Nikki Haley signs IDF bombs

[ThreePointTakedown]

'Finish them'? 

This is not exceptional. 

There is a small but very real chance she is the nominee for President when the presumptive one gets sentenced to jail. 

How is this ok?

[Bigbrog]

Nothing Burger....these types of things happen all the time during war.  Besides what is wrong with wanting to finish a terrorist organization?

[mspart]

It's only a problem when that terrorist org kills 1200 and takes 200 prisoners and kills them and hides behind civilians they take no responsibility for and when the aggressor is Israel.   If it was Jordan, no one would care.   If it was Saudi, no one would care.   Only when it is Israel do the loonies come out.    Gays for Palestine?   Trans for Palestine?   You folks would be killed immediately in Palestine no questions asked.   Emotional dissonance.   Hamas has the strings and are making the puppets dance. 

mspart

 

[BuckyBadger]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

'Finish them'? 

This is not exceptional. 

There is a small but very real chance she is the nominee for President when the presumptive one gets sentenced to jail. 

How is this ok?

This should have been Biden’s approach.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

It's only a problem when that terrorist org kills 1200 and takes 200 prisoners and kills them and hides behind civilians they take no responsibility for and when the aggressor is Israel.   If it was Jordan, no one would care.   If it was Saudi, no one would care.   Only when it is Israel do the loonies come out.    Gays for Palestine?   Trans for Palestine?   You folks would be killed immediately in Palestine no questions asked.   Emotional dissonance.   Hamas has the strings and are making the puppets dance. 

mspart

 

Interesting take. Quite nuanced. 

How does it feel knowing exactly what people are thinking at all times? Not having to ask any questions or get any feedback from friends, family, colleagues, must be terribly efficient. And the future and all possible eventualities of a situation? 

The Gays and Trans line was good too. 

Seem a bit hostile towards those groups, am I reading that wrong? Hope so. Let me know. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, BuckyBadger said:

This should have been Biden’s approach.

Why do you say that? 

[mspart]

Why do you ask that? 

mspart

[BuckyBadger]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why do you say that? 

Biden’s general approach to difficult issues has been to be cryptic and commit only so far out of fear of alienating some voting block. He gives mixed messaging, confusing those that are either for/against and leaving them unsure of where he really stands.

If he committed one way or the other he would certainly alienate some voters, but there would be clarity. People want to see our leaders lead with strength and a clear message. I think he is trying to “manage” this conflict through the election and ironically it’s pissing everyone off. He’s probably going to lose and one of the reasons is his inability to pick a horse and stick with it. I’m no fan of Trump, but intuitively, he understands that about politics. After 40 plus years in DC politics, Biden doesn’t seem to get it.

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, BuckyBadger said:

Biden’s general approach to difficult issues has been to be cryptic and commit only so far out of fear of alienating some voting block. He gives mixed messaging, confusing those that are either for/against and leaving them unsure of where he really stands.

If he committed one way or the other he would certainly alienate some voters, but there would be clarity. People want to see our leaders lead with strength and a clear message. I think he is trying to “manage” this conflict through the election and ironically it’s pissing everyone off. He’s probably going to lose and one of the reasons is his inability to pick a horse and stick with it. I’m no fan of Trump, but intuitively, he understands that about politics. After 40 plus years in DC politics, Biden doesn’t seem to get it.

Agreed. 

Picking a side would be satisfying for us. But we, likely, know eff all about the myriad issues that surround this conflict. 

Pulling support from Israel will embolden those around them perhaps leading to a larger war with more casualties and global turmoil. 

Supporting Israel means Gaza is turned to rubble. 

Rock and a hard place for sure. Bibi is not secret about his preference for a Republican President. Especially one that is in as much if not more legal jeopardy as they are. (putting on my conspiracy theorist hat for a minute) Many have said it was a huge intelligence SNAFU that led to 10/7. In the lead up to an election year in the US. What would help Bibi more? A conflict this year that would put the sitting Dem President on their heels trying to balance support for Israel vs Gaza. Or letting his coalition dissolve and the court system(that Bibi all but tried to destroy last year) drag him through on the charges he faces. 

I think long after Bibi is gone we will find out the extent of their involvement with putting this all together or dragging it out for political survival. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

Why do you ask that? 

mspart

Stop copying me. 

[JimmyBT]

6 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Stop copying me. 

What proof do you have that he should stop copying you?

Do you have facts that show he should  is the source of those facts legitimate?

is that just an opinion that he should stop?  If so why? 

is it because you’re acknowledging that you do the same or just avoiding that you do?

you taking the time to make that comment just sets everything back 

 

 

 

[JimmyBT]

If Nikki wants to sign a bomb as her form of protesting the atrocities of Oct 7 shouldn’t she be able to?  I’m mean all she did was make a sign. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

If Nikki wants to sign a bomb as her form of protesting the atrocities of Oct 7 shouldn’t she be able to?  I’m mean all she did was make a sign. 

That is one take. 

Seems as if Nikki is tacitly endorsing that killing people is ok. I would think a former UN ambassador would lean to the side of peace. But that's just my take. 

[Bigbrog]

Just now, ThreePointTakedown said:

That is one take. 

Seems as if Nikki is tacitly endorsing that killing people is ok. I would think a former UN ambassador would lean to the side of peace. But that's just my take. 

She is tacitly endorsing getting rid of a terrorist organization...because she does want peace.  With Humas around there will never be peace in that area.

[JimmyBT]

23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That is one take. 

Seems as if Nikki is tacitly endorsing that killing people is ok. I would think a former UN ambassador would lean to the side of peace. But that's just my take. 

She probably just understands the strategic importance of bringing a terrorist organization to its knees.  But that’s jut my take. 

Edited May 30 by JimmyBT

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

She is tacitly endorsing getting rid of a terrorist organization...because she does want peace.  With Humas around there will never be peace in that area.

What is the evidence that that strategy will achieve the goal? 

IRA, ISIS, Al Q, KKK, all were and still are around. 

Does this approach kill many of them and many civilians and work to promote similar organizations down the road? Yes. 

That you want an immediate result does not mean it is the right or best one. 

[Bigbrog]

8 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What is the evidence that that strategy will achieve the goal? 

IRA, ISIS, Al Q, KKK, all were and still are around. 

Does this approach kill many of them and many civilians and work to promote similar organizations down the road? Yes. 

That you want an immediate result does not mean it is the right or best one. 

What evidence do you have that it won't??  Will Israel be much safer if Humas is gone...10000%  Did we, or other militaries eliminate ALL of the terrorist groups you list?  I'll take Al Q, we DRASTICALLY put a damper on their terrorist organization...aka, it worked.  ISIS, we can't complete illuminate them unless we want a full out war with Iran.  Have we impacted them...absolutely!! 

As for what you advocate, doing nothing does exactly that...NOTHING!!  But let's the terrorists know that they can do whatever they want.  People like you and UB tend to equate Israel and the US with what terrorists are and that is abhorrent that you two do that.

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

What evidence do you have that it won't??  Will Israel be much safer if Humas is gone...10000%  Did we, or other militaries eliminate ALL of the terrorist groups you list?  I'll take Al Q, we DRASTICALLY put a damper on their terrorist organization...aka, it worked.  ISIS, we can't complete illuminate them unless we want a full out war with Iran.  Have we impacted them...absolutely!! 

As for what you advocate, doing nothing does exactly that...NOTHING!!  But let's the terrorists know that they can do whatever they want.  People like you and UB tend to equate Israel and the US with what terrorists are and that is abhorrent that you two do that.

They’re both anti American 

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What is the evidence that that strategy will achieve the goal? 

IRA, ISIS, Al Q, KKK, all were and still are around. 

Does this approach kill many of them and many civilians and work to promote similar organizations down the road? Yes. 

That you want an immediate result does not mean it is the right or best one. 

Germany, Japan, Italy.  

[Le duke]

What evidence do you have that it won't??  Will Israel be much safer if Humas is gone...10000%  Did we, or other militaries eliminate ALL of the terrorist groups you list?  I'll take Al Q, we DRASTICALLY put a damper on their terrorist organization...aka, it worked.  ISIS, we can't complete illuminate them unless we want a full out war with Iran.  Have we impacted them...absolutely!! 
As for what you advocate, doing nothing does exactly that...NOTHING!!  But let's the terrorists know that they can do whatever they want.  People like you and UB tend to equate Israel and the US with what terrorists are and that is abhorrent that you two do that.

So many factual errors here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

What evidence do you have that it won't??  Will Israel be much safer if Humas is gone...10000%  Did we, or other militaries eliminate ALL of the terrorist groups you list?  I'll take Al Q, we DRASTICALLY put a damper on their terrorist organization...aka, it worked.  ISIS, we can't complete illuminate them unless we want a full out war with Iran.  Have we impacted them...absolutely!! 

As for what you advocate, doing nothing does exactly that...NOTHING!!  But let's the terrorists know that they can do whatever they want.  People like you and UB tend to equate Israel and the US with what terrorists are and that is abhorrent that you two do that.

The evidence I would start with are your next few sentences. You want them eliminated and their efforts. Won't happen in this scenario based on all previous similar scenarios. What will happen is the killing of innocent people. 

Do you see the non-Hamas people of Gaza as innocent? Should be a simple answer.  

As for what I was advocating for, was it 'nothing'? If your answer isn't 'no' then you need to go back and recheck. If you assume I meant 'nothing' you could just ask to be sure. This is not an 'if you're not with us you're against us' bs that y'all love to parade around. 

[Bigbrog]

14 hours ago, Le duke said:

 

So many factual errors here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

which are....????  Also, you think TPTD's doesn't contain factual errors??  

[ThreePointTakedown]

25 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

which are....????  Also, you think TPTD's doesn't contain factual errors??  

Mudding the water won't help. 

Please point out my errors? 

[Scouts Honor]

I think her sentiment is perfect

I'm so sorry this is happening to you

[JimmyBT]

14 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

The evidence I would start with are your next few sentences. You want them eliminated and their efforts. Won't happen in this scenario based on all previous similar scenarios. What will happen is the killing of innocent people. 

Do you see the non-Hamas people of Gaza as innocent? Should be a simple answer.  

As for what I was advocating for, was it 'nothing'? If your answer isn't 'no' then you need to go back and recheck. If you assume I meant 'nothing' you could just ask to be sure. This is not an 'if you're not with us you're against us' bs that y'all love to parade around. 

Hamas is a terrorist organization. The Palestinian people support Hamas.  They were ok with what Hamas did on Oct 7th.  Do the math.