Are all the Pro-Palestine, anti Israel protests helping or hurting the Democrats?

[mspart]

37 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

There is no realistic scenario where Hamas would be able to destroy Israel. Israel will always have the backing of the West and a nuclear weapon. You guys can stop throwing that out as a hypothetical. It's not in the range of possible outcomes.

Sinn Fein is a perfect example because it was the political face of a paramilitary terror group who killed. The reason the IRA ended is because Sinn Fein was able to participate in the political system and that participation is reliant on them stopping the terrorism. It would be the same for Hamas. Their allowed participation within the system is contingent on their not doing terrorism. If that didn't happen, they wouldn't be allowed to participate.

You guys have to pretend I'm advocating for us to just leave totally and let Israel fend for themselves. It's nonsense. Be honest for once.

You are  missing the obvious on purpose.     Sinn Fein and it's military group used terror to get political change.   Hamas uses terror tactics to destroy people who are Jewish.  Sinn Fein's charter did not say eliminate Great Britain or all Protestants.   Hamas' charter says they want to eliminate the Jewish state however that must be done.   How can you have a political  solution with an entity that wants you dead?   Sinn Fein was not that way, Hamas is.  

You are arguing yourself into a very small and tight space that you cannot get out of.    You can say all you want that Hamas did wrong on Oct 7 but the rest of what you say supports them.   You cannot get out of that little box you have put yourself in.   You can't have it both ways.   You say Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas did wrong on Oct 7.   But then you say Hamas cannot and should not be eliminated and Israel can't  fight a war not of their choosing but of necessity.    You can't have it both ways.   But yet you try.    2+2 does not equal 5 but you keep saying it does.   Your arguments make no sense.   They have no logic, but are illogical.  

mspart

[Hammerlock3]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

no the cause of terrorism is a mix of extreme ideological/religious ideas and circumstance. the circumstance fans the flames of the extreme ideologies. the middle east didn't use to be a hot bed of terrorism. what we now know as (islamic) terrorism emerges with the rise of dangerous islamist ideologies out of the chaos and repression of the region during mid to late 20th century.

(the most consequential event probably being the overthrow of Iran's democratic government on behalf of British oil interests in 1953. We put a brutal dictator back in power. During the next 25 years, under his repressive regime a coalition of marxist freedom fighters and islamic fundamentalists grew and eventually overthrew the shah. following the coup, the fundamentalists won the power struggle and expelled the marxists. from there, radical islamism spread like wildfire.)

fighting against terrorism doesn't cause it. it can exacerbate it *when the fighting kills a high amount of innocent civilians.* the families and friends of those civilians become much more likely to join the terrorist cause. we know this. this is a fact of the world.

that's why the solution to terrorism is extremely precise counter-insurgency combined with political investment and development. not indiscriminate bombing. you're just recruiting for them at that point.

you can keep being dishonest and act like i defend hamas or you can acknowledge that i believe in a different method for fighting hamas that has been effective elsewhere in the world, and which also has the benefit of being morally just towards Palestine.

your take on the causes of terrorism places insufficient emphasis on terrorists' moral responsibility for their actions.

You can't develop areas controlled by terrorists because they systematically undermine it in favor of their evil ideology.

Please point out the conflict waged under similar circumstances that had a really low civilian death toll so I know what you mean.

And I don't care if you think you're a fan of hamas or not, you are in favor of their desired outcome.

 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

you are truly one of the stupidest people alive. how many times do I have to say that it's *not* okay for Hamas to bomb civilians, nor is it okay for them to use human shields?

you guys are literally children who can't understand basic moral principles. i take that back. children have a much easier time understanding this than you do.

It’s not ok BUT THEY DID IT.  None of this happens if they don’t inflict the destruction they did on Oct 7.  Obviously Hamas knew what the response would be and chose to do it anyway at the expense of their own people.  No amount of talking is going to change how the terrorists feel.  Keep dreaming. 

[mspart]

You ask Hamas who is responsible for the Gaza citizens and they will say the UN.   They are not responsible and feel no responibility for these people.   They are useful as human shields and nothing more.  This explains why Gaza is so poor.   All aid to Hamas goes to their military effort and not to the people.   They must be fed by others. 

mspart

[uncle bernard]

4 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

your take on the causes of terrorism places insufficient emphasis on terrorists' moral responsibility for their actions.

You can't develop areas controlled by terrorists because they systematically undermine it in favor of their evil ideology.

Please point out the conflict waged under similar circumstances that had a really low civilian death toll so I know what you mean.

And I don't care if you think you're a fan of hamas or not, you are in favor of their desired outcome.

 

unbelievably dishonest (and stupid). whatever. 

the troubles in northern ireland. britain didn’t respond by firebombing large apartment buildings which they knew contained IRA members. i’m sure you’ll find a way to hand wave that example away. 

hamas desired outcome is a theocratic dictatorship and the expulsion of all israelis. i’m explicitly against that no matter how many times you pretend otherwise.

why do you feel like you have to lie? why are you so insecure with your own position?

[uncle bernard]

3 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

It’s not ok BUT THEY DID IT.  None of this happens if they don’t inflict the destruction they did on Oct 7.  Obviously Hamas knew what the response would be and chose to do it anyway at the expense of their own people.  No amount of talking is going to change how the terrorists feel.  Keep dreaming. 

two wrongs don’t make a right. didn’t your parents teach you that?

[Hammerlock3]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

unbelievably dishonest (and stupid). whatever. 

the troubles in northern ireland. britain didn’t respond by firebombing large apartment buildings which they knew contained IRA members. i’m sure you’ll find a way to hand wave that example away. 

hamas desired outcome is a theocratic dictatorship and the expulsion of all israelis. i’m explicitly against that no matter how many times you pretend otherwise.

why do you feel like you have to lie? why are you so insecure with your own position?

You're just hurling insults now, not a good look.

[Hammerlock3]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

two wrongs don’t make a right. didn’t your parents teach you that?

you having the mentality of a child explains a lot.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Hammerlock3 said:

you having the mentality of a child explains a lot.

no children are the ones who *dont* understand that. that’s why their parents are teaching them. 

can’t even follow simple logic lol

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

You're just hurling insults now, not a good look.

says the guy who keeps saying i support a radical terror group because i don’t think israel should kill 15k children

[Hammerlock3]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

says the guy who keeps saying i support a radical terror group because i don’t think israel should kill 15k children

you have to read my posts if you're going to respond to them

[uncle bernard]

why can’t you have an honest discussion? why do you have to pretend to yourself i support hamas?

what happens if you admit you can be critical of israel without being pro-hamas? would your whole world crumble or something? 

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Hammerlock3 said:

you have to read my posts if you're going to respond to them

you can start by reading mine and pointing out where i’ve said anything supportive of hamas 

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

you can start by reading mine and pointing out where i’ve said anything supportive of hamas 

what is supporting them if not saying israel should pull out and leave them in control....

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Hammerlock3 said:

what is supporting them if not saying israel should pull out and leave them in control....

idk you’d have to find someone who supports that to find out

[uncle bernard]

why can’t you realize you’re arguing with a person and not a series of cliches?

i don’t have the dumb watered down lines about the conflict and that seems to break everyone’s brain on here because they haven’t taken any time to learn anything about this that they didn’t read in a tweet or a headline. 

[Hammerlock3]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

idk you’d have to find someone who supports that to find out

well you said 12 times recently that israel had a peace deal that was a moral necessity to take, which entailed leaving hamas in charge.

Edited May 11 by Hammerlock3

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

well you said 12 times recently that israel had a peace deal that was a moral necessity to take, which entailed leaving hamas in charge.

yes a ceasefire for the current offensive is step 1. the killing right now will only strengthen hamas/other terror groups in the long run.

the next step should be having a large political process with the involvement of the UN and countries in the region to work towards a sustainable peace. and that likely involves disarmament of the palestinians with longer term peace keepers to maintain the peace. 

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

yes a ceasefire for the current offensive is step 1. the killing right now will only strengthen hamas/other terror groups in the long run.

the next step should be having a large political process with the involvement of the UN and countries in the region to work towards a sustainable peace. and that likely involves disarmament of the palestinians with longer term peace keepers to maintain the peace. 

LOL bring in the UN! that'll fix everything! Hows the UN gonna make Hamas start being nice? Bring your mother to teach life lessons?

Edited May 11 by Hammerlock3

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

well you said 12 times recently that israel had a peace deal that was a moral necessity to take, which entailed leaving hamas in charge.

“why do you want more children to die? you said you support the bombing and that’s the inevitable result. you must want it to happen!”

arguing like that is dishonest and a waste of time. 

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Hammerlock3 said:

LOL bring in the UN! that'll fix everything!

“half measures are a coward’s form of insanity”

must be why you’re so anxious for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. 

why don’t you want to have an honest conversation?

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

“half measures are a coward’s form of insanity”

must be why you’re so anxious for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. 

why don’t you want to have an honest conversation?

i've repeatedly restarted the discourse with honest questions, at which point you get frustrated and start playing word games or calling me names. You're welcome to give it a try.

[uncle bernard]

20 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

i've repeatedly restarted the discourse with honest questions, at which point you get frustrated and start playing word games or calling me names. You're welcome to give it a try.

none of your questions were honest or in good faith. every time you either imply i support hamas or present a nonsensical interpretation of what i said, like saying “fighting terrorism causes terrorism”

you ignore the impact of material reality. the world shapes people. imagine you woke up tomorrow and were under a military occupation, lost your home, and your children were incinerated. do you think you’d be thinking clearly at that point? or do you think you’d be thirsty for revenge?

you can still hold people morally responsible while understanding how they ended up that way and working to remove those conditions so it doesn’t keep happening.

if you support the continued slaughter of civilians, you support terrorism because that’s their number 1 recruiting tool.

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

none of your questions were honest or in good faith. every time you either imply i support hamas or present a nonsensical interpretation of what i said, like saying “fighting terrorism causes terrorism”

you ignore the impact of material reality. the world shapes people. imagine you woke up tomorrow and were under a military occupation, lost your home, and your children were incinerated. do you think you’d be thinking clearly at that point? or do you think you’d be thirsty for revenge?

you can still hold people morally responsible while understanding how they ended up that way and working to remove those conditions so it doesn’t keep happening.

if you support the continued slaughter of civilians, you support terrorism because that’s their number 1 recruiting tool.

you're just a liar, or so insecure that you ignore half of what i've written.

[uncle bernard]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

You are  missing the obvious on purpose.     Sinn Fein and it's military group used terror to get political change.   Hamas uses terror tactics to destroy people who are Jewish.  Sinn Fein's charter did not say eliminate Great Britain or all Protestants.   Hamas' charter says they want to eliminate the Jewish state however that must be done.   How can you have a political  solution with an entity that wants you dead?   Sinn Fein was not that way, Hamas is.  

You are arguing yourself into a very small and tight space that you cannot get out of.    You can say all you want that Hamas did wrong on Oct 7 but the rest of what you say supports them.   You cannot get out of that little box you have put yourself in.   You can't have it both ways.   You say Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas did wrong on Oct 7.   But then you say Hamas cannot and should not be eliminated and Israel can't  fight a war not of their choosing but of necessity.    You can't have it both ways.   But yet you try.    2+2 does not equal 5 but you keep saying it does.   Your arguments make no sense.   They have no logic, but are illogical.  

mspart

when have i said hamas shouldn’t be eliminated?

i’ve outlined, over and over how i think the current strategy doesn’t accomplish that a political one can. 

this is what breaks your brains. you think i want hamas to survive and win because i don’t support the bombing. the reality is i want them to *lose* which is why i *dont* support the bombing.