How come Pro-Palestine protesters are always young disheveled looking dorks??

[QUOTE=RRR3;14897751]Love how you claim to be on the side of Palestinians but shiver in fear at the thought of challenging your far right buddies and *gasp* agreeing with me and Salty. Meanwhile you shriek with rage at everything anyone you perceive as left says.[/QUOTE]

If you were on the side of the Palestinians, you would criticize Hamas. You would criticize them for building over 300 miles of tunnels underneath schools, hospitals, apartment buildings.

Hypocrite.

[QUOTE=diamenz;14897754]i just think you all are making yourselves look like idiots.[/QUOTE]
It would kill you take the lefts side on an issue :roll:

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing;14897756]“Claims”

:roll:[/QUOTE]
So everything you don’t like is fake news but you uncritically believe the propaganda of Israel’s government?

As for your next post, I have said Hamas is bad many times in this thread. It’s really sad you’re so old your memory has begun to fail :(

Seems like the majority of the world is against Israel on this issue. It isn't just liberal dorks in America.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14897771]Seems like the majority of the world is against Israel on this issue. It isn't just liberal dorks in America.[/QUOTE]

there's a lot of jews out there around the world that don't support the approach that israel is taking in this war. nor do a lot of them believe that the netanyahu administration is an accurate representation of them or good for the future of israel.

Pretty much everyone besides hardcore conservatives are against this.

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;14897745]Baller in here literally redefining words and phrases and acting like everyone else are the dumbasses for not knowing his interpretations. Retaliation just means a counterattack, it doesn’t specify if it has to be proportionate/justified or not. If you make fun of your boss’s hairline and he feels some sort of way, he can retaliate by getting you fired. It’s still retaliation, but not close to proportionate or justified.[/QUOTE]

Hey genius.

If you're going to frame something as a "retaliation", it implies that the action being taken is in return for a prior offense. Innocent civilians, by definition, have not participated in anything that could warrant retaliation. Therefore it's not retaliation when you target innocents who weren't complicit.

I've used this example before but I will be more than happy to use it again since you guys have such smooth brains and can't understand basic concepts.

In the film Braveheart, England's plan was to subjugate and assert dominion over the Scots. In their pursuit for freedom and independence, the Scots fought back. Unlike Hamas though, the violent actions the Scots took fell within the confines of warfare. We never see any civilians get attacked. We only see battles and conflicts that take place between the Scottish rebels and the English forces.

You want to know why there isn't a scene of Mel Gibson and the Scots beheading the English children and raping the English women? [B]Because that would make them the bad guys and the audience would lose sympathy. [/B]

Once you cross that line, it stops being a "retaliation" and becomes something else. Rational people understand the difference. Sick twisted fukks like you, Salty and 3tard do not apparently.

[QUOTE=Baller234;14897779]Hey genius.

If you're going to frame something as a "retaliation", it implies that the action being taken is in return for a prior offense. Innocent civilians, by definition, have not participated in anything that could warrant retaliation. Therefore it's not retaliation when you target innocents who weren't complicit.

I've used this example before but I will be more than happy to use it again since you guys have such smooth brains and can't understand basic concepts.

In the film Braveheart, England's plan was to subjugate and assert dominion over the Scots. In their pursuit for freedom and independence, the Scots fought back. Unlike Hamas though, the violent actions the Scots took fell within the confines of warfare. We never see any civilians get attacked. We only see battles and conflicts that take place between the Scottish rebels and the English forces.

You want to know why there isn't a scene of Mel Gibson and the Scots beheading the English children and raping the English women? [B]Because that would make them the bad guys and the audience would lose sympathy. [/B]

Once you cross that line, it stops being a "retaliation" and becomes something else. Rational people understand the difference. Sick twisted fukks like you, Salty and 3tard do not apparently.[/QUOTE]
Are you just going to continually ignore that IDF soldiers have raped Palestinian women and murdered babies?

[QUOTE=Baller234;14897779]Hey genius.

If you're going to frame something as a "retaliation", it implies that the action being taken is in return for a prior offense. Innocent civilians, by definition, have not participated in anything that could warrant retaliation. Therefore it's not retaliation when you target innocents who weren't complicit.

I've used this example before but I will be more than happy to use it again since you guys have such smooth brains and can't understand basic concepts.

In the film Braveheart, England's plan was to subjugate and assert dominion over the Scots. In their pursuit for freedom and independence, the Scots fought back. Unlike Hamas though, the violent actions the Scots took fell within the confines of warfare. We never see any civilians get attacked. We only see battles and conflicts that take place between the Scottish rebels and the English forces.

You want to know why there isn't a scene of Mel Gibson and the Scots beheading the English children and raping the English women? [B]Because that would make them the bad guys and the audience would lose sympathy. [/B]

Once you cross that line, it stops being a "retaliation" and becomes something else. Rational people understand the difference. Sick twisted fukks like you, Salty and 3tard do not apparently.[/QUOTE]

Bro are we really trying to make an analogy between a Hollywood narrative film with something that's actually real? I see the point you're going for but it's a bad one.

It almost proves the point I've always made about shaping things to be good guys vs bad guys and letting your narrative cloud your views. The director choosing not to show the Scots raping and pillaging villages doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Of course it did. Women and children suffer during war.

People across enemy lines being shown grace by families in films...is not how this shit goes.

Anybody taking IDF talking points as Gospel needs to reevaluate

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14897771]Seems like the majority of the world is against Israel on this issue. It isn't just liberal dorks in America.[/QUOTE]

Accurate

[QUOTE=RRR3;14897776]Pretty much everyone besides hardcore conservatives are against this.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately there’s a lot here

[QUOTE=Baller234;14897779]Hey genius.

If you're going to frame something as a "retaliation", it implies that the action being taken is in return for a prior offense. Innocent civilians, by definition, have not participated in anything that could warrant retaliation. Therefore it's not retaliation when you target innocents who weren't complicit.

I've used this example before but I will be more than happy to use it again since you guys have such smooth brains and can't understand basic concepts.

In the film Braveheart, England's plan was to subjugate and assert dominion over the Scots. In their pursuit for freedom and independence, the Scots fought back. Unlike Hamas though, the violent actions the Scots took fell within the confines of warfare. We never see any civilians get attacked. We only see battles and conflicts that take place between the Scottish rebels and the English forces.

You want to know why there isn't a scene of Mel Gibson and the Scots beheading the English children and raping the English women? [B]Because that would make them the bad guys and the audience would lose sympathy. [/B]

Once you cross that line, it stops being a "retaliation" and becomes something else. Rational people understand the difference. Sick twisted fukks like you, Salty and 3tard do not apparently.[/QUOTE]

Apparently anyone who disagrees with this moron is a sick twisted **** with a smooth brain :oldlol:

Hey bud, you’re being disagreed with because your arguments and thought process are literally shit. It’s too bad you can’t see that

Poopsie is the worst advocate for Israel.

[QUOTE=SaltyMeatballs;14897791]Apparently anyone who disagrees with this moron is a sick twisted **** with a smooth brain :oldlol:

Hey bud, you’re being disagreed with because your arguments and thought process are literally shit. It’s too bad you can’t see that[/QUOTE]

This is a really bad faith interpretation of what I said and it's obvious you just want to misrepresent my argument.

I didn't say you were sick for disagreeing with me. I said you were sick if you can't acknowledge that the attacks on Oct 7th were evil and deliberate in their intent.

Your cheap deflection tactics aren't going to work here.