10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Research by who? So, mixed race girls that come from rich parents, that get into mediocre schools likely because of affirmative action and that advance their careers by banging their boss will be inspired by her. Is that a big segment of the population? 

 

You don't like sex? 

It doesn't take much effort to find if you wanted to, but you never did, you're just trolling. Every so often one of you is serious and interested in engaging in debate. But seldom is it you. Whatever.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Inspires young black women to do what, get in a sexual relationship with your married man to advance your career? 

 

Why is everything about race to you guys?

 

 

 

You asked a direct question for which I gave you a plausible answer. Research is clear that children are more inspired by role models who look like they do or come from the same backgrounds that they do.

Why is everything about sex to you guys?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Kamala Harris? 

At least she inspires young black women. Who does Meathead Ron inspire? Guys who like to wear high heels?

On 1/23/2024 at 5:46 PM, Yellowtail said:

No doubt the Biden Administration will drum up some charger against DeSantis if that happens. 

No need. Have you ever seen a less inspiring politician?

11 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Morch, I disagree with you. I believe the Zionist faction in Isreal has plans to expel ALL Palestinians from what is now called "Israel." And I believe they're using the Oct 7 attack as justification to do that. There have even been reports suggesting that the Zionists knew Hamas was planning this attack but did nothing to stop it, presumably so they would have this reason to decimate Gaza and the West Bank. There is even a suggestion that the Zionists actually FUNDED Hamas. How Israel Secretly Propped Up Hamas - The New York Times (nytimes.com). Even I stop at believing that.
 
I do expect they will not stop now until they control ALL of Gaza and the West Bank and will continue to siez land until they are successful at driving all  Palestinians out of the state that used to be called Palestine.  

Yes, there are some factions who want that, they are the extreme Right and religious parties. Israel is a democracy with dozens of factions. Those factions are fringe parties although they have managed to attain some power within this awful far-Right Israeli government of Netanyahu. However they will be voted out in the next election for the mess they made. They have been trying to co-opt the judiciary's power as well, but hundreds of thousands went into the street to stop it. Israel is a democracy. Arab Israelis vote and their representatives sit in the Knesset (their Parliament).

Hamas last held a vote in 2005 and executed much of their PLO opposition in Gaza. They are the ones in control and have been since that time. Their policy is unequivocal and they have never recanted it despite numerous opportunities to do so. There is a difference, can you see that?

15 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

My problem is I feel for both sides.

 

This problem was caused by western racists - our ancestors who forced Jews out of their home countries across Europe and Russia. These pogroms effectively forced the Jewish people to find somewhere safe to live. Nazi Germany was the epitome of racism, and heralded the dawn of Israel as we know it today. We caused this problem. If we were not so racist in the past, these Jewish people would still be living in their home countries, and I assume the Jews, Christians and Arabs living in British Mandate for Palestine would still be living happily together in what would now be Palestine.

 

Unfortunately, I also recognize the plight of Arabs who were massacred, disenfranchised and robbed of their homes and lands when Israel was formed. Whilst I recognize and defend the right of Israel to exist, it should have been done differently. Two states should have been set up, not only one for one party. The land should have been divided fairly, or one state with a democratically elected, secular governing body.

 

Western bias makes me increasingly angry, we only ever hear from one side. You have to actively find information about the other side's plight. I am not surprised that there are so many people who adamantly refuse to acknowledge any crimes by Israel, the media feeds them a diet of 'Israel is a wonderful democracy, and it is always the victim' whilst ignoring the realities on the ground. Douglas Murray really gets under my skin every time I see his smug, fascist face on Talk TV. I deplore the racist overtones (they aren't shy, we can't say undertones!) of Talk TV - but I must watch it to see what the other side is saying.

I feel for both sides as well, as should any empathetic person. But there's fundamental differences. Yes, you got the original problem correct, but you diverged somewhere in paragraph 2 before going off the rails in para 3. I don't even know who Douglas Murray or what Talk TV is.

The history of the establishment of Israel and pre-Israeli Palestinian history is complex and controversial. Because it offers avenues for different sides to "claim" things, it is going to be forever fought over and never agreed upon. I don't think a topic exists that is more suited to "whataboutism" and two people can just trade those from now until entropic death. While there were Arabs displaced in Israel, it seems seldom mentioned how the Jews were pretty much all expelled from their homes in the surrounding lands where they'd also lived for centuries. The difference being that of course they could go to Israel whereas the Arabs aren't keen on accepting their fellow displaced Muslims.

I don't think there was some magical solution out there to make this all Kumbaya, but there were considerable efforts made to try to get peace to occur. The Oslo Accords, etc. They were rejected unfortunately, and while the deal would have been skewed towards the Israeli interest as they held the upper hand in terms of power at the time, by summarily rejecting it and not trying to develop their own areas in favour of continuous conflict, they have ended up in this place. Extremists on both sides have been delighted to maintain this unhappy status quo and whenever there seems to be a chance for it to stop they make damn sure things ramp up again. Recall that Hamas leadership stated very clearly just before and after this kicked off that the driving impetus behind these attacks was the potential peace deal between the Saudis and the Israelis, something they simply would not accept and would do anything to scuttle. So they have. Remember what happened to Yitzhak Rabin when he tried to play peacemaker - a fanatic from the Israeli Right murdered him.

Hamas have never changed their charter or policy which is to drive every Israeli into the sea. They reject any peace talks, they inculcate hatred into their children from an early age, they broke the ceasefire and attacked civilian populations without attempting to attack any military installations. They have used the billions in aid they receive to build tunnels and buy weapons and pay terrorists who successfully murder Jews. Until Hamas is crippled and their leadership is eliminated this will not change.

As to journalism and coverage, how is it that nobody is talking about the geo-political roots of this current conflict and how it is obviously tied to the Russia-Ukraine War. Putin is clearly the winner in the Israel-Hamas conflict and they've thrown the weight of the Russian disinformation machine behind Hamas. It's how so many of the "enlightened" on the Left in the West have been happily re-broadcasting the Hamas propaganda. So the idea that this is all "one-way journalism" is absurd to me, it's just that "journalism" is so different than what we had before it's not being recognized. It's information and culture war without reliable sources who are dispassionate and objective.

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Well now your tone has completely changed too - first you tried providing a Guardian article that backed up your claim. You failed to note that it concluded only 6 sexual assaults were verifiable - note they did not say rape, they said sexual assault. You now acknowledge that the systematic rape of Israelis has so far been unsubstantiated.

 

No I do not admit that my post contained errors and misstatements. I omitted one word from a later post - systemic. If you look back at my previous posts before that one - my very first post on this subject, I clearly state: I believe some rape occurred, but I do not think it was systemic or en mass" I shouldn't have to clarify my words every single post.

 

How is my statement incorrect? The one specific UN agency is the only agency with international approval to carry out these investigations, who else, pray tell would you suggest? The UN agency is the internationally accepted body that carries out investigations. Claiming the UN is antisemitic is just ridiculous. Then again, who would be surprised. They cast that smear on anyone who refuses to swallow their propaganda.

 

Everything I have said has been backed up with sources, and I have responded to each and all of your points. I have credibility sir, and integrity.

The Israelis are also investigating as this was the actual topic of the article that you posted - the Police were asking for witnesses as they were having trouble finding them in their ongoing investigation. Whether they have "international approval", whatever that means, is not something that either was discussed or mentioned. So you are once again deliberately obfuscating in your response; nobody said anything about "international approval", YOU posted that the Israelis have not allowed "ANY" investigations. This is clearly not true.

If you wish to be seen as someone with integrity and credibility, then you need to proofread your posts and remove language that is incorrect or unclear or deliberately emotive. Your errors in this regard all changed the sentences to make things look far far worse for the Israelis than if you had been careful and used the correct terminology. This points to a bias, whether conscious or unconscious. You are claiming that this is unconscious, and as you're not the usual sort of poster who immediately starts into whataboutism or name-calling, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it would behoove you to carefully check your posts when they're about such an emotive and controversial topic.

 

6 minutes ago, freeworld said:

You need to stop stalking.

I guess you don't understand how fora work? When you respond to me, I receive a notification of said response. I then can review it and respond back to you. This is how it works.

Just answer the question and I'll stop pointing out your hypocrisy and innate racism.

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Firstly, my apologies. I meant to write systemic rape. I did point out in my first post that I believed some rape occurred - as it does in every conflict. If you use google chrome (as i do), you can translate it.

 

There is evidence (Times of Israel): https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-forbids-doctors-from-speaking-to-un-group-investigating-oct-7-atrocities/

 

It says they cannot match the evidence to any victims (last line prior to the paywall cutting it off. They do not have any evidence of systemic rape.

 

Well, that changes your post quite a bit now, doesn't it? And the reason they don't have evidence YET is that they're still investigating it as was clearly stated in that article is that they're having issues because those affected were also killed, there weren't a lot of witnesses to these crimes and those who are still around are traumatized. In other words, there are no conclusions yet as to the veracity of systemic rape one way or the other although there certainly is evidence of Hamas fighters saying they were instructed to do so and rape clearly happened. So you are basically admitting that you made an ill-considered post that contains misstatements and errors. Why should we believe anything else you write when you're so lacking in care and so full of self-righteous anger that you're willing to twist words for impact and don't bother to check your facts?

As to the Doctor's evidence, it is VERY clear from the articles that they told the doctors not to talk to that one specific UN agency who is investigating because they believe it is anti-Israeli and biased. To state as you did that "Israel has instructed its doctors not to allow any investigations into any of their claims" is yet another example of a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. They did NOT! That I have caught you out twice now lying and deliberately misrepresenting the article you linked to yourself shows your bias. YOU. ARE. NOT. CREDIBLE.

1 minute ago, freeworld said:

Why, dont need to explain anything, the person you quote has nothing to do with the article.

 

You really need to stop stalking me.

 

It seems it is you who has a racism problem.

 

Whats wrong with Nikki Haley's name as it appears on her wikipedia page Nimarata Nikki Haley and with her maiden name?

So your new line of BS is "I just went to wikipedia because I couldn't spell "Nikki Haley" and it just happened to have her maiden name on it? LOL. You're a really bad liar.

Allow me to make it crystal clear. You wrote her Indian name alongside the name she is running for President under along with her maiden name next to it, something you haven't done for any other person who is running for president or whom is a famous politician. You then noted immediately thereafter that she seems "untrustworthy for some reason". This is called a "racist dogwhistle". We know because you don't go to wikipedia to find out the real and maiden names of other politicians and don't refer to the other politicians who use a different name in their public life. Get it?

4 hours ago, freeworld said:

So many false statements and innuendo put in writing.

 

From cnn and msn

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-is-why-people-don-t-trust-nikki-haley-analyst-reacts-to-haley-s-remarks-on-racism/vi-AA1n89vp

 

From Jacobin

https://jacobin.com/2024/01/nikki-haley-south-carolina-scandal-mismanagement

So much effort to disprove what is obvious to anyone who read your original post.
 

Explain to me - why haven't you written "Rafael Ted Cruz" or used the maiden name of any of the other female politicians whom you write about? That's the question I put to you. Pretty simple. Now give us an answer, not more obfuscation and diversion.

19 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Not, as I first thought, that the segmentation pattern of the pigs anal sphincter gave clues to the winning lottery numbers.

 

Apparently an unknown individual was seen "sexually assaulting" a pig.

 

*Thaiger warning*:

https://thethaiger.com/news/national/oink-oink-unidentified-man-allegedly-rapes-pregnant-pig-in-buriram

 

Get this:

"The media reported that the incident caused fear among locals in the area, as the man’s identity remains a mystery. The search for the man continues, with locals fearing that he may sexually assault people in the community"

 

I think it's pretty obvious where his interests lie........it's their pigs they need to worry about!!

 

 

I think piggy pokers are spiral, no? Perhaps this poor fella has a bit of a fractal phallus and failed to gain satisfaction with partners of his own species?

There's a pig in a poke, and then there's a poke in a pig! TIT!

2 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

Was hoping for some intelligent responses not personal attacks?  Nothing has been explained except how it is indiscriminate bombing.  Still waiting?

So when you inform the public that an area is about to be bombed and tell them to evacuate because you're attacking a military target embedded in an area of civilian infrastructure and homes, you consider this to be indiscriminate. Is that correct? When you bomb an area that appears to be a civilian hospital or school then your ground operations expose that it was, in fact, a military installation hidden within the civilian infrastructure, is this then still indiscriminate bombing? Or was it actually targeted all along? Even if they targeted it and find it wasn't a military installation, then it's actually not indiscriminate, it's an intelligence failure. Of course, we could call all war an intelligence failure on the part of humans, but that's besides the point.

Do you think they're deliberately trying to miss their targets when they start the bombing that they informed the populace about? Or do you think they're deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to inflict damage and pain? That's also not indiscriminate bombing.

Indiscriminate bombing is something like carpet bombing, not targeted at all. Something like firing rockets towards a country without knowing or caring where they land. Something like the air campaign over Germany that had targets but no precision about how to hit them nor care about what happened to the population so they just bombed the crap out of it.

So no, I don't see this as indiscriminate bombing. It's targeted and deliberate and aimed at specific military installations, infrastructure, personnel and command and control centers. Does this mean it doesn't cause damage around and elsewhere? No, of course it does, there is no "precision bombing" and there is lots of "collateral damage" but these are all nice language tricks to distract people from the horror of war. Unfortunately, this is about as "clean" as it gets. Hamas deliberately puts their military infrastructure in these places and this is why we say they're using the population as human shields.

Contrast what's happening in Gaza with what's happening in Ukraine. Do you think there is more or less indiscriminate bombing in Ukraine? Do you think they're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine? I think there's more indiscriminate bombing and more targeting. But it's just less dense in terms of population in most of the places where the bombing is happening - until it isn't and then a Ukrainian city is completely leveled and destroyed and the casualties among the population rise. Look forward to your "thoughts" on these points.

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

The reason that I have different views on other topics is that they are not about the elimination of all the Palestinians in Gaza, be they men, women or children, innocent or guilty of being a supporter of Hamas.

 

I think that for every Palestinian, innocent or guilty, slaughtered by the IDF in Gaza, there is another supporter of Palestine created somewhere in the world.

 

So, IMHO it will be impossible for Netanyahu to kill every supporter of Palestine and/or Hamas inside of Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon or elsewhere.

 

It is long past time that the people of Israel stopped him and his Zionist war cabinet. The other option is for the US to stop supporting him.

 

They have been talking since October 7th, and they have achieved nothing, and yet every day more people on both sides are killed and injured.

 

The exact same thing should also happen to all the Hamas leadership.

 

All of them should be locked in a big room along with all of the Israeli leaders and left to fight among themselves to the death of ALL of them.

You've become unhinged unfortunately. Listen to your own words - I have different views on other topics because they're not about the elimination of all the Palestinians in Gaza...what does that have to do with your views on other topics? How do your views on the current Israel-Hamas conflict affect your understanding of the African National Congress from decades ago? Why does it make you attempt to draw such an absurd parallel? Do you think this is some internet jihad you're engaging in and you'll somehow win us all over by spouting nonsense?

And while a few Far Right nutters in the Israeli government have said stuff as they always do, who said Israel is trying to eliminate all the Palestinians in Gaza? While we both agree that we strongly dislike Netanyahu, he said this six days ago "I want to make a few points absolutely clear,” Netanyahu said. “Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.” I guess we'll find out about the last part in the Netherlands after a few years. But stop trying to pretend that this isn't exactly what Hamas wanted when they undertook their pogrom on 7 October.

Would I like to see the Right in Israel voted out of power and a new government pursue peace? Sure, you mean the Israeli Left like Rabin/Peres? They pursued peace and got an accord before it was rejected and the Palestinian people chose a cynical path forward. How did that go? Why didn't that work? Who walked away from the negotiating table? There are thick books written about this, and I'm not an expert, but it was a genuine attempt at establishing peace and got to a certain point in the mid-90s before it all collapsed because of hardliners on both sides. And as it benefited them, the hardliners have just pushed the conflict further and further as this ensures their ability to either scare the populace into voting them back in (regardless of these people already being convicted of corruption charges) or prevent another vote from ever happening since 2005. Now it's almost impossible for either side to elect peace-seeking leaders. But you would blame this exclusively on the Israelis I suppose. The Palestinians are just innocent children?

I do like your solution of locking them all in a room to fight to the death, but it would end with just more on both sides ready and willing to replace them. It's pretty intractable at this point. I don't see how it moves forward with Hamas intact and in power. They've been crystal clear that they have zero interest in peace of any sort, anywhere, with anyone. The Netanyahus of the world are happy to take advantage of this intransigence to push their own fascist visions forward.