Politics & Stuff

[lucio 5,418]

5 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

In a war against a city atrocities are inevitable.
But who caused the war ?

The Jewish settlers 

[Fernando 6,585]

22 minutes ago, lucio said:

The Jewish settlers 

So Native Americans in North America have a right to attack Americans and Latinos because we are settling their land?

Crazy argument. 

Nothing justify terrorism. 

[Vesper 30,091]

Evangelical Leader Taunts 'Chump' Trump With 'Golden Showers' Dig

Former Trump voter Bob Vander Plaats hit back at an attack from the former president.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bob-vander-plaats-donald-trump_n_65644c3de4b0827ae6150a23

 

Influential Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the 2024 Republican primary race last week, and former President Donald Trump wasn’t happy.

Trump, the 2024 Republican front-runner, fired off a furious message on his Truth Social platform. He called the Family Leader CEO a “former High School Accountant” who was “more known for scamming Candidates than he is for Victory.” Trump also claimed a $95,000 donation to Vander Plaats’ nonprofit from the DeSantis campaign was to buy his endorsement, an allegation that Vander Plaats has denied.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111472619280667075

 

Vander Platts, who reportedly voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, responded equally fiercely on X, formerly Twitter.

 

In one post, Vander Plaats said Iowa “will exhibit higher standards when they choose @RonDeSantis over a Chump.”

In a second post, Vander Plaats said “person to person” in an Iowa “stronghold” he visited had told him “they are done” with Trump.

Then came the ding about the salacious allegation, which featured in former British spy Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier, about Trump reportedly hiring prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed. Trump has — unprompted — returned to talking about the so-called “golden showers” claims in recent days. He denies the claim.

Vander Plaats wrote: “While they long to leave the topic of ‘golden showers’ and return to the discussion of gold standards, the final straw” was “his lies” about Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R).

 

Reynolds drew Trump’s ire earlier this month after endorsing DeSantis for president.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Vesper

[lucio 5,418]

16 minutes ago, Fernando said:

So Native Americans in North America have a right to attack Americans and Latinos because we are settling their land?

Crazy argument. 

Nothing justify terrorism. 

Latinos are part native and natives aren’t being genocided currently or segregated off 
That’s a bit of a straw man tbh, native Americans had the right to defend themselves and fight back in the day ofc 
 

 

[Fernando 6,585]

13 minutes ago, lucio said:

Latinos are part native and natives aren’t being genocided currently or segregated off 
That’s a bit of a straw man tbh, native Americans had the right to defend themselves and fight back in the day ofc 
 

 

Yes and they don't did terrorism just because, kill babies, rape women and such. 

Any country has the right to defend themselves when these acts of terrorism happens. 

And segregation? Please men, then all black people in North America and South America have a right to terrorism...ludicrous statement. The leader of the movement to end segregation, Martin Luther King will cold hardly disagree with your view. People have a right to protest and defend themselves, but no act of terrorism. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Fernando

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

It's similar to USA did with Afghanistan. Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel has a right to defend itself just like any country would do. 

Now that Israel is committing atrocities I'm not debating that. What I am is taking every word that is coming from Hamas as Gospel, when they are found multiple times as lying. 

Do think hamas would exist if the PLO hadn't been decimated by israel, refusing a two state conversation ? hamas exists because Netanyahu wanted it to flourish providing it with money and weapons (see his well documented comments and intentions in 2019). Him and Likud know that with Hamas there is no possibility of a two state solution. Israel is terrorist state -96% of deaths in the conflict were palestinians on their land BEFORE 7 October

[Fernando 6,585]

4 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Do think hamas would exist if the PLO hadn't been decimated by israel, refusing a two state conversation ? hamas exists because Netanyahu wanted it to flourish providing it with money and weapons (see his well documented comments and intentions in 2019). Him and Likud know that with Hamas there is no possibility of a two state solution. Israel is terrorist state -96% of deaths in the conflict were palestinians on their land BEFORE 7 October

Israel is a terrorist state? On what basis?

Well let me ask you this question. What is terrorism for you? Because if I see what your telling me here, then your country was also that, as well USA.....

Edited November 27, 2023 by Fernando

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

1 minute ago, Fernando said:

Israel is a terrorist state? On what basis?

Well let me ask you this question. What is terrorism for you? Because if I see what your telling me here, then your country was also that, as well my country USA.....

Israel and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

Endless examples of terrorism

Your second question is yes, the UK has actively been involved in terrorism - from the British Empire to colluding with Loyalist killers in Northern Ireland. The US by conservative estimates has killed 40m people since 1945

[Fernando 6,585]

9 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Israel and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

Endless examples of terrorism

Your second question is yes, the UK has actively been involved in terrorism - from the British Empire to colluding with Loyalist killers in Northern Ireland. The US by conservative estimates has killed 40m people since 1945

So by that definition we are screw and everyone is a terrorist.....

Edited November 27, 2023 by Fernando

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

Just now, Fernando said:

So by that definition we are screw and everyone is a terrorist.....

Yes, its labelling at the end of the day. Its thrown around too much, but States are usually the worst culprits

[Fernando 6,585]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Yes, its labelling at the end of the day. Its thrown around too much, but States are usually the worst culprits

Take a look at this. Canada did a fair analysis on this. I look at the FBI website and it wasn't satisfying to me. So I took the Canada one as they where fair in their research:

The past few decades have witnessed an increase in the scholarship produced regarding terrorism. Critical to this body of literature has been the definition of terrorism. Although defining terrorism has proven to be a highly contentious issue, there is some agreement among academics that the term is highly malleable and is hence, open to many different definitions and interpretations (Staiger et al. 2008; Weinberg et al. 2004; Fletcher 2006).

Many factors have been identified as contributing to the complexity involved in determining the definition of "terrorism." According to Weinberg et al. (2004), the primary factors that impede any attempt to provide a formal definition of terrorism include the use of the term for political purposes; problems associated with the scope of the term (i.e. identifying where terrorism begins and ends); and issues associated with the analytical characteristics of terrorism.  Others argue that much of the difficulty surrounding the definition of terrorism stems from the need to develop a concrete meaning of the term (Grob-Fitzgibbon 2005; Fletcher 2006). For example, Grob-Fitzgibbon (2005) argues that the term remains ambiguous as a result of governments and scholars seeking to define the term too broadly so as to classify any form of unconventional violence as terrorism. Rather, the author suggests that governments and academics avoid "general" definitions of terrorism and instead acknowledge the various meanings the term may occupy. Despite this call to utilize the numerous and varied definitions of terrorism, legal definitions continue to serve as the primary and formally recognized definitions utilized by many governments and people. Given the scope of this project, it is critical that such terms subsequently serve as the foundation on which this report is based.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code^[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems.  It is useful to briefly contrast this definition with those adopted by other nations operating under law systems similar to that of Canada.  According to the British Terrorism Act (2006), terrorism refers to the use and threat of action "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and "made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."  Similar to the legal definition of terrorism in Canada, violence against people; damage to property; endangerment of life; and risks to the health or safety of the public are the key actions addressed within the Act. In the United States, terrorism is defined as consisting of activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State….intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation; or…affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."  Finally, the legal definition of terrorism in the European Union can be found in the EU Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) which identifies terrorism as activities with the aim of "seriously intimidating a population, or; unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or; seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." Activities that may be deemed terrorist under this framework include attacks on people resulting in death, kidnapping or hostage taking and extensive destruction to a government or public facility.  Although it is widely acknowledged that attempts to establish a definition of terrorism that transcends various national borders have been largely unsuccessful (Staiger et al. 2008), the definitions presented clearly show that some consistency can be found in the various definitions employed by the governments of many Western democracies. Given these similarities, the approaches adopted by these governments toward the issue of victims of terrorism may provide some key insights on the various ways other governments can address the multiple issues that affect victims of terrorism. 

More info here as it's more of a longer article: 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

[Fernando 6,585]

By the way @Fulham Broadwayif you care the posture of my church about these events here it goes

https://thechapel.com/site/assets/files/1/thoughts_on_israel_-_nov_2023.pdf

[lucio 5,418]

58 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes and they don't did terrorism just because, kill babies, rape women and such. 

Any country has the right to defend themselves when these acts of terrorism happens. 

And segregation? Please men, then all black people in North America and South America have a right to terrorism...ludicrous statement. The leader of the movement to end segregation, Martin Luther King will cold hardly disagree with your view. People have a right to protest and defend themselves, but no act of terrorism. 

So Israel doesn’t have a right to terrorism too ? 

[lucio 5,418]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Yes and they don't did terrorism just because, kill babies, rape women and such. 

Any country has the right to defend themselves when these acts of terrorism happens. 

And segregation? Please men, then all black people in North America and South America have a right to terrorism...ludicrous statement. The leader of the movement to end segregation, Martin Luther King will cold hardly disagree with your view. People have a right to protest and defend themselves, but no act of terrorism. 

All that was said , is that the Jewish settlers caused the war , remember it is a longstanding war , it didn’t start last month 

[cosmicway 1,333]

2 hours ago, Fernando said:

So Native Americans in North America have a right to attack Americans and Latinos because we are settling their land?

Crazy argument. 

Nothing justify terrorism. 

They want to toss Israel into the sea - that's the objective.
The pieces of land they talk about now were already theirs before the 1967 war they started !
No settler, legal or otherwise, attacked Pals with rockets.