https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/anti-israel-encampments-protest-palestine-republicans-trump-israel-anti-semitism.html
The leader of the main student anti-Israel group at Michigan said the following.
"Until my last breath I will utter death to every single individual who supports that Zionist state. Death and more. Death and worse."
This is what the MSM is trying to portray as non violent protests.
This is simply evil and vile. If you can't stand against this sort of rhetoric, you can't make any claim to being moral.
FYI, I fully support his first amendment right to say this vile crap. I'd much rather he broadcast what a vile, hateful, and worthless subhuman that he is than to try to hide his beliefs. Having said that, if you claim a shred of morality I see no way that you cannot condemn this sort of language.
56 comments:
I totally agree, especially as regards letting a$$holes expose themselves as a$$holes. It's nice to know who they are.
But as this particular scum has so identified himself, there is no other response but to expel him from the school if he's actually a student there, and arrest him if he remains or returns. He is especially vile given he's threatening people who are not deserving of such sentiment.
At this point, I have to wonder why parents haven't been getting together to rid the campus of these people. The school won't do it, the cops won't do it. It needs to be done. Those protesters are terrorists as many of them openly proclaim saying, "I am Hamas!" Take them at their word.
This guy and the one at Columbia who they allowed to stay in school, need to be dealt with somehow.
I think expulsion without reimbursement is the appropriate response at minimum. Given their solidarity with a terrorist organization and the Gazastinians who put them in power, arrest is even more so. Openly calling for anyone's death justifies the harshest of responses and dissuades anyone else from similar behaviors. By speaking of death to those who support Israel, it terrorizes Jews and any others who express support for Israel, too.
There is no justification for allowing these punks to remain in the school. Dealing harshly with those who promote terrorism establishes (if not "re"establishes) the proper behavior which should be minimum expectations. Truly peaceful protest which does not interfere in the lives or schooling of others is fine. These kids are present at the pleasure of the school and their parents. They don't...and shouldn't...get to set terms for anything.
I agree that expulsion is the absolute minimum this slime deserves. Every single one of them should be expelled if our higher education is to retain even a tiny shred of credibility. Those engaging is this are almost all rich and privileged and truly believe that they will not face negative consequences. They need to be taught that actions have consequences and that their privilege will not save them now.
This is the future of the American Political Left, whining children who demand food service to the building they've taken over, after kidnapping people. Grow up, deal with the consequences of your actions. They're just parasites who still think that their student loans should be forgiven.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-israel-hamas-ucla-penn-genocide-057006125279
Read for understanding, not for false claims and twisting messages. And yes, there was at least one young adult who actually did make a violent sounding call... AND HE WAS REBUKED by fellow protesters and he apologized.
Read for understanding.
Dan
Wow,
Dan manages to find one example out of thousands of protesters and acts as if one example proves anything.
By all means, Craig, tell me. HOW MANY protesters are actually calling for violence? Is it ten in a thousand? TWO in a thousand? ONE in a thousand. Give me a number.
And are you saying that the vast majority (let's say 900 out of 1000) protesters are NOT doing the stupid stuff you're saying is happening and they are indeed, engaging in peaceful protests, that THEY should be silenced because some tiny and unknown percentage is misbehaving?
And if so, do you apply that to your idiot insurrectionists and all their silent allies (like you)? Do you apply that to your racist conservative white nationalists and all their silent allies (like you)?
Should all be blamed for the action of 1 or 2? Or even 10?
Your "outrage" about some people in the protest group allegedly acting up would be easier to take if you were likewise outraged by the violent insurrectionists and white supremacists on YOUR side.
Be better.
"Dan manages to find one example out of thousands of protesters and acts as if one example proves anything."
Also, once again, you're totally misunderstanding and getting backwards what I'm saying.
I'm not saying, Look! Out of ALLLLLLL the bad protesters, I found one who apologized.
I'm saying that I could ONLY find one protester who misbehaved and that ONE apologized.
I see no data to suggest there is widespread examples of people misbehaving. What I do hear are lots of conservatives making likely false claims and slandering and gossiping about behaviors they can't support.
I'm not saying there aren't others who've misbehaved, just that there's no data I've seen that calls for violence is common in any way... at least amongst the protesters calling for an end to violence in Palestine AND Israel.
Read for understanding.
Dan
Ah, I DID find some actual violent protesters. Of course, I do condemn them... but do you?
"A demonstration against Israel’s war on Gaza at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) turned violent when a vigilante pro-Israel mob attacked a solidarity encampment occupied by peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters..."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/5/1/ucla-clashes-pro-palestinian-protesters-attacked-by-israel-supporters
Join me in condemning this actual violence.
Dan
"Join me in condemning this actual violence."
As soon as you condemn the calls for intifada, and violence against Jews, I'll gladly do so. As long as you keep cherry picking which violence you call out, I won't enable your hypocrisy.
Columbia students took over a university building, held 3 employees against their will, and trashed the building, Dan says nothing.
remember when silence was violence, well I guess that's not the case anymore.
"Also, once again, you're totally misunderstanding and getting backwards what I'm saying."
No, I'm understanding it just fine. You chose to ignore the antisemitic, violent chants, the refusal to allow Jews to access campus buildings, you redefine Intifada to suit your narrative, and you find one example of violence that meets your criteria.
"I'm not saying, Look! Out of ALLLLLLL the bad protesters, I found one who apologized."
No, you're remaining silent or ignoring the protests shouting for violence against Jews.
"I'm saying that I could ONLY find one protester who misbehaved and that ONE apologized."
While remaining silent on the ones who continue to engage in threats of violence and antisemitism. You should be proud of those on your side.
"I see no data to suggest there is widespread examples of people misbehaving. What I do hear are lots of conservatives making likely false claims and slandering and gossiping about behaviors they can't support."
Willful blindness is a wonderful thing.
No, the videos aren't evidence, nor are the pictures of signs, and destruction.
"I'm understanding it just fine. You chose to ignore the antisemitic, violent chants, the refusal to allow Jews to access campus buildings"
The problem is that you're a damned cowardly liar.
I have not ignored anything. I don't believe YOU when you pass on stupidly false and unsupported claims. Not believing your BS is not the same as being silent in the face of bad actions by those on my "side," politically. I have seen no evidence of antisemitic actions by progressives., except the ONE I cited. And he apologized for saying something that I do condemn.
Now, try again: present some actual data from a legitimate news source and we can talk. In the meantime, I HAVE presented you with one case where conservatives are acting badly and you did not condemn it.
What does that say about you?
If and when I get legitimate information about actual misdeeds, I will easily condemn it.
Your word and what people are saying in your extremist sites are nothing.
Dan
"No, you're remaining silent or ignoring the protests shouting for violence against Jews."
NO. That's literally NOT what I'm doing. I have only heard ONE confirmed report of actual antisemitic words from a person who was corrected by his protester colleagues and who apologized.
Now, there's a lot happening in a short period of time. Maybe there IS more than just that one confirmed case.
The thing is, I'm not trusting you and your conservative colleagues who say something is happening. You all have no credibility. You all are not journalists.
You're confusing not believing your biased sources with me knowing something to be a fact.
You aren't stupid. How is it that you don't understand this?
Dan
"No, the videos aren't evidence, nor are the pictures of signs, and destruction."
IF you have data from a trustworthy source, present it. "I saw this from some guy I follow on twitx..." does not rise to the level of proof.
Willful blindness, indeed.
Dan
"As long as you keep cherry picking which violence you call out, I won't enable your hypocrisy."
You see, here's the difference between you and I: AS SOON as you point to actual violence or calls to violence by people on the Left, I will condemn it.
Period.
But you have to present proof from a legitimate source, not rumor and innuendo from "x" or some non-journalist "source."
But for you, I've presented evidence from an actual news source and you, KNOWING the story was reported from a real journalism source, refuse to condemn it.
Are you ignorant of AI? Of how foreign sources and white nationalists are deliberately passing on false news to scare the useful idiots into compliance?
Don't be a useful idiot.
Dan
"By all means, Craig, tell me. HOW MANY protesters are actually calling for violence? Is it ten in a thousand? TWO in a thousand? ONE in a thousand. Give me a number."
It's always good when you come up with the next great way to dodge things. This new one is pretty good. Using what you perceive to be a small percentage of a group as the excuse to ignore the actions of those people is impressive.
1. The actual number is irrelevant because it's the people in leadership who believe that Jews should be killed.
2. If someone shouts "Death to the Jews" or any of the other violent slogans, because they're ignorant that doesn't absolve them of their actions.
3. The anti Semites who advocate violence are not being handled by those who allegedly don't believe in violence. Therefore the failure to police the group by the group places responsibility on those who don't act.
4. How many times have you tried to hold me responsible for the actions of those you decide are in "my group"? This is just applying your standards to you.
"And are you saying that the vast majority (let's say 900 out of 1000) protesters are NOT doing the stupid stuff you're saying is happening and they are indeed, engaging in peaceful protests, that THEY should be silenced because some tiny and unknown percentage is misbehaving?"
No.
"And if so, do you apply that to your idiot insurrectionists and all their silent allies (like you)? Do you apply that to your racist conservative white nationalists and all their silent allies (like you)?"
It's refreshing when you apply your double standard so openly and blatantly. Unlike you, I did speak out against "insurrectionists", and did not offer excuses for their behavior.
"Should all be blamed for the action of 1 or 2? Or even 10?"
You regularly do so, so I guess if you do, why shouldn't I. Yes, if the "majority" allow the actions to continue than they become culpable.
"Your "outrage" about some people in the protest group allegedly acting up would be easier to take if you were likewise outraged by the violent insurrectionists and white supremacists on YOUR side."
No one on "my side" is publicly calling for the extermination of an entire nation full of people. No one on "my side" is supporting terrorist groups who've raped, murdered, still hold hostages, and indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians. No one on "my side" burned down, trashed, and caused over 2 billion dollars in damage to various cities. "My side" wandered around the capitol for a couple of hours, did little if no damage, and left of their own accord. The false equivalence is amazing.
it's the people in leadership who believe that Jews should be killed
BULLSHIT. Prove it. Liar. Prove it or slink away like the lying coward you're demonstrating yourself to be by repeatedly making such vile and unsupported slanderous false charges.
And since we KNOW you won't/can't prove it, slink away. Whatever other words you might offer, we know you're just slinking away, willing to slander and make damnable false witness and show, by those actions, that you're not walking in the way of the Realm of God. Or just basic reasonable human decency.
If someone shouts "Death to the Jews" or any of the other violent slogans
WHO? WHO is shouting "death to the Jews..."? What of those on your side attacking the pro-peace (the protesters are against violence to the Palestinians AND the Jews, from everything I've seen) side with actual violence? Will you not condemn them? Is your silence an indication that you're supporting violence?
The anti Semites who advocate violence
WHO? WHO are the anti-Semites advocating violence? THAT is your problem. It's pathetically dishonestly impotently NOTHING to make empty claims. Back up your claims with actual data, not what some guy on Twix says.
So, until you start acting like an adult and actually provide data, you're done. You've exposed yourself as a Trump-style demagogue and liar willing to pour gas on a fire that you started.
Before the parsing begins, I wanted to make a couple of points.
1. Dan has, in the past, made it clear that silence on the actions of people who share beliefs is the equivalent of action. That one's silence makes one complicit. Given that, it seems that consistency would require Dan to do what he demands others do.
2. Given the disparity in the size and scope of these "protests" on the left and the "right", it seems as though they should be treated proportionally. Yet the much smaller, less destructive, less antisemitic, protest without calls for violence or genocide somehow is made out to be much more significant.
"The problem is that you're a damned cowardly liar."
Coming from you, that's deeply ironic.
"I have not ignored anything. I don't believe YOU when you pass on stupidly false and unsupported claims. Not believing your BS is not the same as being silent in the face of bad actions by those on my "side," politically. I have seen no evidence of antisemitic actions by progressives., except the ONE I cited. And he apologized for saying something that I do condemn."
Well, the fact that you fail to do your research, ignore the actual videos I have posted, isn't my problem. This notion that I must spoon feed you every little detail, but only from sources you approve of, is simply a convenient way for you to dodge the responsibility you have to speak out against violent conduct on your side. FYI, the violent response in LA was driven by the fact that the pro Hamas protesters beat a Jewish woman severely. Strange that the Hamas folx always whine when people respond to their attacks.
"Now, try again: present some actual data from a legitimate news source and we can talk. In the meantime, I HAVE presented you with one case where conservatives are acting badly and you did not condemn it."
My point exactly. As long as you can render the source of anything illegitimate, you can avoid the consequences of the behavior of your allies. I've posted video, pictures and it's not like the information is hard to find. But you continue to demand others do what you won't do yourself.
"What does that say about you?"
That I'm not determined to exclude sources of information based on my preconceived notions.
"If and when I get legitimate information about actual misdeeds, I will easily condemn it."
My point exactly. As long as you can hide behind this sort of cowardly bullshit, and ignore video and photographic evidence, you can avoid condemning the antisemitism on the left.
"Your word and what people are saying in your extremist sites are nothing."
Name one "site" that is "extremist"?
"NO. That's literally NOT what I'm doing. I have only heard ONE confirmed report of actual antisemitic words from a person who was corrected by his protester colleagues and who apologized."
Of course that's because you don't think that calling for Intifada, of that the Jews should be sent "back to Europe", or for a "final solution" are antisemitic. That's your problem, not mine. You can ignore things all you want. Then you'll come up with other excuses to remain silent as your pro-Hamas allies continue to run wild.
"Now, there's a lot happening in a short period of time. Maybe there IS more than just that one confirmed case."
Even if there is, you'll still stay silent.
"The thing is, I'm not trusting you and your conservative colleagues who say something is happening. You all have no credibility. You all are not journalists."
Because it requires some special "degree" or "training" or some other bullshit to take pictures or video of events happening before one's eyes and make those things public.
"You're confusing not believing your biased sources with me knowing something to be a fact."
No, I'm using the eye test. I'm watching the videos, looking at pictures, and listening to the words of the protesters.
"You aren't stupid. How is it that you don't understand this?"
Unlike you, I actually have a degree in journalism/mass media. I don't cling to the old school notions that the only acceptable sources for information are the MSM/legacy media. I fully buy into the notion that technology allows for the expansion of journalism (in the sense of reporting on events, not spinning events to move a narrative). Unfortunately I do understand you very well. The MSM spin is aligned with your positions, therefore you see anyone else as "extremist" and reflexively discard or ignore anything from those sources without regard to the accuracy of the reporting.
"IF you have data from a trustworthy source, present it. "I saw this from some guy I follow on twitx..." does not rise to the level of proof."
Interesting. This notion that you, and you alone< get to decide what a "trustworthy source" is (As we see NPR, who you tout, is anything but) a strange one. The notion that the source of something, only approved by you, is somehow the determiner of the accuracy of the reporting, is bizarre. The assumption (prejudice if you will) that any source not approved by you is automatically untrustworthy with absolutely ZERO evidence seems a bit like the kind of thing a totalitarian might applaud. I guess I'm in favor of more when it comes to information, I guess the notion of a monopoly on "approved" news sources controlled by one political viewpoint seems counter to the notion of a free press.
"Willful blindness, indeed."
How it's possible to define someone who is open to seeing MORE options for reporting, and who doesn't prejudge the truth of reporting based on perceived political viewpoint is being called blind. You're starting to sound a bit 1984.
"You see, here's the difference between you and I: AS SOON as you point to actual violence or calls to violence by people on the Left, I will condemn it."
What an interesting way to make what seems like quite the straightforward claim, yet is anything but. You place the onus totally on me to spoon feed you information, but only from certain "approved" sources, before you'll call out violence. Despite the fact that it's right there in living color, you choose to ignore it based on you prejudices. Then you assure me that you "will condemn it", as if you can be trusted to do what you say you will do. Really well done, make it sound like you're serious, while demonstrating that you are not serious.
Of course, if I do spoon feed you evidence from you pre approved sources, you'll fall back on redefining Intifada, "From the river to the sea.", and the like to fit your narrative.
"But for you, I've presented evidence from an actual news source and you, KNOWING the story was reported from a real journalism source, refuse to condemn it."
1. Al Jazeera is hardly an unbiased, credible, news source.
2. The reporting ignores the fact that the pro-Hamas folx are also masked, instead only focusing on one side being masked.
3. The reporting ignores the fact that this was in response to the violent attack on a Jewish woman by the pro-Hamas folx.
But other than that...
"My point exactly. As long as you can render the source of anything illegitimate, you can avoid the consequences of the behavior of your allies. I've posted video, pictures and it's not like the information is hard to find."
Let me explain what I find to be important for forming rational, adult opinions based on input from a variety of sources.
1. It is important to form opinions based upon reliable sources. Of course.
2. A random video off YouTube or Twitter may be legitimate and it may be faked and it may be twisting the reality of a situation. We just don't know the reliability of a given random video. That's why research and professional journalism is vital.
3. One of your videos appears to be recording a call for intifada from protesters. BUT, what did the speaker INTEND by intifada? We don’t know, because that question wasn't asked.
That's why research and professional journalism is vital.
4. We might have random people willing to insist they know what the speaker meant, but who are THEY? What is their authority to speak on behalf of the person calling for intifada, for instance? Are they a colleague of the speaker? Are they a know-nothing distant willing to demonize others without the benefit of reasonable insight?
That's why research and professional journalism is vital.
I GET that you personally think you know best what they mean, but you literally don't know.
That's why research and professional journalism is vital. That's why legitimate sources are vital. Now, more than ever with especially right-wing citizens are willing to create and believe fake, twisted news and stories, reliable sources are vital.
Dan
BULLSHIT. Prove it. Liar. Prove it or slink away like the lying coward you're demonstrating yourself to be by repeatedly making such vile and unsupported slanderous false charges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/nyregion/columbia-student-protest-zionism.html
The leader of the Columbia protests is on record as saying (among other things) that "Jews don't deserve to live.". He said this (among other places) in a disciplinary hearing after which Columbia somehow allowed him to stay enrolled. They FINALLY did the right thing and expelled him after his remarks went public. Unless the NYT isn't on your approved list.
"And since we KNOW you won't/can't prove it, slink away. Whatever other words you might offer, we know you're just slinking away, willing to slander and make damnable false witness and show, by those actions, that you're not walking in the way of the Realm of God. Or just basic reasonable human decency."
This is amazing. The fact is not that I haven't offered "proof" or that "proof" doesn't exist for you to find. The fact is that you don't like the "sources" of the "proof" based on your prejudices, not because the reporting is inaccurate. I'll simply note that after a very quick Google search, I provided you with the "proof" you claim to want from a source that should be acceptable to your prejudices. Which renders the whole preceding paragraph a "false claim".
"WHO? WHO is shouting "death to the Jews..."? What of those on your side attacking the pro-peace (the protesters are against violence to the Palestinians AND the Jews, from everything I've seen) side with actual violence? Will you not condemn them? Is your silence an indication that you're supporting violence?
The pro-Hamas protesters. The fact that you are so committed to your prejudices as the arbiter of what is True, isn't my problem. I know what's next, you'll want specific names of "who", and you'll argue that "Jews don't deserve to live." isn't really that antisemitic, and that it's only a tiny percentage of the protesters who might possibly be shouting antisemitic slogans anyway so it's really no big deal and as such not worth your speaking out against.
"WHO? WHO are the anti-Semites advocating violence? THAT is your problem. It's pathetically dishonestly impotently NOTHING to make empty claims. Back up your claims with actual data, not what some guy on Twix says."
Asked and answered. The problem is that you willfully choose to ignore that it's not abut what "somebody on Twix (clever, I bet it took you days to come up with that) says.", but abut the video. As long as you can misrepresent what I've offered and hide behind that choice, it keeps you from facing something you deny exists.
"So, until you start acting like an adult and actually provide data, you're done. You've exposed yourself as a Trump-style demagogue and liar willing to pour gas on a fire that you started."
This is so funny. I provide video after video, and you try this bullshit.
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/campus-antisemitism-surges-amid-encampments-and-related-protests-columbia-and-other
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/nyregion/columbia-protests-antisemitism.html
https://president.emory.edu/communications/2023/10/10-25-2023.htm
https://www.foxnews.com/us/columbia-university-anti-israel-protesters-dramatic-moments-week-chaos
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/04/30/college-protests-antisemitism-biden-trump/73471317007/
Hell, even Biden who's hardly the poster child for cognitive engagement acknowledged that the protests are antisemitic. But not Dan.
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/stop-and-think-anti-israel-chants-and-what-they-mean
https://www.ajc.org/news/7-ways-some-anti-israel-protests-have-spread-antisemitism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-spills-into-europe-with-protests-anti-jewish-slogans/2014/07/30/36ca8d41-b5a4-4790-9b53-c94e75da4ba6_story.html
https://www.haaretz.com/2014-07-18/ty-article/.premium/protesters-in-berlin-come-out-jews-cowardly-pigs/0000017f-dc4b-db22-a17f-fcfbe0dd0000
https://www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/israel-hamas-conflict/jewish-students-du-worried-safety-amid-protests/73-38ca75a9-0ed8-4892-8ece-60f23ee6c0a9
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/protesters-yell-antisemitic-cheers-during-demonstration-emory-university-president-says/IPPAMO6L6ZFLHPNI5M7IEXGQCM/
https://www.foxnews.com/us/antisemitic-agitators-protesters-elite-us-universities-shouting
I post these links not because Dan demands that I do so. I post these links to demonstrate that Dan is willfully choosing to be lazy and to hide from the reality of what his allies the pro-Hamas protesters are doing and saying. Saying "I haven't seen anything", while not haven't looked for anything, is simply a lazy and cowardly way to hide from reality.
https://news.sky.com/story/police-actively-looking-for-individuals-over-antisemitic-signs-at-pro-palestinian-march-13005665
Hell the Brits are more concerned about left wing antisemitism than Dan is.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/25/metro/nyc-public-school-students-brandish-antisemitic-signs/
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/anti-israel-protester-seen-holding-final-solution-banner-at-george-washington-university-nazi-phrase-genocide-world-war-ii-palestine-israeli-gaza-ceasefire-war-campus-protests-columbia-university
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/anti-semitic-banners-hung-on-central-austin-overpass-for-the-second-time/
Hell, if Austin says that these things are antisemitic, they must be.
ttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/banner-kanye-right-los-angeles-freeway-antisemtic-group-rcna53653
https://www.newsweek.com/antisemitic-banner-vax-jews-texas-austin-nazi-1642158
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12672281/NYU-investigating-repugnant-students-held-anti-Semitic-world-clean-signs-Washington-Square-Park-protest.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hateful-protest-signs-social-media-posts-1.7011519
I know, it's still not enough proof, not from the authorized sources, not specific enough, or some other excuse Dan'll conjure up to avoid having to speak out against the left wing antiemites.
"Let me explain what I find to be important for forming rational, adult opinions based on input from a variety of sources."
Let me explain what I find irrelevant about your hypocritical justifications for excluding certain reporting based on your prejudices.
1. As long as you define what's reliable and exclude accurate reporting from anyone else.
2. Just like a random video from any other news outlet. But, "might be faked" is not a reason to automatically exclude something with no evidence that it IS faked.
3. Sure, you can play this game all you want. Let's ignore what Jews might hear or think when they hear this cry as well as what Intifada has meant in real life history because of some "what if" bullshit.
4. Excuses, and more excuses. I thought ignorance wasn't an excuse. You know it's gotten bad when Dan is offering, "They were too stupid to know what they were saying." as an excuse.
"I GET that you personally think you know best what they mean, but you literally don't know."
But you do, right. You know to a certainty that anyone who doesn't meet your subjective preconceptions about what an approved journalist is can automatically be dismissed without regard to the accuracy of their reporting.
"That's why research and professional journalism is vital. That's why legitimate sources are vital. Now, more than ever with especially right-wing citizens are willing to create and believe fake, twisted news and stories, reliable sources are vital."
None of which are remotely relevant in a case where live video of live events taken while the event was happening is presented as an accurate representation of the event.
But "It might be fake." isn't an excuse to dismiss live reporting. It's a tiny little fig leaf for a coward to hide behind.
Dan's last comment isn't going to age well. But it won't matter, he's the "king of excuses" when it comes to left wing or left wing adjacent violence.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=842418301235000&set=pb.100064005130728.-2207520000
Somehow, according to Dan, this particular copy of a press conference is unreliable because I found it in one location on X, but this one...
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/this-is-like-basic-humanitarian-aid-were-asking-for-columbia-protesters-demand-food-water-from-university/
is magically more reliable because it better meets Dan's subjective, prejudiced, guess abut the reliability of the source.
The fact that this ignorant idiot has clearly wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on a worthless college degree/PHD program (which she should be expelled from), yet feels qualified to parade her idiocy at a press conference suggests that Columbia is only in if for the money. I suspect she believes that Biden is going to forgive her student loans.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-798915
I have no reason to conclude that this video was "faked", doctored, or anything else. I have no reason to suspect that Dawn was not attacked and beaten by pro-Hamas protesters for carrying a sign they didn't like. In short, I have no reason to believe that this story is factually inaccurate. Yet, because it didn't appear in an outlet that Dan approves of, it must be considered "unreliable" and as if it never happened.
How quickly we forget the kid in the MAGA hat who smiled at a Native American protester and had his life ruined. All over the MSM for weeks.
How quickly Dan dismisses the attack on this woman, solely because his pet news media didn't report it. Maybe the problem isn't who DID report this story, maybe that problem is who DIDN'T report it. Maybe the problem is Dan's blind faith in what he was told about journalism at a JUCO back in the '80s-'90s.
When you think about it, the years of comments from Dan do not require a legitimate investigative news source to conclude that when one deals with Dan Trabue, one is dealing with one who only postures as a Christian, as an adult, as a person of honesty and integrity.
Dan uses definitions only in ways which serve him in a given moment. There's a difference between how a word is defined, and how it is commonly used (which often results in an added definition in dictionaries). How the muslim defines "intifada" while trying to portray their population in a benevolent manner, versus how it is mostly used in their never-ending hatred of the non-muslim population is starkly different and the latter is what rational, honest people consider upon hearing the word used, particularly in Gazastinian supportive demonstrations and protests against the generally righteous response of Israel against unjustified Gazastinian aggression and violence against them. The same is true of the words "fatwa" and "jihad". Despite how the muslim apologist will explain the definition, what those words mean to the typical victim of muslim radicalism is more accurate given how and when we hear the words used today. When these three words are used today, they are more than not used in terms of violent assault on others, despite how they will be defined to deflect unwanted attention on their violent agenda.
Given the fact that Dan just offered Al Jazeera as an unbiased news source on the pro-Hamas stuff, it's clear that his subjective, flexible, bias driven, claims about news sources aren't particularly consistent. Just like it's clear that he doesn't bother to consider the Truth of a reported event because he dismisses the very possibility that the report could be True based on his prejudices.
Likewise Dan's commitment to definitions is both temporary and flexible. One minute he's woodenly literal about only the limits of the dictionary definition, other times he'll insist that some non standard definition is what must be accepted. Only an idiot (or someone committed to a Narrative over Truth) could possibly ignore the actions labeled Intifada when "defining" the word. Further, the definition INCLUDES the very actions that were engaged in by palestinian terrorists. His definition certainly doesn't exclude things like rape, murder, bombing innocent civilians, random rockets fired at innocent civilians. As only people of a certain demographic engage in Intifada, the only issue is how those IN that demographic define the term in real life. Who cares what an old, white, mansplaining, liberal who can't be bothered to get out from behind his keyboard to fight the injustice he complains about says? It's just whitemansplaining to jihadists to tell them what they mean. I thought doing that was bad, wasn't it?
is magically more reliable because it better meets Dan's subjective, prejudiced, guess abut the reliability of the source.
??
Are you all UNAWARE that Russian and Chinese propagandists, along with white nationalists and other conservatives are actively promoting false and half-true news?
YES! Of course, it's more reliable if it passes through a journalistic outfit. They have to vet such things, assess the claims being made, do some background work on such "sources." They may indeed be reliable but here's the thing: YOU do not know that they are reliable, just because they tickle your anti-Islamic ears.
By the way, Palestinians ARE semitic.
https://www.globalministries.org/resource/background_definitions_who_are_palestinians/
And just a note in case you all haven't made this connection: Being opposed to the ACTIONS of Israel's gov't is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic. Of course. One can oppose the slaughter of the people of Palestine and at the same time support and love Jewish people.
Of course.
Given the fact that Dan just offered Al Jazeera as an unbiased news source on the pro-Hamas stuff
Al Jazeera is a legitimate, respected journalist outfit. That they don't tilt far enough to the right to make white men like you feel good about it doesn't change that. Do they lean left? Perhaps, like Fox leans WAY right. But both are actual journalistic outfits with at least a passing deference to journalistic best practices.
But we get it: Brown Muslim-sounding people can't be trusted, says the Great White Chief.
[rolls eyes]
could possibly ignore the actions labeled Intifada when "defining" the word.
The reality is that there are some who wage actions labeled intifada in a violent, bad way. There are others who don't.
Learn to distinguish between the two.
The difference is the Klan and Conservative White Evangelicals. If you don't want to be associated with the Klan, don't associate all Muslims and allies with terrorists.
Do unto others, you know... Jesus stuff.
Craig offered, with NO support:
it's the people in leadership who believe that Jews should be killed...
I responded:
BULLSHIT. Prove it.
Craig responded with a link to this one person, a story that I can't read because I don't have a Times account:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/nyregion/columbia-student-protest-zionism.html
But I was able to tell that it was a reference to ONE person, Khymani James. James said, after being called out about his vile, violent words:
"What I said was wrong.
Every member of our community deserves to feel safe without qualification."
https://www.newsweek.com/who-khymani-james-columbia-protest-organizers-remarks-spark-fury-1894488
So, Craig doesn't answer my question, instead he points to ONE student who has since apologized, after being confronted by other student protesters (and others).
So, once again, YOU made the unsupported claim that it's "the people (plural) in leadership who believe that Jews be killed (which is not what he said, by the way, even before he repented)"
PROVE IT or admit it was just another stupid right wing lie.
EVEN with reporting about this ONE leader (not THE leader, not THE LEADERS) at Columbia (who once again, has recanted/repented), Craig gets it wrong and makes the sort of stupid/ignorant false claim:
The leader of the Columbia protests is on record as saying (among other things) that "Jews don't deserve to live.".
1. He is/was ONE of the leaders.
2. He did NOT say that Jews don't deserve to live. He said ZIONISTS don't deserve to live. There is a distinction.
3. What I'm hearing from people on the ground (including Jewish students and allies) is that they are NOT complaining about "the Jews..." they're complaining about the Zionists in charge of the slaughter of the Palestinians, a violence that YOU continue to defend and whitewash.
From there, you posted an ADL link (take it for what it's worth), a NYT link (I can't view) and you posted a link to a statement from the president of Emory where THAT PRESIDENT alleged antisemitic comments, but didn't support it, offered no quotes or text or context.
Another strike.
For what it's worth, the ADL link, so far as I can find, did not support any specific actions of antisemitism. Not one. They just allege that it's happening (as you allege, with NO support).
They did mention a long time student group (Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)) and alleged that they were antisemitic. But again, no proof. Just the empty allegation.
In their many words, the ADL did cite this statement from the SJP:
“…We as students will reclaim our power on campus—there will be no classes or compliance with our institutions so long as
their shameless profiteering off of our genocide persists.
Through the student movement for a popular university, we will transform our mass mobilization into sustained, tangible power…We will seize control of our institutions, campus by campus,
until Palestine is free.”
So, the "bad guys" (in ADL's opinion) want to end the slaughter - what they're calling genocide - of Palestinians. AND they want Palestinians to be free.
That's literally not the same as being antisemitic.
Being opposed to the current (and previous) actions of Israeli leadership is NOT the same as being antisemitic. You DO understand that, don't you?
It sounds like the ADL and people like you can't see past the notion that IF one is opposed to the slaughter of innocent Palestinians, THEN one must be antisemitic... as if one had something to do with the other.
Continuing through your links, but there's three strikes so far, not one single support for the unsupported allegation that the "leaders" of the protest are violent or antisemitic.
Your next link, from Fox News, shows demonstrators chanting "kill another soldier now..." speaking of the Israeli soldiers who are killing the Palestinians by the thousands in Hamas. While I do not approve of that, violence (either on Israel's part or Hamas' part) calling for Palestinians to defend themselves from assaults from Israeli SOLDIERS who are killing them is not antisemitism, nor is it a call for violence on Jewish students.
This is part of the problem with ongoing violence between both Israel and Hamas/other Palestinians: It's self-perpetuating. As long as Hamas attacks and kills innocent Israelis in vile attacks, then Israel is going to respond. And as long as Israel attacks and kills innocent Palestinians, Palestinians are going to respond. We need to DE-escalate, not escalate the violence. And by and large, it sounds like the student protesters are trying to keep all these protests peaceful and have Jewish and other allies. But people - Palestinian and otherwise - are righteously appalled at the thousands of innocent deaths of men, women and children in Gaza.
I think I've gone far enough chasing your rabbits that don't support your clearly false claim.
IF you ever have proof of what you actually claimed, present it. Until then, you've just lost credibility.
"Are you all UNAWARE that Russian and Chinese propagandists, along with white nationalists and other conservatives are actively promoting false and half-true news?"
Are you aware that the existence of these things does not automatically validate your subjective criteria for reliable news or justify you randomly choosing to ignore things that don't meet yrou criteria? Are you aware that not everything that doesn't fit your tiny little box is automatically any of the above?
"YES! Of course, it's more reliable if it passes through a journalistic outfit. They have to vet such things, assess the claims being made, do some background work on such "sources." They may indeed be reliable but here's the thing: YOU do not know that they are reliable, just because they tickle your anti-Islamic ears."
Just like magic. Truth is now dependent on "passing though a journalist outfit", good to know.
"By the way, Palestinians ARE semitic."
The de facto term for hatred of Jewish people, because they are Jewish, is antisemitic. But you can pretend like you've scored some bid points against that entire world. What palestinians are not, is nation with a history. Apparently y'all had to latch on to a term "Palestine" imposed on the area by the Roman conquerors to identify a "country" that magically sprang into existence in the 20th century.
"And just a note in case you all haven't made this connection: Being opposed to the ACTIONS of Israel's gov't is not, in and of itself, anti-semitic. Of course. One can oppose the slaughter of the people of Palestine and at the same time support and love Jewish people."
I'm aware of this, becasue it goes without saying. Yet when the leader of the Columbia protest announces that "Jews don't deserve to exist.", he's not bitching abut the actions of Israel's government.
You also realize that the very notion of Israel "slaughtering" the people of Gaza (get your terms right, palestine doesn't exist) is not supported by any metric that measures these things. Less so after the Gaza Health Ministry announced that their original claims (which people like you accepted uncritically) were 30% overstated. Less so when you realize that Hamas could stop the alleged slaughter tomorrow, if they chose.
.
"Al Jazeera is a legitimate, respected journalist outfit. That they don't tilt far enough to the right to make white men like you feel good about it doesn't change that. Do they lean left? Perhaps, like Fox leans WAY right. But both are actual journalistic outfits with at least a passing deference to journalistic best practices."
If you say so. But excellent job with the whole bullshit charges of racism though, really well done. I completely forgot that the subject here is left wing racism.
"But we get it: Brown Muslim-sounding people can't be trusted, says the Great White Chief."
Make up false, bullshit, much? Why yes, you do.
Because a news organization funded my a Muslim government is absolutely guaranteed to be unbiased.
"The reality is that there are some who wage actions labeled intifada in a violent, bad way. There are others who don't."
Look, Dan just made this shit up and expects it to be accepted. There are people who believe that Hamas holding hostages is a good thing as well.
"The difference is the Klan and Conservative White Evangelicals. If you don't want to be associated with the Klan, don't associate all Muslims and allies with terrorists."
1. Well this is quite the threat. If I don't stop doing something that I am not doing, you'll tell lies about me.
2. I am not "associated with the Klan", or course I'm not a member of the political party that was synonymous with the Klan until the '70s.
3. I've never associated "all" Muslims and allies with terrorists.
But, by all means keep making fun shit like this up.
"Do unto others, you know... Jesus stuff."
You just literally threatened to lie about me, for not doing something (also a lie) that you made up. Yet somehow that's "Jesus stuff".
FYI, Islam speaks very highly of Jesus, and has their own version of "Do unto others.", yet Hamas (who are Muslims) have been actively engaged in "Doing unto" Israel with bombs, murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and the like. You know, Jesus stuff.
...and Hamas was wrong. The entire world was allied with Israel on Oct 7... UNTIL Israel started doing much the same as Hamas but in far larger numbers.
Israel and its idiot supporters (ie, conservative Christians, by and large) is playing right into Hamas' hands by making themselves (Israel) the bad guys in this story.
Hamas has killed their hundreds and Israel has killed their thousands.
Literally not a good thing.
Also, I literally did not literally threaten to lie about you. Learn to read for understanding. That is such a large part of the problem, today. Conservatives think they can speak things into being and claim things "literally" happened that literally didn't.
Be better.
"BULLSHIT. Prove it."
I did.
"Craig responded with a link to this one person, a story that I can't read because I don't have a Times account:"
Not my problem. It's not enough that you demand that I spoon feed everything to you from some random list of acceptable sources, now I have to buy you access as well? Use Google and do your own research.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/nyregion/columbia-student-protest-zionism.html
"But I was able to tell that it was a reference to ONE person, Khymani James. James said, after being called out about his vile, violent words:"
One person who was THE leader of the Columbia uprising.
"So, Craig doesn't answer my question, instead he points to ONE student who has since apologized, after being confronted by other student protesters (and others)."
Except I did answer, and his track record of saying those sorts of things is extensive. He also said those things long before this rioting, yet Columbia did nothing to him. But hey, he was forced to say the right things after getting his ass in trouble, I never got credit for apologizing because I got caught.
Note, goal post move. Dan claimed that no one was saying these sorts of things, I proved him wrong, now he's just come up with new ways to excuse these things from leftists.
"PROVE IT or admit it was just another stupid right wing lie."
Why, I did and you just moved the goal posts.
1. He has been identified repeatedly as the leader.
2.Because it's perfectly fine to wish death of people who want a country where that can live safely and at peace.
3. Because "what you're hearing" anecdotally with absolutely zero proof of anything is the standard you demand everyone else live up to.
Who would have thought that Dan would would be defending someone who wants to deny one group of people their right to exist.
"From there, you posted an ADL link (take it for what it's worth), a NYT link (I can't view) and you posted a link to a statement from the president of Emory where THAT PRESIDENT alleged antisemitic comments, but didn't support it, offered no quotes or text or context."
Again, you regularity offer links to affinity groups as "proof" on various subjects (Sierra Club on climate issues), yet demand a different standard from others. That you "can't see the NYT link" isn't my fault. You set the limits, you have to deal with it.
Given that American Jews have historically voted DFL, and that the ADL is a left leaning organization, I'm a little shocked that you don't seem to give a shit what they have to say.
The Emory president was quite clear that antisemitism was being displayed on his campus.
Remember I'm demonstrating the existence of antisemitic and violent rhetoric and actions across the country and in Europe.
Dan: "For what it's worth, the ADL link, so far as I can find, did not support any specific actions of antisemitism. Not one." T
Dan" "They did mention a long time student group (Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)) and alleged that they were antisemitic. But again, no proof. Just the empty allegation."
Also Dan: "In their many words, the ADL did cite this statement from the SJP:
“…We as students will reclaim our power on campus—there will be no classes or compliance with our institutions so long as
their shameless profiteering off of our genocide persists.
Through the student movement for a popular university, we will transform our mass mobilization into sustained, tangible power…We will seize control of our institutions, campus by campus,
until Palestine is free.”
So Dan shamelessly contradicts himself.
"So, the "bad guys" (in ADL's opinion) want to end the slaughter - what they're calling genocide - of Palestinians. AND they want Palestinians to be free."
There is no genocide of Gazans. There is literally no data that shows genocide. If this is genocide, the Israeli's suck it it. However, the fact that the ancient and thriving Jewish communities in virtually every single Muslim nation have been eradicated, while there is a thriving Muslim community in Israel has no meaning whatsoever.
"As long as Hamas attacks and kills innocent Israelis in vile attacks, then Israel is going to respond."
This could be the single most intelligent thing you've said on the subject. For you to finally acknowledge that Hamas is and has been the aggressor, and that Israel has never randomly attacked any other country is the exact point.
Then you remind me of how ignorant you are by throwing up a bullshit false equivalency.
"...and Hamas was wrong. The entire world was allied with Israel on Oct 7... UNTIL Israel started doing much the same as Hamas but in far larger numbers."
And the ignorance keeps coming.
Israel is trying to remove a vile and insidious threat to their very existence, Hamas. Hamas, with the overwhelming support of the population of Gaza celebrates the actions of 10/7 and continues to hold hostages (lord knows how many are still alive), both US and Israeli. The fact that Biden chose to allow the US citizens he swore to protect and defend languish in captivity, and chose to reward Hamas for holding US hostages, is shameful. At least Israel understands what it means to protect and defend their citizens.
Ignorance is seductive.
I have to applaud your commitment to excuse or defend these "protesters", it takes more conviction that I though you had.
We can agree that at least some here are ignorant. I think partisanship and a brutal worldview where white conservative men are considered to be the "true" leaders, the ones who get to define words for others, the ones who get to decide who is worthy of death and who is not... that brutalism and emotionally fraught appeal to a supposed privilege leads to a self-selected blindness, such that you can't see your own seduction to ignorance.
Be better.
For instance...
This could be the single most intelligent thing you've said on the subject. For you to finally acknowledge that Hamas is and has been the aggressor...
It was NEVER in doubt that Hamas has been ONE of the aggressors at play here, ONE of the entities engaged in senseless violence and killing of innocents. It was NEVER in doubt that Hamas was brutally, vulgarly WRONG for what they did on Oct 7.
The problem is that you recognize that brutal violence on Oct 7 that resulted in hundreds of innocents brutally killed BUT you can't recognize it when Israel is doing it in response. Which ultimately leads to Hamas responding, to which Israel will respond as has been the pattern for decades.
Open your eyes to the thousands of innocent men, women and children killed DELIBERATELY by Israel, even if maybe they might have wished that the children weren't killed, it was STILL a deliberate slaughter. Just as you believe your brutal god did once upon a time.
You see, I can and always have condemned acts like Oct 7. I've condemned words like those by that student at Columbia (who eventually repented). The difference is: You can't/won't condemn Israel's slaughter of innocents. You can't/won't condemn the Pro-Israeli attackers who went beyond words and actually attacked student protesters.
THAT is the difference between you and I.
I have to applaud your commitment to excuse or defend these "protesters"
Really? You find it strange that I would defend the 90 (99.9?)% of the protesters who are merely peacefully protesting the slaughter of civilians in Gaza? WHY would anyone be opposed to supporting peaceful protesters?
I AM opposed to that one guy (who's now apologized) for speaking violent words and to the pro-Israeli conservatives who attacked peaceful protesters and any others who engage in acts or speeches calling for violence, but again, from all data I've seen, that's a tiny percentage. You've certainly helped make the case that it's a small percentage.
For what it's worth, I also disagree with those who break windows or vandalize property to get into/"occupy" school buildings, but that's a much smaller problem for me.
We have a rich history of students getting on the right side of morality and peace and history and disrupting systems and, at least in our nation, historically, the conservatives and others who came down against them were on the wrong side of history (morality, etc) as history has borne out.
Kent State, the Freedom Marchers, the bus boycotters, the Apartheid protesters, etc, etc... these were all condemned, attacked, assaulted, imprisoned, too, but were ultimately shown to be right. This is just another reason to be wary of those protesting the protesters.
"We can agree that at least some here are ignorant. I think partisanship and a brutal worldview where white conservative men are considered to be the "true" leaders, the ones who get to define words for others, the ones who get to decide who is worthy of death and who is not... that brutalism and emotionally fraught appeal to a supposed privilege leads to a self-selected blindness, such that you can't see your own seduction to ignorance."
We can agree that one on here is ignorant on this topic, and that one in here simply makes shit up about others without regard to any evidence. The above paragraph is an excellent example of simply inventing a narrative out of whole cloth, applying it to someone as if it were true, and simply piling on bullshit to hide your ignorance.
"It was NEVER in doubt that Hamas has been ONE of the aggressors at play here, ONE of the entities engaged in senseless violence and killing of innocents. It was NEVER in doubt that Hamas was brutally, vulgarly WRONG for what they did on Oct 7."
you're so close to getting this right. When you say "one of the aggressors", pray tell who are the others?
"The problem is that you recognize that brutal violence on Oct 7 that resulted in hundreds of innocents brutally killed BUT you can't recognize it when Israel is doing it in response. Which ultimately leads to Hamas responding, to which Israel will respond as has been the pattern for decades."
Yes, the pattern since 1948 is that the Arabs engage in unprovoked, unwarranted, and violent attacks o Israel. Then they start to lose and immediately play like they are the victims. Under international law/GC a nation who is attacked, has the right to defend themselves. You applaud Ukraine for defending itself, while whining that Israel does the same. You stay silent for years as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc lob unguided rockets into Israel and kill innocent civilians. You have nothing to say about that, yet the minute Israel decides to protect it's innocent civilians by eliminating the threat (In this case Hamas), you develop this deep concern for the "innocent civilians" who believe that 10/7 was a great thing and want to see more of that. 75%+ of those in Gaza disagree with your assessment of 10/7, the vast majority of those in Gaza SUPPORT Hamas and their actions. Israel is doing something unprecedented in the annals of urban warfare. The IDF has managed to make major strides against Hamas, while maintaining a collateral damage rate that is significantly lower than the accepted norm (per the GCs). Your bullshit whining about "genocide" is simply rendered false by any objective standard. I commend your commitment to the Narrative that the less than 9 million Jews in Israel are somehow the bullies against 300,000,000 Muslims in the Middle East/North Africa. You buy into the Narrative that the Jews somehow colonized/conquered Israel (which was pretty much a shit hole in 1947, compared to now), when that Narrative is totally false. You also fail to condemn Muslims for their much more extensive conquest/colonization of much larger territories than Israel. Ignorance is a terrible thing. Since you don't seem motivated to learn, perhaps silence is the better option.
"Open your eyes to the thousands of innocent men, women and children killed DELIBERATELY by Israel, even if maybe they might have wished that the children weren't killed, it was STILL a deliberate slaughter. Just as you believe your brutal god did once upon a time."
You can't even give me an accurate number of how many "innocent" women and children have been killed in Gaza, or who killed them. If a Hamas terrorist holds a child in front of him and the child is killed, who is responsible for the child's death? I admire your commitment to the narrative though. While ignoring the thousands killed by Hamas/Hezbollah.
"You see, I can and always have condemned acts like Oct 7. I've condemned words like those by that student at Columbia (who eventually repented). The difference is: You can't/won't condemn Israel's slaughter of innocents. You can't/won't condemn the Pro-Israeli attackers who went beyond words and actually attacked student protesters."
You kind of do, but never in a clear and unequivocal way. You always manage to condemn both sides in a bizarre false equivalency, and only do so when cornered. You stay silent for years as Hamas and Hezbollah kill thousands of Israeli innocent civilians, yet get all weepy when Israel finally decides to stop the slaughter. Where was the rest of the world when Hamas?Hezbollah lobbed thousands of unguided rockets at innocent Israeli civilians? Where are your calls for H/H to stop?
As far as I can see there has been one instance of one group of students "attacking" others (against multiple examples of pro-Hamas folx attacking police, property, and others as well as preventing innocent civilians from walking through public spaces. That one instance was in response to a documented (it's on video) attack on an innocent Jewish young woman, simply because she was Jewish. I live in a world, where the weak should be protected by the strong. UCLA, the LAPD, and any other authorities abdicated their responsibility to protect this young woman or to apprehend and punish her attackers. Therefore others decided to act as the authorities wouldn't. I don't necessarily support their actions, but I can understand their reaction to the violent beating of an innocent young woman and the indifference of the authorities.
THAT is the difference between you and I.
Dan dares talk about "Jesus stuff" while lying about the situation in Israel, Gaza, and American universities. And when we remember that these various "protests" were compelled by Israeli response to Gazastinian murder/rape/kidnapping and invasion of Israel to do it all, it is crystal clear that all who side with or show solidarity with the protesters and/or the Gazastinians are complicit enablers of murder/rape/kidnapping. It doesn't matter how many of those joined with the pro-murder/rape/kidnapping protests are ignorant of the details of the Hamas criminality, they are nonetheless culpable. Dan is culpable. He refuses to acknowledge the reality of who is the aggressor/oppressor/occupier in Gaza and who isn't. The reality is all the suffering in that region is the result of actions of the murder/rape/kindapping Gazastinians.
Dan isn't ignorant. He's a liar. He may not know details and facts, but that's the result of his wholly dishonest disparagement of Israel. The moral equivalency game Dan plays is contemptible and indicative of his lying nature. He compounds his lying by insisting our position is compelled by some imaginary "white privilege"...as if our race matters to our grasp of the facts and the truth about who is to blame for the suffering of both innocent Israelis and animalistic Gazans. He lies when suggesting our kind are distorting definitions and meanings of words related to this issue, when it's "white guys" like his lying ass who's been perverting definitions for the last fifty years or more. Dan's a liar. He's typical of his modern progressive horde. He has no room to speak of "Jesus stuff", as he merely exploits the term "Christian" to promote his sick and twisted false agenda.
"Really? You find it strange that I would defend the 90 (99.9?)% of the protesters who are merely peacefully protesting the slaughter of civilians in Gaza? WHY would anyone be opposed to supporting peaceful protesters?"
No, I don't. I find your support of violent, left wing, protesters and rioters to align with your previous words and actions. I find your excuse making and justifications of violence incongruous based on things you claim to value, but unsurprising nonetheless. I find your need to make up statistics (99.9%) in order to justify your support/excuses/justification pathetic. If this 99.9% is really committed to "peaceful" protest, then the fact that they allow the .1% to engage in violence seems like they accept and harbor the violent. Of course, it's all a fantasy that you dreamed up to justify your support/justification/excuses for left wing antisemitism on full display over the last week or so.
"For what it's worth, I also disagree with those who break windows or vandalize property to get into/"occupy" school buildings, but that's a much smaller problem for me."
Really? You really always thing that the breaking of windows and the occupying of property is always a small problem for you? That's quite a claim. FYI, your "smaller problem" resulted in scores of innocent civilians losing their livelihoods in MPLS and in damage that still exists to this very day. Hey, billions of dollars in damage, poor immigrants losing their business, burning down public buildings, leaving occupied zones destroyed and full of trash. It's no big deal.
"We have a rich history of students getting on the right side of morality and peace and history and disrupting systems and, at least in our nation, historically, the conservatives and others who came down against them were on the wrong side of history (morality, etc) as history has borne out."
Yeah, we do. The Cultural Revolution, The Hitler Jugend, The French revolution, just to name two of the bid ones.
"Kent State, the Freedom Marchers, the bus boycotters, the Apartheid protesters, etc, etc... these were all condemned, attacked, assaulted, imprisoned, too, but were ultimately shown to be right. This is just another reason to be wary of those protesting the protesters."
You just made an excellent point, without realizing it. Everyone you mentioned specifically broke the specific unjust laws they were protesting against. They didn't go on rampages, they didn't break other laws, they didn't harm innocents, they were controlled and focused on the specific unjust laws. Further, they were prepared or expected, to face the consequences for breaking the laws. They (except many draft dodgers) proudly accepted convictions and jail as a necessary part of the protest. They didn't whine when they suffered the consequences of their actions, they didn't gear up in bike helmets, trash can shields, and sticks to attack the police. They didn't attack the police at all. They didn't burn down the homes and businesses of others indiscriminately. They didn't demand that those they are protesting against provide them with catered food at their whim.
Yeah, the protesters you cherry picked were courageous and prepared to suffer for their protests. This new generation wants to protest, they just don't want the consequences. They want to pretend to be nonviolent, but still want to gear up and attack people. Most of all, the protesters you mentioned didn't need to hide their identity, or cosplay being something they are not.
You keep supporting these idiots.
Art,
I think it's some of both. He's clearly ignorant of the history of the history of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict. Obviously, this is a choice he's made because the left wing narrative needs to cast Israel as the oppressor/conqueror regardless of the facts. The history is out there, and it's accessible, he just chooses ignorance over information on this topic.
Now, when it comes to the post 10/7 situation, it leans toward lying. It's interesting, he 100% bought the propaganda about the hospital bombing, and the wildly exaggerated casualty numbers, and about the "food shortage". He doesn't seem bothered by the fact that Biden is putting US lives at risk, military boots on the ground, and aiding Hamas while Hamas holds US citizens hostage. Biden didn't even negotiate to get the hostages back in exchange for material support of Hamas. Yet Dan stays silent.
Yes his moral equivalency game is absurd and driven by his ignorance or stupidity. He loudly condemns the "civilian" casualties, while ignoring that these "civilians" overwhelmingly support Hamas and are also being intentionally sacrificed by Hamas to dupe people just like Dan.
As far as Dan's "Jesus stuff", his ignorance shows again. He expects the Jews (who don't belive that Jesus was anyone special) to follow his hunches about "Jesus stuff", while excusing he Muslims (who do claim to venerate Jesus) when they don't follow any of Dan's hunches about "Jesus stuff".
Finally, remember when Dan was all hopped up about Israel violating "international law"? When he was positive that they'd violated the Geneva Conventions? Yet somehow, after I produced all sorts of evidence that Israel was well within the bounds of the GCs, that their actions might be the best example ever of how to eradicate terrorists in an urban setting, Dan's "international law" bullshit vanished. I suspect he'll also ignore the ICC when they find against South Africa's bullshit charge of genocide. He certainly ignores the fact that Islamic nations are much better at genocide or expulsion of Jews than Israel is against Muslims. he'd likely ignore the data that shows that the "palestinian" population is rising while Israel is genociding.
In short, it's a combination of stupid, ignorance, and lies.
https://www.newsweek.com/protests-privilege-hypocrisy-opinion-189527
"That could explain why far worse bloody conflicts throughout the Muslim-majority world draw little notice by this crowd, much less active protest. That's business as usual, right?
"More than 300,000 civilians have died since [Bashar al-]Assad turned his guns on Syria's 2011 Arab spring pro-democracy uprising," The Guardian reported last year. An estimated half a million Muslims perished in the Iran-Iraq War.
In the 1980s, according to GenocideWatch.com, "[Somaliland dictator] Siad Barre launched a genocide against the Isaaq tribe, one of the largest in Somalia. The genocide ... killed an estimated 200,000 people." The father of Democratic Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar was a colonel in Barre's army.
Go ahead and criticize Israel's conduct in this latest Gaza war. But Omar's labeling some Jewish students "pro-genocide" while portraying her family as righteous refugees from Somalia is hypocrisy on a grand scale."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cVsyUXxYM
Post a Comment