There's a huge section of liberals who will fight harder for a death to America chanter than a law abiding citizen. These incidents expose it time and time again - they want to exploit and game the system that only the West provides. He'd lose body parts doing anything similar in his home country, yet he chooses to take advantage of the US education system and infrastructure to sympathize with Hamas and justify violence against the "oppressors". He chose to come here, no one forced him. Simple common sense - go to someone else's house, play by their rules. That's a no go - and this sends a clear message.
Portraying people as oppressors based on the color of their skin - and violence against oppressors is justified. This is the foundation of all the pro Hamas marches we saw in the UK as well veiled behind a curtain of free speech. Astute move by the govt - only the West puts up with this crap and now they're showing they aren't here to be taken advantage of. It's a black and white issue - the actions of Hamas caused the Israeli govt to respond but these guys were already preparing their speeches about how this is how the oppressed act out and aligning with every other group that paints themselves as oppressed - like LGBT and BLM. LGBT marching with Hamas was the cherry on the cake. It's all a precursor to violence - that's the end game.
How would you feel if I was a KKK guy in a hoodie, which is a free speech thing, and spoke about Muslims being colonizers in the middle East. Which they are - they expanded aggressively via violence and tried to subjugate all areas into Islam. They didn't succeed with Europe but did so with the middle East. And if I said as colonizers and oppressors of local tribes, violence against them is justified. They must always live under the fear of violence as settler colonizers. And I did this as a guest in someone else's country, taking advantage of their resources and education system. Let's just let it slide because of free speech yes?
One thing I noticed about right wing argumentation (assuming you aren't some troll) is that their "what ifs" are hypothetical that imply there is no reality. Look at this example. It assumes that the notion that the British Mandate and political Zionism wasn't a settler colonial project. And that claim of settler colonialism by political European ziomists backed by the British is as grounded in reality as a KKK member having grievances about Muslim colonizers. There is no basis in reality you debate from. It's hollow. Your talking points imply no reality and just opinions. Are you in disagreement with the literal founder of political Zionism Theodore Herzl who explicitly stated it's a colonial settler project that will have to deal with the "indigenous population"(Palestinians)?
The family voted in Hamas - who chanted about genocoding Jews at their election rallies. Many Palestinian kids are taught to hate (and want to kill) them from a young age. And now they are forced to deal with consequences. Are those conditions where you can ever have peace?
Speak in words that make you not seem like a troll. Sincere expression of thought. Please try it. You can do it bro. I believe in you.
What is the reality in calling Jews colonists when they were kicked out from their land and forced to be nomad for millenia? And Judea was their home land BC - so they are natives. 20% of Israel are Arabs so it's not an ethnostate. The fantasy the radicals have created have been edited into mainstream fact the past few decades. Which is what's hilarious about a zombie talking about no reality and opinions. That is the foundation of the radical left - narrative over truth. And I have never been right wing- always pragmatic.
You can't kick people from the homes they were born and raised in because you told them their great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents once lived here.
And what about all out invasion and slaughtering those who didn't convert - like the Moors and the tribes that spread Islam in the 7th century AD from a small speck of land to a massive area? That colonization is OK with you because white people weren't involved. You are only holding one race to a standard.
Colonization is bad. I'm living in a county that benefited from a genocide of natives and enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans. If we enslaved Africans today I'd fight against it. If our country was an Aparthied state today(Palestinians in West Bank are under Israeli military court rule), I'd fight against it. If our country was committing a ethnic cleansing today I'd be against it. An ethnic cleansing is happening now in Gaza. Aparthied is happening now in the West Bank. And the excuses that your great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents once lived here is not a magic wand to claim your actions of displacing indigenous population is not colonialism.
Also a Palestinian in Gaza supporting Hamas is not a moral failing of that Palestinian. I have the empathy to understand a Israeli who lost a loved one to a terror attack embracing and loving the IDF. I understand why. I understand why hatred of Palestinians might develop if you lost loved ones to a Hamas attack. It's is understandable why a Palestinian 15 year old orphan in Gaza would join or support Hamas.
It's what every ethnic group ever has done. They have displaced other tribes through war. The Native Americans did this - the ones left in the 16th century were because they had killed the other ones. Tribes in Africa did this. The Mongol Empire did this. The Mayans and Aztecs were the brutal survivors of their region. You only hold whites accountable because they created something you want. The Arab slave trade (normally castrated) and African slave trade (from whom whites purchased slaves in an agreement) doesn't bother you. I agree with land preservation and protected spaces for Native American tribes, but history shows everyone tried to oppress each other. And each and every one of these pro Hamas marches paints people as oppressors based on skin color, then justifies violence against the oppressor. It's radical left ideology. If you look at the kid who shot the Healthcare CEO, he wasn't denied any claims. He just saw his life as worthless because oppressor=violent and when he spiraled,he acted on it .
I would say everyone understands where the reasoning comes from. The point is none of it leads to progress. It leads to forever war. Broker some years of peace while the other side builds up their strength until the next mass attack. Your mentality of oppressor vs oppressed and a precursor to violence leads to more destruction.
Exactly. Every ethnic or national group is capable of fascism and ethnic cleansing including Jewish Israelis. And I don't want my tax dollars supporting it. The historical frequency of genocides and ethnic cleansing doesn't give magical permission for more ethnic cleansings. That's kinda psychopathic. When people like you always say "viewing everything through the lense of oppressor vs oppressed is silly" it must be some self evident argument because I never hear a follow up reasoning of why? Do you believe there are some inherent superior ethnicities that deserve their reign over other ethnic groups and therefore oppressor is justified? Because the only way someone dismisses the oppressor vs oppressed power dynamics is a belief in ethnic supremacy in the sense that the ethnic supremacy is a justified belief. You get that right?
theres a huge section of trumpers, republicans and right wingers who will fight harder for january 6th insurrectionists than a law abiding citizen. there is a president who pardoned people who attacked and beat police and attacked and trashed our nations capitol and his supporters cheer them on. so get out of here with your fake outrage traderjorge/bigtexxx/mojoman/conquistador. yall keep saying this and when asked to provide proof not a single one of yall can provide anything. at this point yall have to know that you are full of s*** when you claim this, yet yall keep doing it. what rules did he break exactly.
(educational post) actually, when the moors controlled spain they allowed jews and christians to live in peace and practice their religion. they did have to pay a tax that muslims didnt have to, but they were not slaughtering those who didnt covert. that would actually be the catholics who did that when they retook spain. jews and muslims had three choices...leave, convert or die.
Oh the liberal rewrite being defined as educational. In 711 the Islamic Arabs and Moors of Berber descent in northern Africa crossed the Strait of Gibraltar onto the Iberian Peninsula, and in a series of raids they conquered Visigothic Christian Hispania. So because the Moors were brown, them "crossing over and conquering" parts of Spain is cool. Peaceful , friendly cohabitation They also targeted who to rape to become more lighter. Ibn Hazm mentions that he preferred blondes, and notes that there was much interest in blondes in al-Andalus amongst the rulers and regular Muslims: They saw sub saharan Africans as less than human and enslaved them after castration. But not racist as they weren't white themselves. There were also Sub-Saharan Africans who had been absorbed into al-Andalus to be used as soldiers and slaves. The Berber and Sub-Saharan African soldiers were known as "tangerines" because they were imported through Tangier.[44] Let's keep rewriting tiktok history!!
