2023-24 Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran-Houthi Conflict

[Vassenor]

Hamas killed first responders first during October 7. They also used HUMAN SHIELDS.
but of course, Israel is the problem for wanting a to be in a state that doesn't want to kill them.

Oh right the Human Shields argument. Which Israel invented out of nowhere to justify indiscriminate killing.

[HISPIDA]

You're asserting a difference people in the 1960's didn't bother seeing and are asking why you support someone who wasn't their token "law and order" black person and played apologists for riots.

So if your not violently protesting like an asshole than it's tokenism or your somehow not a hard enough protestor?

how the FUCK did you draw that conclusion?

[Tesseris]

Saying that a child soldier that is pressed against their will into doing the bidding of evil, they must be slain is a genuinely barbaric. Saying that killing any child even suspected of terrorism is justified, is even worse. Justice is blind, not heartless.

It doesn't matter that they are a child, they are still a threat, and needs to sadly be put down. Of course, the ones responsible for coercing such innocents into this position deserve the worst, but child or not, when they kill people, even if under duress, they remain a threat.

[Big Eyed Animation]

So if your not violently protesting like an asshole than it's tokenism or your somehow not a hard enough protestor?

how the FUCK did you draw that conclusion?

Because that's what your post sounds like unless you meant something else.

[Uiiop]

You're asserting a difference people in the 1960's didn't bother seeing and are asking why you support someone who wasn't their token "law and order" black person and played apologists for riots.

So if your not violently protesting like an asshole than it's tokenism or your somehow not a hard enough protestor?

I'm just telling you who the 1960's public thought Martin Luther King actually was. If you're first response to that is to dismiss the disproportionate response that law and order actually was and implicitly drop MLK for the unnamed other guy then that says more about you than my feelings about that other guy(Tokenism is more about how other treat someone than the Validity of that certain someone regardless the answer is no. Situations don't care about just non-violence by itself so they wouldn't bother for pick for that and that alone.)

[Uiiop]

how the FUCK did you draw that conclusion?

Because that's what your post sounds like unless you meant something else.

The fact you confused me for her again says more about your forum reading comprehension than me.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Uiiop

There is also more than one viewpoint to MLK than what those shithead white supremacists saw in him.

There was a lot of people who saw how peaceful protestors who literally did nothing violent get attacked by water hoses and fucking dogs. They saw people getting brained in the head by billy clubs for essentially supporting boycotts and doing sit ins. I would say this was a majority of America.

This is why the civil rights.movement was so effective, because it was the complete opposite of what we see from violent protestors today.

[Uiiop]

There is also more than one viewpoint to MLK than what those shithead white supremacists saw in him.

There was a lot of people who saw how peaceful protestors who literally did nothing violent get attacked by water hoses and fucking dogs. They saw people getting brained in the head by billy clubs for essentially doing boycotts and sit ins. I would say this was a majority of America.

This is why the civil rights.movement was so effective, because it was the complete opposite of what we see from violent protestors today.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180968664/

Are you claiming that white supremacists rigged the polls?

Edit: Malcolm X had a whole assed character arc but in the end he landed firmly on "I'm only pretending to hate him to make him that better of a negotiator so only the less extreme measure on my end will be used. "

[Big Eyed Animation]

Ulliop

That article did nothing to dispel the fact that the civil rights movement and MLKs non violent approach, was what made him intensely popular. Again, I am contrasting violent protesting that you see now on campuses compared to the non violence of the civil rights movement. King still never got violent so I don't see how it repudiates my argument.

Sure he ended up being anti war and ended up being more vocal about socialism which caused his popularity to nosedive. His stance of non violence hurt his popularity, but only with the more (obviously) radical members of his own community.

My issue with the student protesters isn't so much about what they are saying (I don't like or agree with violent speech calling for genocide or bombing people), but those protesters being physically violent. I don't know how many times I can say this.

[Uiiop]

Ulliop

That article did nothing to dispel the fact that the civil rights movement and MLKs non violent approach, was what made him intensely popular. Again, I am contrasting violent protesting that you see now on campuses compared to the non violence of the civil rights movement. King still never got violent so I don't see how it repudiates my argument.

Sure he ended up being anti war and ended up being more vocal about socialism but that doesn't mean his sharp decline in his popularity was because of his non violent stance, at least amongst the folks he was protesting against.

My issue with the student protesters isn't so much about what they are saying (I don't like or agree with violent speech calling for genocide or bombing people), but those protesters being physically violent. I don't know how many times I can say this.

You frankly have nothing but unproven good faith over the decision making over people freaking about less damage than anything that happened in the 60's and 70's.

Edit: To be clearer this is just the american education system's Editorialized hindsight about the civil rights movement rather than any actual source for what actually happened. You know the same fools you still promote the "Lost cause" sometimes.

[HISPIDA]

how the FUCK did you draw that conclusion?

Because that's what your post sounds like unless you meant something else.

that is not what their post sounds like. that's not, like, even remotely what their post sounded like. if you dropped a nuclear bomb on their post, whatever the fuck you just said wouldn't even get exposed to radiation.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Ulliop

That article did nothing to dispel the fact that the civil rights movement and MLKs non violent approach, was what made him intensely popular. Again, I am contrasting violent protesting that you see now on campuses compared to the non violence of the civil rights movement. King still never got violent so I don't see how it repudiates my argument.

Sure he ended up being anti war and ended up being more vocal about socialism but that doesn't mean his sharp decline in his popularity was because of his non violent stance, at least amongst the folks he was protesting against.

My issue with the student protesters isn't so much about what they are saying (I don't like or agree with violent speech calling for genocide or bombing people), but those protesters being physically violent. I don't know how many times I can say this.

You frankly have nothing but unproven good faith over the decision making over people freaking about less damage than anything that happened in the 60's and 70's.

What is this less damage you speak of? Are you saying that because the student protestors haven't done anything worse than just physically attacking people makes it unreasonable to ask law enforcement to remove the offenders?

[Uiiop]

You frankly have nothing but unproven good faith over the decision making over people freaking about less damage than anything that happened in the 60's and 70's.

What is this less damage you speak of? Are you saying that because the student protestors haven't done anything worse than just physically attacking people makes it unreasonable to ask law enforcement to remove the offenders?

You're asking about a hypothetical that the police had in the past and have right now go beyond that. Under your own flawed schema you're just acting like a white supremacist over protests that aren't even riots.

[Big Eyed Animation]

What is this less damage you speak of? Are you saying that because the student protestors haven't done anything worse than just physically attacking people makes it unreasonable to ask law enforcement to remove the offenders?

You're asking about a hypothetical that the police had in the past and have right now go beyond that. Under your own flawed schema you're just acting like a white supremacist over protests that aren't even riots.

If the student protest wasn't violent than the property owner has the sole discretion of whether or not to remove protestors from his or her property.

I am against protesters getting physically violent, I don't know how much more obvious I can be about this fact.

[Uiiop]

:D

You're asking about a hypothetical that the police had in the past and have right now go beyond that. Under your own flawed schema you're just acting like a white supremacist over protests that aren't even riots.

If the student protester wasn't violent than the property owner has sole discretion of what goes on with protests that happen on their private property.

I am against protesters getting physically violent, I don't know how much more obvious I can be about this fact.

Your second sentence not only contradicts the first. Your first also practically disagrees with the entire philosophy of the MLK branch civil rights movement you claim to prefer.

Your equivocation to ignore the realities on the ground is noted.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Ulliop

So then what do you disagree with in particular? Are you saying that it is unreasonable, to remove student protestors from private property if they aren't being violent?

[Stratonesia]

I just want to tell you guys that you should stick to the thread's topic (said right there, in the title).

[Tesseris]

I just want to tell you guys that you should stick to the thread's topic (said right there, in the title).

Yeah this thread is getting off topic, if you guys want to discuss the civil rights movement, there's probably a thread for that.

[Big Eyed Animation]

This topic is about the pro Palestine protesters and whether it is unreasonable or not to remove them from campus or otherwise private property. It also has to deal with the violent incidents at certain pro Palestinian protests or rallies so I think it's relevant.

However the mods have the final say anyways so I defer to them.

[Ifreann]

Ah, but don't you see? To the Zionist's eyes these people are all already terrorists. They are terrorising Israel by not already being dead and out of the way.

That just frankly is not the case. Maybe if you have been talking to Kahanists and Bibi's associates, yes, but the vast, vast majority of Zionists do not think that way.

Just the ones that control Israel.

[Uiiop]

Ulliop

So then what do you disagree with in particular? Are you saying that it is unreasonable, to remove student protestors from private property if they aren't being violent?

The whole point of civil disobedience is that while they have the legal right to do actually doing it makes them look like assholes.
The schools in their editorializing do explain THAT much .

[Tesseris]

This topic is about the pro Palestine protesters and whether it is unreasonable or not to remove them from campus or otherwise private property. It also has to deal with the violent incidents at certain pro Palestinian protests or rallies so I think it's relevant.

However the mods have the final say anyways so I defer to them.

Completely reasonable, if its private property owner has right to evict people off said property and call for backup if necessary. Also does anyone else find it weird how such a huge swath of the left is supporting Palestine even though Hamas is extremely right-wing?

[Big Eyed Animation]

Ulliop

So then what do you disagree with in particular? Are you saying that it is unreasonable, to remove student protestors from private property if they aren't being violent?

The whole point of civil disobedience is that while they have the legal right to do actually doing it makes them look like assholes.
The schools in their editorializing do explain THAT much .

Oh so it's the civil disobedience thing. Let us clarify your position here.

So do you consider violence acceptable as part of civil disobedience? How about disregarding property rights? Let's just get straight to the point.

[Big Eyed Animation]

This topic is about the pro Palestine protesters and whether it is unreasonable or not to remove them from campus or otherwise private property. It also has to deal with the violent incidents at certain pro Palestinian protests or rallies so I think it's relevant.

However the mods have the final say anyways so I defer to them.

Completely reasonable, if its private property owner has right to evict people off said property and call for backup if necessary. Also does anyone else find it weird how such a huge swath of the left is supporting Palestine even though Hamas is extremely right-wing?

Anti gay?, check

Pro religion to the point of possible theocracy? Check

Against women's rights? Check

Abortion, fuggetaboutit. Check

Against free speech? Check

Pro violence? Check (at least with your non extremist libs or lefties)

[Uiiop]

The whole point of civil disobedience is that while they have the legal right to do actually doing it makes them look like assholes.
The schools in their editorializing do explain THAT much .

Oh so it's the civil disobedience thing. Let us clarify your position here.

So do you consider violence acceptable as part of civil disobedience? How about disregarding property rights? Let's just get straight to the point.

The former no only by definitional issues the latter yes.

I don't believe that people are using property issues in good faith by itself.