• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Israel is under attack

Status
Not open for further replies.
third, HAMAS/ RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS BEING HOMOPHOBES IS NOT A REASON TO MURDER BABIES!!!

in neplant's fairytale utopia world no war can ever be justified if a single baby dies
I suppose we should've just stayed home during WWII.

*murder implies intentional killing and doesn't apply to collateral damage in war
A good example of murder would be when Hamas killed 1200 men, women and children on Oct 7

The More You Know Nbc GIF by For(bes) The Culture
 
this is such a bad point... firstly, are the PROTESTS themselves hyper violent? or antisemitic? (no, the answer is obviously no)
Jihad is hyper violent rhetoric, or would you argue against that? They preach to rape and behead Jews, simply for being Jewish. Not just Israelis, but all Jews, which has led to plenty of hate crime violence around the world against Jews.

The protests; defacing property, yelling "infitada", people flying Islamic flags while giving death threats.

I said they adopted the violent culture, not that they were literally killing people (yet).

secondly, i don't know ANYONE who supports hamas... if there are those at the protests that idolize hamas it is an EXTREME outlier.
Plenty of people here said Oct 7th was justified. Is that not support?

Or is that the same thing as when I say that Israel has a right to defend itself, but not bomb crowds of people?

third, HAMAS/ RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS BEING HOMOPHOBES IS NOT A REASON TO MURDER BABIES!!!

Let's not downplay it as just casual homophobia. They lynch them, stone them, burn them at the stake.

That's not the reason they invaded anyways, and Hamas are also intentional baby killers.

Hamas straps suicide bombs to children. But sure, only Israel are baby killers.
 
A lot of US and western media likes to stoke the flames of fear by redefining Arabic words. Intifada simply means uprising, the Warsaw ghetto uprising in Arabic is referred to as the "Warsaw intifada" and it is not inherently violent. Nor is the word jihad. That's not to say they can't be associated with violence but the way you phrase things is coloring other people's words in ways that the speaker does not intend.

 
A lot of US and western media likes to stoke the flames of fear by redefining Arabic words. Intifada simply means uprising, the Warsaw ghetto uprising in Arabic is referred to as the "Warsaw intifada" and it is not inherently violent. Nor is the word jihad. That's not to say they can't be associated with violence but the way you phrase things is coloring other people's words in ways that the speaker does not intend.


man, I love Wikipedia.

 
I love how you stopped once you found a single source that confirmed your preconceived notions and disregarded the rest

You are missing the point completely. The very first claim in the article cites a source that seems to discredit the claim it is making. I didn't find the source. The source was found for me and all I did was take 2 seconds to analyze it.
 
Last edited:
Isreal needs to put real fear into it's enemies. They are surrounded by enemies that want to wipe them out or as Nassar said " push them into the ocean" Time to really make it clear, that they will do what is necessary to protect it's people. All cards should be on the table😉
 
Last edited:
A lot of US and western media likes to stoke the flames of fear by redefining Arabic words. Intifada simply means uprising, the Warsaw ghetto uprising in Arabic is referred to as the "Warsaw intifada" and it is not inherently violent. Nor is the word jihad. That's not to say they can't be associated with violence but the way you phrase things is coloring other people's words in ways that the speaker does not intend.

When the fuck has an uprising not been violent? How about a peaceful riot, LMAO, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🫠😉
 
You are missing the point completely. The very first claim in the article cites a source that seems to discredit the claim it is making. I didn't find the source. The source was found for me and all I did was take 2 seconds to analyze it.
Yea and you discounted everything else, that was my point. Examination of evidence needs to take in a body of evidence to examine. It doesn't stop after it finds one thing that makes the examiner happy
 
Why is infitada happening in a country with no direct role in Palestine?

Who are they uprising against?

Considering US is genuinely trying to help Palestine, maybe don't bite the hand that feeds.
 
Yea and you discounted everything else, that was my point. Examination of evidence needs to take in a body of evidence to examine. It doesn't stop after it finds one thing that makes the examiner happy

The wiki article made you happy, that's why you posted it.

My point, which you're still apparently missing, is that you have fallen victim to the same mind rot you're accusing me of. You saw the wiki agreed with your opinion, so you posted it before realizing that one of the very first sources it cites illustrates just how useless wiki articles are.

While you can find plenty of websites that list the literal translation of words like jihad and intifada, it is more important to establish how these words are most often used and the historical context as to why the common interpretation is more relevant than the literal translations.
 
I love how you stopped once you found a single source that confirmed your preconceived notions and disregarded the rest
Come on, be real about this. When these people are using the term intifada, or jihad, there is a clear contextual connotation in the West. These terms have real gravity to us, given that the USA, UK, and others, have had Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil. You can't be throwing those terms around willy-nilly and claiming they are meant to mean 'mostly peaceful'.

Why are these terms even being used in the West anyway, what would a 'mostly peaceful' uprising even equate to on American or British soil given we are not responsible for Israel's actions. It doesn't matter which way you slice it really, the people spouting these terms know full well the connotation and they don't care, and rely on people like you to downplay it.

"From the river to the sea" has been chanted, and even projected on to Big Ben, in London. You can't obfuscate the connotation of that. It's absolutely clear what it means. And again, why is that phrase being summoned on UK soil.

Have an intifada or jihad if you like, but don't be bringing that bullshit to our lands in the West. No one but Muslim's are interested in that. That noise belongs in the Middle East and nowhere else.
 
Yeah but it's islamophobic to not want to import that kind of culture into your area. You don't want to be called islamaphobic do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top