is that people aren't being placed in harms way by my trying to hold you accountable to your own literal words."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The "it's different when I do it" excuse.
"Of course, I can, to some degree, document that which has been covered up, in those instances have been exposed. But that's why I'm asking you if you're unaware of the history of abuse and killings in the military of gay folks (men, predominantly)? If you're not ignorant of it, then I don't have to provide the data. If you are, I can."
Do I believe that there are individuals in the military who violated the UCMJ and engaged in "harmful" actions against gays, sure. There are percentages of people in all demographics who engage in unlawful actions against people who are in a demographic group that they don't like. That's a far cry from suggesting that the US military as a whole engaged in or encouraged in any official way persecution of gays.
"But seriously, given the high testosterone history of the military, do you seriously doubt it? Again, I have to ask how naive are you?"
Asked and answered, right above.
"Here's one story from the 1990s..."
One whole story.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-01-09-mn-1001-story.html
It's amazing that the story didn't mention what the adjudication was in any of these instances.
"I mean, come on. You grew up in the relatively enlightened decades of the 70s and 80s. Were boys/young men/lunkheads NOT regularly threatening to beat up any guys they suspected of being gay where you grew up? Because it was a given where I grew up... and I mostly hung out with the more clean cut fellas."
I mean, c'mon. Let's make broad sweeping judgement about large amounts of people based on subjective, anecdotal stories. I can say for a fact that I never heard one single person when I was growing up ever say anything about beating up anyone for being gay. Never, not once. And I even hung out with people who weren't particularly "clean cut fellas".
"I'd be willing to bet that a week didn't go by that I didn't hear some toxic masculinity fella say some form of, "if a f** ever hit on me, I'd kill him!" Do you NOT remember the 70s/80s?!"
Then you'd lose. Yes.
"And let's not get started on the decades before that!"
Oh, lets.
Let's not get started on the fact that Dan's "proof" is one news story that doesn't detail what happened to the accused. Let's not forget that the period of the news story was when homosexuality was forbidden by the UCMJ. Let's not forget how much "proof" we get from a bunch of anecdotes.
Just one point about "gay" soldiers being harassed.
In the old days they were not allowed in the military because they were not good for unit cohesiveness. But people like Dan don't understand how sexaul perversion is problematic for the majority of sane humans. The "gays" were harassed becasue they were not wanted and the troops didn't like them being pushed on them. Why they have to tell people what their sexual desires are is beyond my comprehension. Keep your sexual desires to yourself.
Oh and those articles assume they were killed because they were thought to be gay. THat's the LEFT for you.
So now it's a crazy conspiracty to say that Muslims want genocide against Jews?! Dan is so very ignorant of history and Islamic teachings!!!! The Muslims have ALWAYS believed, and practiced, genecide of Jews.
Muslims are not a "religious minority." Good grief, Dan's ignorance and stupidity is astounding!!!!! Dan defends the indefensible Talib KNEW what she meant and her claim of what she meant was just CYA.
Glenn...
"So now it's a crazy conspiracty to say that Muslims want genocide against Jews?! "
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetically sad and dangerous.
Glenn, engage in the real world, where, yes , there are many bad Muslims (and Christians and Jews and other) AND where not all Muslims fit your pathetically ignorant caricature.
Lord (Allah), have mercy!
Dan
"Oh and those articles assume they were killed because they were thought to be gay."
Again, welcome to the real world where good numbers of conservative men have routinely beat the snot out of any male they perceived to be even possibly gay.
Glenn, tell me true: Have you EVER said, "if a gay guy hits on me, I'd beat the s**** out of him..." because you have all the markers. OF COURSE, gay men have been beaten, killed and oppressed throughout our history. Educate yourselves. Or just remember what it was like in the relatively progressive 70s.
Dan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people
https://time.com/5600232/lgbt-crime-history/
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/08/31/1950s-documents-highlight-mccarthy-era-anti-gay-purges/
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-theory-that-justified-anti-gay-crime
https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/10/11/racism-homophobia-enabled-jeffrey-dahmers-crimes/
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/man-70-stoned-to-death-for-homosexuality-police/1923606/
Dan
"Muslims are not a "religious minority." Good grief, Dan's ignorance and stupidity is astounding!!!"
Um... in our nation, they are, of course, a minority. Read for comprehension.
Dan
"Um... in our nation, they are, of course, a minority. Read for comprehension."
Well, the myopia in this statement is astounding.
Christians—2.2 billion followers (representing 31.5% of the world's population)
Muslims—1.6 billion (23.2%)
Non-religious people—1.1 billion (16.3%)
Hindus—1 billion (15.0%)
Buddhists—500 million (7.1%)
Indigenous religions—400 million (5.9%)
Other religions—58 million (0.8%)
While "Christianity" is still a "majority", it's really more of a plurality.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where the US doesn't function in isolation.
Dan,
The whole ideology of Islam is world conquest and eradication of Jews. History proves that, you dolt. That is the real world. You really need to wake up and smell the coffee.
And no, I don't beat up people and never have beat up anyone. If someone wants to be queer that's his business as long as he doesn't try to force me to accept his sexual proclivities as natural. I've worked with several male and female queers over my decades of employement and they new where I stood because of letters to the editor.
Love your articles, most of which are very biased. Some people do beat up queers--so what? I got beat up many times in junior high and high school because my brother and I were the only white kids in the federal housing projects in Denver with eveyone else being Mexican or black. So then does that translate to all Mexicans and blacks beat up whites?
YOu are such an ignorant fool.
Glenn...
"Some people do beat up q****s--so what? I got beat up many times in junior high and high school because my brother and I were the only white kid..."
Another sign of the arrogant privilege you white conservatives embrace for yourselves in your literal ivory towers. And you do it with venomous bitter oppressive arrogance.
You just don't get it. Your privilege and arrogance causes you to blindly lash out because you perceive, wrongly, that YOU boys are the oppressed ones, losing "your" America. It was never yours to own and dictate to the rest of us.
Humble yourselves. Sell your belonging, give to the oppressed and come, follow Jesus.
Dan
Glenn...
The whole ideology of Islam is world conquest and eradication of Jews. History proves that, you dolt. That is the real world.
Again with the arrogant, condescending belligerence. Signs of the white oppressor are jumping with joy in Glenn's psyche. As if he can bully and "talk down" to others his way to power.
IN THE REAL WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, little Glenn, YOU don't decide what Islam does and doesn't teach. Muslims decide that for themselves. And while many Muslim extremists do have problematic and violent ideologies (JUST LIKE many white conservative extremists, by the way), THEY don't decide for everyone what Islam teaches.
This is the same problem you have with the Bible. Just because you've played at reading the Quran does not put you in a position of telling everyone "THIS is what Islam teaches..." It's not a monolith. In the real world, when people are considering religious philosophies and sacred texts, those individuals are deciding what it means. THERE IS NO ONE PERSON who decides "Yup, this is definitively, authoritatively what Islam teaches." And that certainly means your little arrogant white pissant opinion. While YOU may arrogantly believe that your playing around with the Quran puts you in the place to KNOW what Islam believes, that's just your white arrogance and privilege convincing you of the crazily irrational.
IN THE REAL WORLD, individual Muslims decide what Islam means for them. That's the reality of this world, Glenn. Now humble yourself, man. Your great pride is making a mockery of you.
Your bigotry is making you lose your mind, little brother.
Dan
Privilege to be beat all the time for having the wrong skin color?!? Dan lives in one huge fantasy world.
Dan has to be one of the biggest ass-brains in history. He redefines everything to fit his perverted ideology.
Dan's refusal to acknowledge the TRUTH/FACTs of Islam is right there with his refusal to accept FACTS from the Bible.
This man is a fool, which is why I banned him from my blogs. He is a waste of time and space and is a blight on humanity and truth.
I'm finished with that ass.
Oh, and I don't "play at" reading anything--- I STUDY and have studied Islam for almost 30 years.
Glenn,
Have you read the Quran all the way through?
More than once?
Have you learned Arabic?
Sought the insight of Muslim teachers to best understand it correctly?
Do you think merely reading an ancient religious text makes you a serious student of the text?
Do you love and revere the Quran or hate it?
Do you think merely reading a religious text makes one a serious student of the text who understands its content?
You don't, because in spite of my serious study of the Bible for half a century, you scoff at the idea that I understand it well.
So, what makes YOU qualified to tell anyone what Islam teaches?
The arrogance is unending. Humble yourself, little mortal.
Dan
Glenn,
Pay attention, Danthustera has spake and thou must immediately fall in line. He has decreed (through rhetorical questions) what must be done for anyone except him to have a "proper understanding" of the Koran. It's clearly impossible to understand a single word of the Koran (except for Danthustera) without being able to answer yes to his rhetorical questions.
Glenn,
I guess I should point out the obvious. Dan has already been quite clear that his answers to those rhetorical questions is no. Yet somehow he feels qualified to make pronouncements about what Islam does not teach. One wonders how he can magically have such a complete grasp of the teachings of Islam, while not having to jump through all the hoops he demands other must jump through.
FYI, I don't "hate" the Koran, Muslims in general, or Islam in general. It's just one more religion based on the notion that if humans work hard enough, and do the prescribed actions regularly, that people can earn their way into some version of Paradise in the afterlife. I feel sorry for those who follow these religions based on performance, but I don't "hate" them.
" somehow he feels qualified to make pronouncements about what Islam does not teach. One wonders how he can magically have such a complete grasp of the teachings of Islam"
I'm sorry you're having such an incredibly difficult time understanding reality, gentlemen. I'm just noting the reality that VAST numbers of Muslims do not agree with your hostile witness opinion of what Islam teaches.
Simple, observable reality.
I'm noting that Muslims, like Christians, have a wide range of interpretations and understandings of their holy text.
Simple, observable reality.
I'm pointing out the simple reality that Glenn is not The Holy Guru who gets to decide THE AUTHORITATIVE meaning of the Quran and teachings of Islam.
Simple, observable reality.
I hope that helps your confusion/arrogance.
Dan
Idiot fool Dan:
Yes I have read the Qur’an all the way through. Twice.
Don’t need to learn Arabic to read the Qur’an any more than I need to learn Hebrew or Greek to read and understand the English translation of the Bible.
It was a Muslim translation to English which I read.
I have SERIOUSLY studied the Qur’an and Islam for about 25 years.
Why would I love a book teaching a false god and enmity of the Jews (and Christians)
I’ve been a serious student of Scripture for 50 years but your claims to studying it are proven erroneously because of your abject ignorance of what the Bible actually says—ignorance due to following Satan promoting every sexual perversion and the murder of children in the womb.
I have also studied teachings about Islam by those who converted from Islam to Christianity.
You, on the other hand, re-invent Islam the way you re-invent Christianity.
This article is something DAN should read, including the articles I link to. The list of books at the end of the post are not ALL those I've read, just those which I have in my old library list. I've read many, many, many more books about Islam and it's history and teachings.
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2023/10/its-islam-stupid.html
"I'm sorry you're having such an incredibly difficult time understanding reality, gentlemen. I'm just noting the reality that VAST numbers of Muslims do not agree with your hostile witness opinion of what Islam teaches."
yet vast numbers do. So we're back to your unspoken contention that the presence of disagreement has some meaning regarding which side is right. You are assuming that the mere presence of some sort of Islam lite, automatically means that the few "experts" you listen to are more correct than the thousands of Imams in madrassas across the Muslim world, and the vocal leaders who teach Muslim doctrines that you don't like.
"Simple, observable reality."
And yet absolutely meaningless when it comes to determining which side more correctly and accurately interprets the Quran.
"I'm pointing out the simple reality that Glenn is not The Holy Guru who gets to decide THE AUTHORITATIVE meaning of the Quran and teachings of Islam."
Well, since Glenn hasn't claimed to be, and you clearly (by making that claim) believe yourself to be in some position of authority, I guess were at a stalemate.
No confusion, no arrogance. Just the simple observable fact that the text of the Quran is available for everyone, and it's not difficult to understand what the text says.
Glenn,
If Dan agreed with you, he'd call you an "expert". But since he doesn't, he'll likely ignore every bit of information you've provided and come up with an excuse not to even give any of it a cursory look.
Just remember that Dan is an expert on "journalism" because he took some JUCO classes, and he's an expert on conservatism because he read some unidentified books 40+ years ago. Despite his admitted ignorance of Islam, he's prepared to tell you, without doing any research, that you are absolutely not informed on the topic at all.
"Just remember that Dan is an expert on "journalism""
Just a reminder of the facts:
1. I've never said I'm an expert on journalism or probably much of anything.
2. I have said I'm well-read on journalism because of two years of collegiate studies, working on the student paper as a writer and editor, and a lifetime of reading/listening to and reading about good journalism.
3. I have said that I'm well-versed and familiar with conservatives having been raised by and within a hyperconservative world and worldview for the first THIRTY years (first half) of my life and because of continued conversations with many conservatives in the years since.
While I've never said I'm an expert on conservative Christianity, given decades of intense, sincere, devoted exposure and adherence to it and readings within it - no doubt, thousands and thousands (tens of thousands, literally) of hours and effort, one wonders what it would take for you to consider expertise??
4. If one is an overt bigot against something, as Glenn has made clear he is, one cannot be an expert. The bigotry undoes any amount of reading one might do in a bad faith effort to find material to demonize what one is bigoted against.
Do you think the atheists who comb the Bible extensively, looking for material to bash, attack and demonize Christianity are actually experts.
Be reasonable.
Be better fellas than this.
Dan
"Despite his admitted ignorance of Islam, he's prepared to tell you, without doing any research, that you are absolutely not informed on the topic at all."
I've admitted no ignorance, just honestly and humbly acknowledged that I am not an expert in it. Any more than the bigot is.
Words have meanings, brother. Don't make dishonest, bad faith claims.
Dan
"I've admitted no ignorance, just honestly and humbly acknowledged that I am not an expert in it. Any more than the bigot is."
If I remember correctly, you acknowledged that you had read small sections of the Quran, and very little outside of those small sections. But hey, I guess that makes you more of an expert than Glenn. Because an Ad Hominem attack is much more effective than acknowledging the more extensive study He's done than your cursory skim.
The above may contain sarcasm, snark, exaggeration, and/or hyperbole. It should not be taken as a specific, literal claim.
1. If you say so. As a general rule when someone says "never" or "always", I tend to suspect they're lying, confused, or forgetful.
2. Well, I guess that makes you much more well read and studied on the topic than I am. I merely got my undergrad degree in Journalism/Mass Communications. Wrote stories for the campus newspaper, worked on the campus radio station, and produced TV content.
3. You say that, then demonstrate how little you know because you base your hunches about all conservatives on the small sample size of those you have anecdotal knowledge of.
"While I've never said I'm an expert on conservative Christianity, given decades of intense, sincere, devoted exposure and adherence to it and readings within it - no doubt, thousands and thousands (tens of thousands, literally) of hours and effort, one wonders what it would take for you to consider expertise??"
Since all we have to work with here are un provable claims, I think it's safe to say that Glenn has spent decades of study on Islam, and provided an actual list of some of the books he's used in his studies (which you don't seem to be able to do), it seems that by your standards he's at least as much of an expert on Islam as you claim to be on "conservative Christianity".
4. Well, this is quite the Ad Himinem attack.
"Do you think the atheists who comb the Bible extensively, looking for material to bash, attack and demonize Christianity are actually experts."
Well, since you do so regularly in search of out of context proof texts, I'm not sure that you really have much room to bitch. Not to mention the fact that you've just claimed that you are possessed of exact knowledge of other people's intentions and motivation. I guess that might tend to undermine your claims.
If one is an overt bigot against something, as Glenn has made clear he is,
So it's bigotry to report that studies show Islam is a heinous religious/political system with an ideology of world conquest, teaching the eradication of Jews, as well as the execution of all who disagree with their teachings?
The only bigotry here is Dan's bigotry toward anyone who proves him to be an ignorant fool who supports everything satanic (Islam, abortion, sexual anarchy, etc)
In Dan's mind, to declare 2+2=4 is bigotry. To declare homosexual behavior against biology is bigotry. To declare abortion the murder the unborn is bigotry. Yes, truth to Dan is just plain bigotry.
Glenn,
Dan seems quite content to live in a world where very few things are black and white. Even when he makes a statement that sounds like he's asserting Truth, he's likely (when pressed) to fall back on the "It's just my opinion." dodge. He's also likely to tell us that the very existence of some (small, not quantified) number of Muslims who don't go along with Islam's historic teachings means that he can make broad, sweeping, generalizations about what "Muslims" really believe. It's this obsession with the grey areas, and the assertion that virtually everything he says is mere opinion, that makes having a discussion about anything difficult.
Adherence to the Truth could accurately be described as bigotry against Falsehood, yet most would not argue against Truth.
"f I remember correctly, you acknowledged that you had read small sections of the Quran, and very little outside of those small sections."
You don't remember correctly.
I've read articles on Islam and Muslims, including BY Muslims. I've read bits of the Quran. I've had discussions with Muslims. I'm familiar with world history and religious history.
All of which means that I'm definitely not a scholar or expert on Islam, neither am I ignorant of Islam.
Understand?
I'm educated sufficiently enough in Islam and human nature to recognize a bigot when he jumps up and down and says, Looking me and my bigotry.
Are you not sufficiently educated that you recognize the same.
ANY time someone makes sweeping claims about "what Islam teaches," as if Muslims are a monolith, you can recognize bigotry.
Dan
"You don't remember correctly."
Ok.
"I've read articles on Islam and Muslims, including BY Muslims."
You've read an unquantified number of "articles", with no sources, or names of authors, by the fact that you've read something "BY Muslims" is somehow supposed to carry some weight.
"I've read bits of the Quran."
Well obviously "bits" is significantly different than "small sections". As noted I've read most of the Quran and Glenn's read the entire thing, but your "small sections" is probably at least as good, if not better.
"I've had discussions with Muslims. I'm familiar with world history and religious history."
Because anecdotal references to unrecorded conversations with some small numbers of Muslims, are definitely the stuff of expertise.
"All of which means that I'm definitely not a scholar or expert on Islam, neither am I ignorant of Islam."
Which means, you really have very little if anything of value to contribute.
"Understand?"
Yes, I do understand that you've proclaimed your self more educated than Glenn or I.
"I'm educated sufficiently enough in Islam and human nature to recognize a bigot when he jumps up and down and says, Looking me and my bigotry."
Where exactly has Glenn said, "Looking me and my bigotry"?
"Are you not sufficiently educated that you recognize the same."
I'm clearly not as educated as you claim to be, because I don't see pointing out the problems with Islam as bigotry. If you want to say that I have some level of bigotry against theocracy as a form of government, ok. If you want to say that I have some form of bigotry against those who practice conversion by the sword, ok. If you want to say that I have some form of bigotry against those that kill, torture, rape, and kidnap innocent women and children, ok. It's like saying i have some level of bigotry against Mormons because so many of their beliefs and claims don't agree with observable reality. It's like Glenn said, having some level of bigotry against falsehood isn't necessarily a bad thing.
"ANY time someone makes sweeping claims about "what Islam teaches," as if Muslims are a monolith, you can recognize bigotry."
Are you saying that "ANY time someone makes sweeping claims about..." that it's always bigotry, or is it only bigotry when those claims are applied to Muslims?
The fact that you've found some minority of "progressive Muslims" who'd denied or revised some of the teachings of the Quran, doesn't mean that you can make "sweeping claims" about what Islam teaches either. Of course the existence of this minority doesn't automatically demonstrate that they have the most correct hunches about Islam.
Post a Comment