WestCanMan

At no point did I ever say that Israel was there before 1946. I'm well aware of their dark history, their major shortcomings from back in that era, the terrorists that they elected still honour with holidays to this day, whose side they fought on in WWII, etc. I doubt that you could surprise me. Remember I said that I was pro-Palestinian before (but I never at any point a proponent of genocide, which I'm now realizing you guys are. I was in favour of a return to the 1967 borders but I see the geographical folly of trying to defend a nation that's only a few kilometers wide against several countries). Unlike you and eyeball I'm not afraid of cognitive dissonance. IMO, after consideration of the recent & distant past and everything in between, the current state of Israeli continuing to exist is by far the lesser of two evils. Just look at the entire 1,400 year history Islam and you'll see that islamic state isn't an aberration. They're more of a continuation. Judaism has it's share of massacres as well. It's literally a big sandbox over there, and you can try to pick a side but you can never really vouch for either of them 100%.

Dog on Porch just got you to say it. Apparently he's 3 steps ahead of you.

I’m ok with not knowing every possible meaning for every idiom in the English language. You’re ok with people hinting at genocide. I think that only one of us really has a “problem”.

I don't know if dog whistling is always "evil" or "weasely", but in this context it is totally evil. It was a sheikh, ie a leader of men, referencing religious texts which call for genocide on a massive scale. Enough people pay attention to weasels blowing whistles that they elected Mohammed Morsi as president of Egypt. That's a lot of weasel susceptibility imo. And Egypt was considered to be one of the more moderate muslim states for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Morsi Morsi has referenced the "hiding behind trees" phrases as well as: It's not difficult to see the evil, it's just unusual for politicians to call it for what it is.

Referencing the phrase from the hadith about the last Jews hiding behind rocks and trees, and the trees and rocks saying “Oh muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me, come kill him” is a way of saying that everything created by god will turn against the Jews, and there will be nowhere to hide from the final genocide. You could call it “dog whistling”, ie speaking in code that will go largely unnoticed by people who aren’t familiar with the phrase in question. But it’s considered to be “an explicit message from god that all Jews need to be killed”.

Map 1 - There was no Israel in 1946. Map 2 - The partition which created Israel didn’t result in genocide or mass systemic rape, unlike the formation of Pakistan at roughly the same time. But you don’t care about that, you keep failing to chime in on the topic. Map 3 & 4 - would still be exactly the same as Map 2 if Israel wasn’t getting attacked all the time. Map 5 - below. Do you see how much room there is in the Middle East for the Palestinians to re-settle to? All of Israel and Palestine make up about 1% of the Middle East. Millions of Syrians already found homes since 2016, when they were fleeing more Islamic genocides. Yet the Palestinians are still in “refugee camps” 70 years later...? They obviously don’t fear genocide. They’re just there to foment hatred. To suck in some haters. https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=XQj7W4g7z8PQ8Q_xi4PQDQ&q=map+of+the+middle+east&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.0.41l3.0.0..2806...0.0..0.0.0.......0...........3.lgCj3wYd_m4#imgrc=yoT1Sdj7qsVM8M: You have 4 maps that you actually understand now. Glad to be of service.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/arrest-warrant-imam-sermon-montreal-mosque-hate-jews-1.4209384 Here's one. This part of the koran refers to a final battle when the Jews are finally wiped out. You can find all kinds of people who quote that verse, and they aren't just lowly imams either. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.html Mohammed Morsi. There are others. Basically everyone in Iran says things like that at breakfast, lunch and dinner. These are the people you're supporting. Your homies. The anti-Israel crowd. You're such a great person eyeball. Please frown on us some more. We're not worthy.

Israel isn't eradicating Palestinians at all. Pakistan "eradicated" people. By the hundreds of thousands. Millions. There's a big difference. You must be really mad about that because you're a humantarian, right? Or would it suit you better if the Israelis just killed all the Palestinians and then it could all be forgotten in a few years? Palestine will be just fine when they stop firing rockets and mortars, blowing up cars, being losers, etc. When I was younger I actually was pro-palestinian. Then the reality set in that refugee camps are actually just fiction. Those people aren't there because they need to be in refugee camps, they're just there to foment hatred against Israel. It's been 70 years now. Germany alone took in almost as many refugees in 1 years as the total number of refugees in Palestine right now. All of the Palestinians could have found homes long ago. The people who are using the Palestinians as pawns don't want a decent solution. They want to keep the hatred alive until they finally get the chance to commit genocide just like their prophet did back in the day. You're a tool for the people who want to commit genocide eyeball. A pawn.

If that's true it's utterly pathetic.

How can a person who supports bigotry/genocide rallies possibly believe they have the moral standing to accuse other people of racism?

If there was an Israeli version of Al Quds day calling for the eradication of Palestinians that would be just fine too, right eyeball? What about eradicating the muslim population in Canada? Would filling up some body bags with those guys be ok? No, I bet that it suddenly doesn't sound alright to you anymore. That's not because you are "biased", that's because your viewpoint fits way deep into the "bigotry" category.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/international-doctors-group-tell-justin-trudeau-stop-persecuting-us-for-our?fbclid=IwAR2hxBQs8S8T9gzKBllLgQBqDq6CAGeDEyYBXaBNaAbWTzLW4dHhsgJapPI

The accusation of fascism was serious, so here's another example of Trudeau's fascism, although it has nothing to do with the media: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/international-doctors-group-tell-justin-trudeau-stop-persecuting-us-for-our?fbclid=IwAR2hxBQs8S8T9gzKBllLgQBqDq6CAGeDEyYBXaBNaAbWTzLW4dHhsgJapPI

When I said "independent committee" I meant to say "a slap in the face to democracy".

1 year before the next federal election and there's another massive bribe coming from the Trudeau government to our nation's broadcasters. https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/11/21/trudeau-government-announces-600-million-media-bailout/ If you recall, one of the first things that he did after becoming PM was pay off the CBC for their unrelenting, toxic, 3-yr coverage of the $90K duffygate nothingburger. That was a $695M windfall from the libs to the CBC that came from our pockets. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/liberals-pledge-675-million-in-cbc-funding/article29354285/ Now, 1 week after Unifors (Canadian Media Workers Union) has pledged to be "the resistance" to our Conservative party our government is giving a $600M "media bailout" to companies that will be selected by an "independent committee". It seems like us taxpayers are once again on the hook for Liberal campaigning. This is fascism, plain and simple. The government is buying control of the media with our money. If Trump did this there's no doubt that leftists would see right through it, but I doubt that any leftists here will even care. Re: Unifors: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/11/15/dias-bias-union-representing-thousands-of-canadian-journalists-calls-themselves-resistance-against-scheer/

1 They didn’t go after the racist vote. 2 I gave you the definition of pander that fit your comment in the context which it was written. Trump didn’t court the racist vote. Stop quoting CNN stooges. 3 a)thoroughly disgusting. BjThe goalposts aren’t moving. If he makes that speech that ends in “there are a whole lot of great reasons to be out there protesting” it’s not a speech against the riots. C1)Whatever reason OJ had for stabbing NBS it was illegal. That was a stupid analogy. C2) If Martin was being perfectly compliant, and not belligerent, then Obama made a salient point. There’s zero evidence on the face of the earth that supports his position, and one witness to the contrary. If Obama was wrong then he caused extensive rioting, looting, arson and cop killing for no reason. 4 BLM is all about division and fear mongering, which is actually worse than hate mongering. Humans kill things they fear. Pro life people aren’t racist, BLM is. 5 cop killI got bad. Non-compliant criminals posing a threat to police and getting killed, Darwinism. 6 if Trump said he was a bit racist you wouldn’t be 1% forgiving, and tribalism isn’t racism. Cultural differences are real. Racism is just racism. 8 My point can’t be missed TTM. Giving reasons why random Jews or cops were murdered, at their funeral, is thoroughly disgusting no matter who does it. There’s no reason for Obama to bring up things from 150 years ago when a BLMer or new black panther kills some random cops today.

Trump is a blowhard. He's a good policy guy though. He was a far better option than the Benghazi bungling, misogynist, monster Hillary. Acosta is a loser, a liar and a moron. Unfortunately for you, trump is the Potus and he does deserve respect, even if you don't like him. Acosta has to behave a certain way to sit in the big boy room. Trump actually does, even if you don't like his decisions. The rest of the world put up with "mo arson Obama for 8 years. Time to calm down, stop the rioting for a while. It's been a nice break from all of that.

1 It's a pathetic question for the reasons I stated. They never ask the Dems to do disavow votes from Antifa, BLM, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc. Same crap, different pile. 2 /ˈpandər/ verb - gratify or indulge He's not pandering to a group by the act not telling them to f off. If I was running for election and returning Isis terrorists wanted to vote for me why should I tell them not to do what would end up being the smartest & most meaningful thing that they had ever done to that point in their life? Pandering would be if he spoke highly of them, or put things in his platform that advanced their cause in a way that was less advantageous to everyone else. Duke is a former Grand Wizard, just like Hillary's mentor and Democrat US Senator Robert Byrd. Did Byrd ever become part of a group that's not racist? Nope. He died a Demorat. So Duke probably still is a racist too. 3. Obama's speech in front of those dead cops was disgusting. Every other speech Obama made about rioting was just a bit of lip service with a heaping side of "exactly why the riots are happening in the first place". He never put anything into proper perspective, ever. Instead of "Only Zimmerman truly knows why Martin got shot" he says things like "That could have happened to my son" or whatever. Obama's comment only makes sense if GZ just walked up and shot him for no reason whatsoever. If a confrontation got out of hand, that's something that was within Martin's control. 4. Getting folks worked up about imaginary "race wars" is fear mongering. IE, BLM are fear mongers. Thanks for the clarification. Here's a public tweet from one of the Canadian BLM leaders: ""Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz Plz Plz." 'Splain that bit of racism and division away if you could plz TTM. ....***cue cricket sounds**** 5. That's not cops "shot", it's cops "killed". Every single one of those is "beyond suspicious". Of course 2016 was an abnormally high year. Thanks to Obama making martyrs of cop killers. Zero percent of armed shootings are suspicious, very few with knives are suspicious, and truthfully, incidents which are initially considered suspicious but are found to not be suspicious fall into the "not suspicious" category. 6. Obama can only speak for himself in that regard. He's a bit racist. All his friends and family are a bit racist. You're a bit racist. No surprises there. 7. Obama's speech should have been about those things, and those things alone. If your dad was a dead cop laying in a coffin behind Obama would you like Obama to say that your dad and other officers were partly to blame for his murder? Or would you find that disrespectful? What if it was your son laying dead there? "Well, it's kid of his fault for wearing the uniform. They all share a bit of that blame". 8. That's neither here nor there. Trump could have referenced actual things that people don't like about Israel. They've had actual terrorists take on leading government roles. And Israel gets billions from America every year. He could have said that "sometimes, some Jews complain about Christmas decorations". That's actually bigotry against Christians by Jews!!!!! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! The point is there was nothing you could say that has anything to do with the actual killing of a group of random Jews at a baby naming ceremony than blind, stupid, bigotry. That kind of talk would have been intolerable, hateful and unforgivable. There was no good reason to shoot those cops either. There's no reason to reference anything that ever happened in the US, killing those cops was a plain evil act with no mitigating factors. Period.

I’m pretty sure that I actually mentioned the Congo on here at some point in the last few weeks. I’ve heard that more people died in their civil war than all the people on both sides in WWI and WWII put together.

That's the way things go in that part of the world. 1 million rohingya refugees sounds like a lot but the muslims in pakistan killed more people than that in Bangladesh in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Searchlight They even raped between 200,000 - 400,000 women in "a systematic campaign of genocidal rape." (That kind of rape has nothing in common with "non-consensual sex" where a guy gets forceful when his girlfriend just wants him to go to 3rd base. It's when militia members kick in the door and kill the husband and then rape the wife in front of her kids). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War That's right in the same neck of the woods that Burma is in. The Burmese even say that a lot of the Rohingya came from Bangladesh at the time of the events above. They know what will happen in areas where they are the minority. It's estimated that muslims have slaughtered over 100 million people in that part of the world since they first invaded India.

It's not Trump's policy. The Whitehouse policy has always been that the President offers a reporter a chance to ask a question and then that reporter gets to ask their one question. It's up to the president who asks the next question. He does let people ask more than one question, but it's his call. After Acosta got kicked out Trump answered over 60 questions from 30+ journalists. So it almost averaged two per person. Jim Acosta doesn't give back the mic when he's supposed to, and he doesn't have a press pass so that he can argue with the President. The guy's an ass and this should have happened long ago. Maybe CNN is actually trying to make Trump look classy by comparison by allowing Acosta to be there.

It was pathetic for the reporter to ask the question. They could just as easily ask those types of questions to Democrats, with whom they speak more frequently, but they never do. And you need to look up the definition of pandering. Trump wasn’t complimenting them or offering them anything. He just didn’t turn his nose up at their votes. The whole next paragraph you quoted is the specific example. It was extremely pathetic that Obama wouldn’t speak out against rioting, looting, public rallies expilicity calling for the murders of police officers and then the actual murders themselves. Obama didn’t speak out against any of that. He didn’t want to distance the Democrats party from all of that violence. Good call. They’re actually worse. If Obama could have gotten elected again the rioting and looting would still be going on. The BLM, at it’s heart, is a group of fear mongers stirring up hatred and division. They weren’t talking about problems or solutions, they were rushing to judgement and advancing a false narrative on every police shooting that occurred in 2015. They ignored bad shootings of white people. They’re just a bunch of shitty racists in general. And the number of police murdered every year is far higher than the number of questionable killings by police every year. Watch the speech. Watch him say “we’re all a bit racist”. Watch him stand in front of 5 dead cops and link their deaths to “centuries of racism, slavery, and Jim Crowe laws”. The only appropriate comments at that funeral were regarding the repugnance of the crime, and the need to decrease the anti-police rhetoric that was so explicit and so common. If Trump stood at the Pittsburgh funeral a couple of weeks back and referenced Zionism, Israeli occupation, and George Soros everyone at CNN would have literally have died of aneurisms. If you think Obama’s speech merely “acknowledged racial tensions”, and you can’t see how he made a martyr of the killer, you’re an idiot.

Try to see the actual parallel I drew there. It wasn’t racist for Trump to refuse to disavow voters. It was pathetic. Just like it was pathetic when Obama did the exact same thing. Buildings were being burned down. Racial hatred was spiking. Cops were being killed. Obama was having BLM leaders to the whitehouse for lunch. He stood in front of 5 murdered policemen and linked the cause of their deaths to “centuries of racism, slavery and (the Democrats’ own) Jim Crowe laws” thereby making a martyr of their killer. Obama didn’t do a damn thing to distance the Democrats from what was going on, he just kept fanning the flames. He even admitted that he’s racist. I can stay on this topic as long as you want.

It’s an article that’s full of quotes that are attributed to anonymous sources. It’s not exactly on the up and up but CNN doesn’t deserve better. They’re the world leader in anonymous sources.

What I see is Obama failing to lead properly because he didn’t want to offend voters. Much in the same way that he refused to call for an end to rioting, looting and cop killing because he didn’t want ti offend his voters. Or because he hates cops and he is ok with the destruction of property.