only in your socialist/Islamist worldview Chanting "Globalize the intifada" is grounds for deportation for visa holders, as it should be interpreted as endorsing violence or insurrection on a global scale, which directly opposes U.S. laws and values. Incitement to Violence: "Intifada" refers to uprisings in the Middle East that have involved violent confrontations, including attacks on civilians. Calling to "globalize" this movement can be reasonably understood as promoting similar tactics worldwide, potentially inciting others to engage in violent resistance or acts of aggression. U.S. immigration law, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), states that visa holders may be deported for supporting or inciting terrorism or violence, and such slogans can meet that threshold. Direct Threat to National Security and Public Order: The U.S. government has a duty to prevent individuals from promoting violent agendas that could incite unrest or radicalization within its borders. Chanting to "globalize the intifada" suggests an intent to spread conflict, including potentially violent conflict, globally and within the U.S. Permitting this without consequence could create an environment where violence and radical resistance are normalized, jeopardizing public safety and undermining social stability. Clear Conflict with Visa Obligations: Visa holders are granted the privilege of staying in the U.S. on the condition that they respect its laws and values. Encouraging or calling for a global intifada directly conflicts with these obligations. While the U.S. values free speech, supporting an ideology that promotes violent uprising over peaceful protest or dialogue contradicts the very principles on which visas are granted. Endorsement of Extremist Movements: The call to "globalize the intifada" implicitly aligns with movements known for violent tactics, especially against civilians. This alignment reflects a worldview that is incompatible with peaceful coexistence and poses a risk of inspiring violent actions. Immigration law allows authorities to act preemptively when an individual’s actions or speech endorse or promote extremism, especially for non-citizens who are in the country on a temporary basis. Setting a Precedent Against Extremism: Allowing visa holders to promote global intifadas would set a dangerous precedent. It could signal that the U.S. tolerates expressions that call for or endorse violent conflict, which could embolden similar behavior. Deporting individuals who chant slogans like "Globalize the intifada" makes a clear statement that the U.S. will not provide a platform for those who encourage violence, thus preserving the safety and values of its society. In summary, chanting "Globalize the intifada" must be seen as incitement to violence and a violation of visa terms, thereby constituting grounds for deportation. Such speech promotes ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the U.S.’s commitment to public order and security and warrants strict enforcement of immigration laws to maintain societal peace.
Yes, fortunately, there are many, many common sense, socially conservative Muslims, especially in the USA (the ones who came in through legal immigration and were vetted). They are not the problem. The ones on the fringe are the problem.
According to what you posted, Intifada has used violence but that isn't a prerequisite for Intifada. I don't believe that case would win prosecution. Either way, very few people would mistake you for being someone that supports free speech.
I’m just looking forward to a real WhiteHouse press briefing like it’s used to be, before that lying red headed step child KJP turned it into a lying shiitshow.
The argument that "intifada" does not imply violence disregards both historical context and the reality of past uprisings associated with this term. Here’s why “intifada” is indeed closely associated with violence: Historical Precedent: The term “intifada” is primarily associated with the First and Second Intifadas (1987–1993 and 2000–2005), both of which involved sustained periods of violence, including armed confrontations, suicide bombings, and civilian attacks. The Second Intifada, in particular, saw intense violence, with hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians killed. This association with violent resistance and civilian-targeted attacks makes it clear that the term "intifada" does not imply a peaceful protest. Documented Use by Militant Groups: The term “intifada” has been prominently used by organizations such as Hamas and other militant groups, who explicitly endorse violent tactics. Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, actively promotes the idea of intifada as an armed struggle. In this context, "intifada" is not a neutral call for freedom but an invocation of armed resistance, which has included violent attacks on civilians. Modern Usage Reinforces Violent Connotations: The word "intifada" has consistently been used to signal violent resistance rather than peaceful reform or negotiation. For example, calls for a "global intifada" are commonly interpreted as calls to spread the same methods of violent resistance seen in past intifadas, extending conflict rather than advocating for peaceful solutions. The repeated association with violence in both historical and modern contexts makes it unreasonable to claim that “intifada” is detached from violence. Political Leaders and Militant Messaging: Leaders and activists who call for “intifada” frequently clarify its intent through additional calls to "resist by any means necessary," which has traditionally included violent methods. Political statements calling for an intifada often explicitly or implicitly endorse armed resistance. Even if some proponents argue that intifada includes non-violent resistance, the term’s use by leaders who advocate violence gives it a strong connotation of armed struggle. Direct Threat to Civilians: The previous intifadas included numerous attacks on civilians, such as bombings on buses, in cafes, and in public spaces. These violent acts are part of what most people understand “intifada” to mean based on its historical use. Ignoring this history undermines the serious impact that these uprisings had on innocent lives and dismisses the very real threats to civilian safety that are associated with the term. Legal and Security Risks: From a legal perspective, a call for “intifada” can be interpreted as endorsing or inciting violence, particularly given that the term has been closely associated with groups and actions designated as terrorist by the U.S. government. National security policies reasonably interpret calls for “intifada” as threats to public safety, given the history of violence connected to the term. In summary, arguing that "intifada" is non-violent ignores both its violent history and the intent behind its use by militant groups and leaders. Given its repeated use as a rallying cry for violent resistance, any claim that it is unrelated to violence is unfounded. The term is deeply associated with armed struggle, attacks on civilians, and militant action, and should be recognized as such in any serious discussion of its implications.
Sam this is disinformation. Your clever use of bold text doesn’t make it true, either. pls hold yourself to a higher standard regarding what you post here. TIA
The First Intifada was a largely spontaneous series of Palestinian demonstrations, nonviolent actions like mass boycotts, civil disobedience, Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel, and attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) https://search.app?link=https://www..._campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl2,sh/x/gs/m2/4 It doesn't have to mean violence. The literal translation is shaking off. But you have lost all perspective in any issue related to the problems of the middle east. Let's talk free speech. Which is something foundational to this nation “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court justice “If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” — George Washington, first U.S. president
Biden still is unaware the election happened. Harris is busy staging phone calls. meanwhile, Trump is full speed ahead 24 hours after victory. Democrats have zero self awareness on foreign policy.
https://www.cija.ca/the_phrase_globalize_the_intifada_is_not_a_call_for_violence Myth: The phrase “globalize the Intifada” is not a call for violence FACT: Calls to “Globalize the Intifada” are intended to incite violence against Jews and Israelis. In the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an “Intifada” implies bloody violence and calls for the death and murder of Jewish Israelis – civilian or otherwise. Calls to “Globalize the Intifada” are not calls for civil disobedience, general strikes, or negotiations. They are calls for the murder of Israelis and Jews around the world and must be taken seriously by governments and law enforcement agencies. “Intifada” is an Arabic word meaning “uprising” or “rebellion.” It generally refers to two specific outbreaks of violence: the First Intifada, which lasted from 1987 to 1991; and the Second Intifada, from 2000 to approximately 2005. The First Intifada erupted in December 1987. It is widely regarded to have been sparked by an unfortunate traffic accident in which an Israeli army truck collided with a car, killing four Palestinian workers. Despite objective evidence of this being an accident, Palestinians claimed it was a purposeful targeting of Palestinian civilians. The rumour spread, and, gradually, civil disobedience, protests, and violence by the Palestinian population ensued. The First Intifada was marked by the throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails by Palestinian youths against the IDF. There were also widespread economic boycotts by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The violence of the First Intifada resulted in almost 200 Israeli casualties and almost 2,000 Palestinian casualties. The violent uprising resulted in a significant change to the status quo in Gaza and the West Bank. It ended with the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, which eventually led to the Oslo Peace Process beginning in 1993. The Second Intifada erupted in September 2000. Documentation collected from Yasser Arafat’s compound at the time proved that the plan for a violent uprising against the Israelis had been in the works for months, if not years. Unlike the First Intifada, the Second was marked less by civil disobedience and more by blood and destruction. Palestinian suicide bombers were deployed by Arafat’s Fatah party (and their militant arm, the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade), as well as by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations. Soon after the start of the Second Intifada, a pair of Israelis accidentally ended up in Ramallah, where they were lynched by a Palestinian crowd before their bodies were tossed out the windows of a building. Over the course of five years, suicide bombers targeted civilians throughout Israel, including in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, at cafés, restaurants, hotels, wedding ceremonies, shopping malls, nightclubs, and bus stations. While the word “intifada” might mean “uprising,” in practice it is violence against Jews. Calls for “Intifada” on the streets of Canada, or elsewhere, should always be understood as such.
What? The very first post, I said I disagreed with the statement. You lied. I never defended terrorist violence. Your posts on these topics are among the least reliable on the subject. But on to free speech. George Washington "For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us".
You claimed that "intifada" does not mean violence. It does. You are downplaying violent and murderous terrorism. As I said, people are tired of crap like that from you and your kind. The country told you that yesterday.
People like you just need one solid hook to the jaw after calling people terrorists just because they express empathy for Palestinians. People like you have been so sheltered by the concept of online anonymity that you forgot how socially unacceptable it is in real life to willy nilly hand out accusations like terrorist supporter. THe aspect of basic fear of being severely out of line in a face to face disagreement really makes people learn how to be measured. And I know you spend too much time on twitter and clutch fans to not live sedentary chubby wobby life where you feel so confident and safe in expressing such confrontational language to a actual person in front of you.
