Should Hamas support rallies in Canada be stopped?

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Don't make this personal! 

You don't know squat about me!

I know what you're saying, and I can point out when it's foolish.  

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Your argument is moronic!  I suppose you and the BBC/CBC don't see ISIS as a terrorist group!  

I see Hamas as a terrorist group.  I think they're evil.  I don't need the CBC or BBC to tell me that, or to rant about how bad it is to kill grandmothers carrying cookies in the street.  Fox News and CNN have a procession of personalities who will step out and provide the rants you desire.  It's not good news, but it's more entertaining for certain types.  ?

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So then why is the cbc saying it's emotionally charged.

That's the point.  The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative.  It's thrown around frivolously and meant to rile people up and little else.  Not using the term isn't supporting terrorists.  It's refusing to peddle in lazy heuristics, as you so often do.  See:

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is the usual tactic we see when the left can't argue a logical position.  "why are you making such a big deal over it, it doesnt' mean anything anyway".

When you can't really articulate your point, you revert back to generalizations about the "other/them".  In your case that's the "left".  

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They are in fact a terrorist organization and should be called out for what they are.  To sit there and say "well sure, they just targeted civillians and literally ran around pushing innocent women and children over and shooting them in the head... but is that REALLY terrorism? Isn't that just an opininon?" is pretty disgusting.

Nobody's questioning whether it's terrorism, just like the BBC wasn't sympathizing with the Nazis by not calling them evil.  The assumption here is that when the CBC reports on women and children being murdered in their homes by militants, you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion yourself.  

 

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

.....

It's all the same to eyeball and ExFlyer, that's proof of how f'd up it is. 

Boo Hoo.

Your opinion is as valid to me a mine is to you.

I will say again ;

"I personally do not care what goes on there. It is an incendiary situation that is thousands of years old and occasionally erupts. I feel there will be no resolution, just quiet down and simmer for a while, then another eruption, like a volcano, as it has been in the past.

I think more about the situation in Ukraine where one country is invading another, again for terrtory but it is a full out invasion."

[ExFlyer]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

...

Did Mama give you Thesaurus for your bd? Wow, look at you!

 

Nope, I just seem to have a better vocabulary than you LOL

Educating you is what this forum tries to do for you...clearly it is failing

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

A nagger is also related word. Look up the etymology, I'm sure you'll like it.

Nagger? Where did that word come from in this discussion? Another one of your rectal plucks. 

I am sorry reading comprehension is not something that bodes you well.

Edited October 13, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative.  

I agree with the first part but not the second.

"Terrorism" as a method of targeting civilians with brutality in their ordinary lives is a specific thing that people hold a revulsion for.  I think it's informative to separate that from other forms of violence.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

To be fair, I have posted links so a person can make up their own mind.

I personally do not care what goes on there. It is an incendiary situation that is thousands of years old and occasionally erupts. I feel there will be no resolution, just quiet down and simmer for a while, then another eruption, like a volcano, as it has been in the past.

I think more about the situation in Ukraine where one country is invading another, again for terrtory but it is a full out invasion.

You said this wasn't religious, now it's ten thousand year old?

And why is the leader of Hamas asking for jihad if it's not religious? Isn't jihad religious?

[Moonbox]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree with the first part but not the second.

"Terrorism" as a method of targeting civilians with brutality in their ordinary lives is a specific thing that people hold a revulsion for.  I think it's informative to separate that from other forms of violence.

Describing the specific violence doesn't do a good enough job of that?  Reporting on beheadings, babies being murdered, women being raped and grandmothers getting shot 40+ times in their homes isn't sufficiently informative? ?

I would argue the opposite.  The descriptions themselves are far more effective than frivolously used and emotionally charged language to which the world has grown numb and dismissive.    

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But this time they went a little too far.  Throwing babies to the ground and shooting them at point blank range is not winning them friends. 

Harvard disagrees. So do a lot of posters here. So do thousands of Canadians in all of our major cities. 

All over the world there are huge rallies in support of Hamas, because apparently decapitating babies and burning young people alive is the leftist/islamic way. 

It's like Ford Fairlane said: "So many jerks, so few bullets."

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Moonbox said:

1. Describing the specific violence doesn't do a good enough job of that?   

2. I would argue the opposite.  To which the world has grown numb and dismissive.    

1. The language used at the top level of description is a framing device.  So I would say 'not really' no.
2. I agree with your reasons, and think you have made a logical conclusion but I don't agree with it.  The dumbness of the world is truly a thing but calling Hamas "fighters" when they butcher civilians, as they did, affords them too much respect IMO.

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You said this wasn't religious, now it's ten thousand year old?

And why is the leader of Hamas asking for jihad if it's not religious? Isn't jihad religious?

Ten thousand years old? Where was that said?? Arabs and Jews have been fighting for a homeland for more than millennia. Since well before Christ and that was 2023 years ago

"The exact meaning of the term jihād depends on context; it has often been erroneously translated in the West as “holy war.” Jihad, particularly in the religious and ethical realm, primarily refers to the human struggle to promote what is right and to prevent what is wrong"

https://www.britannica.com/topic/jihad

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The language used at the top level of description is a framing device.  So I would say 'not really' no.

That's the problem.  The inability/unwillingness to think without defaulting to heuristics is one of the symptoms of what's wrong with today's discourse and exchanges of information.  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I agree with your reasons, and think you have made a logical conclusion but I don't agree with it.  The dumbness of the world is truly a thing but calling Hamas "fighters" when they butcher civilians, as they did, affords them too much respect IMO.

Hamas deserves no respect or sympathy, and I don't agree calling them militants or fighters offers that.  If BBC or CBC were calling them freedom fighters, then maybe I'd have an issue with it.  The distinction between militants/fighters and proper soldiers is implied, and when you're describing the atrocities they commit, there's no room for interpretation. 

The reason I can get behind the BBC on this one (and I use them because they're a globally respected brand whereas the CBC is barely even a Canadian brand) is that they recognize that overly used and emotionally charged terms like "terrorist" have been so cheaply used by demagogues and dictators so ubiquitously to describe people they disagree with that it's easy to tune it out. When you're using emotionally charged language, you make it easier to dismiss what you're saying as biased/unreasonable/unfair etc.  

 

[Nexii]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If Iran had nukes Israel would already be glass, genius. 

Doubtful, Israel would nuke them back. But I guess you'd like to see it

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Nexii said:

Doubtful, Israel would nuke them back. But I guess you'd like to see it

I'd like to see peace in the middle east.

I'd like to see Arab nations give Israel the respect that they give Pakistan, and Pakistan committed 2 genocides, but in the millions, since WWII.

The Isralis could kill everyone in Gaza and they'd still be 4M murders shy of what the Pakistanis did when they got their country back in 1947. 

[CdnFox]

Well this is charming:

 

York University Student Unions praise Hamas terrorists’ actions as “necessary” and condemn “so-called Canada” and “so-called” Israel as fundamentally illegitimate “settler-colonial states”.

 

[Legato]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well this is charming:

 

York University Student Unions praise Hamas terrorists’ actions as “necessary” and condemn “so-called Canada” and “so-called” Israel as fundamentally illegitimate “settler-colonial states”.

 

Seems like attending university today is a form of de-education. 

 

[Nexii]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'd like to see peace in the middle east.

I'd like to see Arab nations give Israel the respect that they give Pakistan, and Pakistan committed 2 genocides, but in the millions, since WWII.

The Isralis could kill everyone in Gaza and they'd still be 4M murders shy of what the Pakistanis did when they got their country back in 1947. 

Ok the IDF should be allowed to kill everyone in Gaza because Pakistan committed a genocide generations ago. Great logic there. This won't make the Arab nations hate Israel even more or anything. 

I'm just saying, Israel is being really short-sighted with the disporportionate response. The way it's headed, militias like Hezbolla are likely to pile in and make it a real war. 

But this is exactly what you get when far-right governments like Hamas or Israel's current get in. Lots of war and death for everyone. Loosely speaking of course, Gaza and the West Bank haven't gotten to vote in a long time

[impartialobserver]

Not sure that we will ever see peace in the Middle East. The grievances (real or perceived) are too firmly rooted in the culture/religion. They will find something to be angry about and therefore act upon. Even if Israel was to forcefully take the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians would simply move somewhere and keep fighting the battle. 

[eyeball]

The whole region will be virtually uninhabitable due to climate change in a few decades so it'll be peaceful soon enough.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's the point.  The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative.  It's thrown around frivolously and meant to rile people up and little else.  Not using the term isn't supporting terrorists.  It's refusing to peddle in lazy heuristics, as you so often do.  See:

 

Hogwash.  It's emotionally charged but meaningless.  Right.

Here's the thing - it's 100 percent accurate, informative and non-frivolous in this case. And not using it ABSOLUTELY is supporting the terrorists by downplaying their activities.

Call them what they are.

Quote

When you can't really articulate your point, you revert back to generalizations about the "other/them".  In your case that's the "left".  

Right - so you screw up and try to downplay something serious but now it's my fault     Gotcha.

 

Quote

Nobody's questioning whether it's terrorism, just like the BBC wasn't sympathizing with the Nazis by not calling them evil.  The assumption here is that when the CBC reports on women and children being murdered in their homes by militants, you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion yourself.  

The CBC is literally questioning if they're terrorists.  They're saying it's subjective and an 'opinion'.  If there is no question then call them what they are. The CBC has used the word terrorist many times, especially when other bodies have labelled a group such as is the case here.

"Evil" really is subjective - there is no really solid definition of what it is.  It's defined differently by different people. Even the dictionary says 'morally bad or wrong' -  well by who's moral standards?  So that's fair if the cbc doesn't want to call them evil.  But - they are absolutely textbook definition terrorists and have been deemed as such by a large number of nations officially.

It's crap like this - standing up for murderers and terrorists - that just demonstrates nicely why the CBC has to go.

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Nexii said:

Ok the IDF should be allowed to kill everyone in Gaza because Pakistan committed a genocide generations ago. Great Logic.

I never said that, you did.

Chalk your it up to your low reading comprehension or your own flawed logic, I don't care.

Quote

I'm just saying, Israel is being really short-sighted with the disporportionate response. The way it's headed, militias like Hezbolla are likely to pile in and make it a real war. 

And I'm just saying, Israel won't hold a large advantage forever, it was better for them that this happened now, and not ten years from now.

Hamas clearly needs to be eradicated, and with another decade of training, Iranian money and arms they would be much harder to beat.

Unless Hamas has some really big bombs hidden in Gaza, and take out a lot of Israeli soldiers, Hezbollah can't do much now. 

Quote

But this is exactly what you get when far-right governments like Hamas or Israel's current get in. Lots of war and death for everyone. Loosely speaking of course, Gaza and the West Bank haven't gotten to vote in a long time

It's the leftists that you have to watch out for, like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Harvard students, etc. 

The problem in Israel has nothing to do with elections anywhere, it's that the Arabs are too bigoted to even contemplate Israel as a nation. That has been the case since day 1. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's the point.  The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative. 

CBC throws around terms like islamophobic, transphobic, misogynistic all the time. They also let Trudeau call people Nazis, racists, misogynists for no reason and they never call him out for it. 

The term terrorist was quite accurate and meaningful, but leftists like to bastardize every powerful word to the point where it ceases to have meaning, so terrorist was used for people who write bad messages on the wall of a synagogue, or someone who yells at someone, so it's almost meaningless now. 

Thanks to leftists and their small vocabularies: 

-Vaccine now means 'a mandatory shot with rare but lethal side-effects that you force people to take for slight protection from a virus that they don't need protection from'. 

-You can't say rape anymore, you have to call everything from a butt-smack to forcibly penetrated 'sexual assault' so that term is meaningless.

-The term anti-vaxer used to refer to people who refused to give their kids actual vaccines that could save their lives, now it means "not dumb enough to take the pseudovax".

-Sedition used to mean "plotting/inciting insurrection or treason", now it means "running around yelling things during a protest".  

-ikstreemist (Biden's spelling, not mine) is just someone who voted for the opposition. 

-investigation now means 'highly publicized smear campaign'. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. That's the problem.  The inability/unwillingness to think without defaulting to heuristics is one of the symptoms of what's wrong with today's discourse and exchanges of information.  

2. Hamas deserves no respect or sympathy, and I don't agree calling them militants or fighters offers that.   

 

 

1. Of course but you have to deal with the public you have... educating them to think deeply is a decades or centuries long project.

2. Disagree.

 

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course but you have to deal with the public you have... educating them to think deeply is a decades or centuries long project.
 

True - many are resistant to brainwashing.

[impartialobserver]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course but you have to deal with the public you have... educating them to think deeply is a decades or centuries long project.

2. Disagree.

 

Can't say if it will stick but been starting to teach my two kids to be critical to a fault of what they read. Believing something... no matter which side writes it, is for simpletons. Its one thing if it is a fiction novel but if the content is meant to be informative.. one has to be skeptical by default. So much opinionated garbage out there and it can be challenging to discern what is of value and what is not. 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Can't say if it will stick but been starting to teach my two kids to be critical to a fault of what they read. Believing something... no matter which side writes it, is for simpletons. Its one thing if it is a fiction novel but if the content is meant to be informative.. one has to be skeptical by default. So much opinionated garbage out there and it can be challenging to discern what is of value and what is not. 

Sure but unless you can invent a better word that rings true... something between "militant" and "terrorist" then tie goes to the worst word... You can call them "terrorists (with reasons)" or somesuch but it's news not analysis.

One thing that I heard from Canadaland this week is that the speed of information has pushed the reaction time up against decision time.  So, they argue, the analysis has to happen sooner irregardless of an emotional waiting period as in "now is not the time".

I'm more on the fence about that idea than about the word "terrorist" but it speaks to you and Moon's laudable goals of thinking over reacting.

And, again, although I disagree I fully understand the rationale for using such a word.