Pro-Hamas Rallies in Canada

[User]

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, I said that. Are attempting to claim that is a complaint or is it an opinion or observation?? I am entitled to both, without picking sides.

When I criticize, I criticize both sides with comments such as "there are no good guys" in this conflict. As I have also said, both sides have culpability in this.

I have never criticized Israel without also acknowledging that Oct 7 was an attack.

You ain't gonna convert me to judaism or muslim. Both have overzealous ssues. IMO. LOL

I know you said it. You were the one who tried to act like you didn't when I first made the assertion. 

The point here is that you clearly are picking sides, whether I can get you to own up to it or not. 

You repeatedly call out Israel and push Hamas-supporting propaganda. Acknowledging that October 7th is an "attack" is the most basic acceptance of a factual event. Of course, it was an attack... but can you bring yourself to directly condemn Hamas for what they did that day? 
 

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Thanks for providing more examples of the way the far left catastrophes everything. Like if someone tells a slightly non PC joke they're now as bad as Hitler. It's like you people are all a bunch of over emotional teenage girls.

This from the guy constantly crying about the destruction of our nation and its values and history. Zero self-awareness. I mean just look at this crybaby bullshit:

Quote

Your every post shows you despise western values, and everything about the West and its culture and history. That's why you want to tear it down and replace it with... well, you really don't know but you know it will be better because you and yours are just so incredibly noble and selfless! 

bloo bloo bloo

Quote

Honestly, leave. You'll be happier away from evil westerners. And especially away from white people. You don't belong here anyway. You don't like Canada. You don't believe in Canada. You want to destroy it. You'll be happier somewhere else.

Why would i leave, I'm doing great here.

I think the reason you're so upset and butthurt about shifting cultural norms is because in the olden days utter mediocrities like yourself could find great success just by virtue of being white males. Skill issue.

Edited May 8 by Black Dog

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

TIL that using words is 'playing word games'

Would pictograms make you more comfortable?

Sure, but you have neither the skill or intelligence to get them across either LOL

Besides, why is it so important that I agree with you. It will never happen yet, you try and try and try again...with massive failure  LOL

[impartialobserver]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This assumes the Palestinians and their leadership want peace.  History just doesn;t back this up, going back a century.  Peace for most of the them means Zionism and the Israeli state is eradicated from the reigion and 100% of the land is back in control of Muslims.  They will never, ever accept a 2-state solution longterm.

These are children playing in the sandbox and unable to share.

You are correct. It appeared as if it would be acceptable but there are some factors that can't be legislated. First, the grudge held by the mostly arab population against the Israelis is always going to simmer under the surface. Second, they are resource constraints such as energy, roads, and water where Israel holds the upper hand against the Palestinians. This makes peace somewhat tenuous at best. Lastly, it is not just the Palestinians that have a seething hatred of Israel but most of the arabs in the middle east. So there exists a de-facto consortium amongst these. In reality.. the only way that this conflict ever ceases is that the Israels leave or are extinguished OR the neighboring mostly Arab nations are bombed into submission. 

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, User said:

I know you said it. You were the one who tried to act like you didn't when I first made the assertion. 

The point here is that you clearly are picking sides, whether I can get you to own up to it or not. 

You repeatedly call out Israel and push Hamas-supporting propaganda. Acknowledging that October 7th is an "attack" is the most basic acceptance of a factual event. Of course, it was an attack... but can you bring yourself to directly condemn Hamas for what they did that day? 
 

Nope, once again, you are wrong, as usual.

Nope again, wrong. I have never praised or said anything pro hamas. I have said killing innocent Palestinian women and children was wrong.

Ummm, I have said that October 7 was wrong. I have also said that the past 6 months have been wrong too.

Why is it so important to you what I say and that I agree with you? You seem like a Jehovah Witness at my door trying to convert me to your way... I do the same to you as i do to them.....slam the door. LOL

[impartialobserver]

Oct. 7 massacre was wrong. Israel reacts and depending on one's perspective takes it too far. However, look it from the larger, more general picture and ask yourself, "Do you see this conflict ever ceasing"? If Israel exists and the arab population stays in the area.. are they going to fight? Yes. There will be ups and downs, ebbs and flows, but this conflict will not stop. We can be morally outraged at Israel's aggressive actions against Hamas and the arab population. It will cease in time but then guess what? Hamas will counter attack and this starts up again. 

[WestCanMan]

On 5/7/2024 at 10:20 AM, impartialobserver said:

The entire saga of the middle east centers on the establishment of a Muslim caliphate.

And that didn't happen 4,000 years ago, it came 2,400 years later, so thanks for admitting your original point was moot.

Quote

As for Isreal.. the conflict all starts with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Wrong. The notion that there is an arbitrary start date which can be unilaterally chosen by 1 side or the other is garbage. 

When certain topics come up, the requisite time-frame for understanding them changes drastically based on a wide variety of circumstances that can't be summed up neatly in the predicate of one sentence. 

For example, regarding the topic of bigotry, it makes sense to consider things that happened even before Mohammed was committing genocide, because he didn't invent bigotry or genocide.

Similarly, to understand 1948, you have to contemplate 1947 and not much else. 1948 was a fairly unique event in world history, but 1947 was nearly identical, so the emotions that people have about the events of 1948 can be perfectly put into context by comparing it to the way they feel about 1947. Are the feelings stemming purely from bigotry or from a concept of fairness that's evenly applied? That's important, right? 

Millions of people were unfairly dispossessed of their homes in 1947, and even murdered, and the same thing happened in 1948 on a smaller scale. Any rational person, whose opinion can be counted as valuable, would feel the exact same way for individuals who were similarly affected in both years.  

It's bad when Sikhs and Hindus were forced from their homes with no right to return, and it's bad when muslims were forced from their homes with no right to return. It's bad when hundreds of thousands of Sikhs and Hindus were slaughtered, and it's bad when hundreds of muslims were slaughtered.

When people say "I want to commit genocide against 10 million Jews because 500 muslims were killed in 1948" that doesn't make much sense, but it makes even less sense when you understand that those same genocidally inclined people are entirely fine with the slaughter of 800,000 Sikhs and Hindus in the exact same set of circumstances a year earlier. 

When you say "LOOK AT 1948, but not 1947", I say that's a complete farce from the POV of an outside observer. It might make sense from the POV of a refugee who still remembers his family home from 1946, and only cares about themselves and not for others who suffered the same misfortune, but it makes you a hypocrite for feeling that way from the comfort of your own living room. 

Quote

When the state of Israel was formed in 1948... the majority of the population in that geography were what? Arabs/Berbers... who were mostly Muslim and had been since roughly 1200.

1. And there were almost 1 million Jews spread out across the ME, who were being treated worse than modern-day Palestinians are, by [muslim] Ottomans for 600 years. Before that the Jews faced the same kind of discrimination from other muslim overlords. To say that the Jews had no reason to hope for a homeland is ridiculous. To say that Jews in "Palestine" at the time should be forced to live under muslim overlords for another millennium is heartless. 
2. Again, if you want to go back to 1200, which is 800 years ago, why just arbitrarily stop there? There were a lot of Jews and Christians even in Saudi Arabia [Mecca] back when Mohammed was alive, and Mohammed's genocides force-converted them to islam or killed them. Those genocides continued for centuries. Punitive islamic laws and violence against non-muslim women beat people down until they caved. You're not making a case for muslims as good guys by going that far back, just FYI.

Quote

This is why the conflict keeps going and will always continue. This is much the same as the Europeans coming to what is now called the US and forcing the natives off the land. Only difference is that the Palestinians (arabs/berbers) are better equipped.

The conflict keeps going because of islamic hypocrisy and bigotry. 

They can turn a blind eye to 8M infidels displaced and 800,000 infidels slaughtered in 1947 India, and they sang Kumbaya with Pakistan this entire time, but they're in a genocidal rage against Israel because 500 muslims were killed in 1948. 

You go ahead and act like that's normal, or even ok, I'm not there with you. I will never act like killing 800,000 people was fine but killing 500 was an atrocity...

[herbie]

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Urban war causes civilian casualties. There is no way to avoid them.

... when you don't even try.....

nice 'you want sympathy for emphysema? My friend got Parkinsons!' excuse as an argument.

Edited May 8 by herbie

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

And that didn't happen 4,000 years ago, it came 2,400 years later, so thanks for admitting your original point was moot.

Wrong. The notion that there is an arbitrary start date which can be unilaterally chosen by 1 side or the other is garbage. 

When certain topics come up, the requisite time-frame for understanding them changes drastically based on a wide variety of circumstances that can't be summed up neatly in the predicate of one sentence. 

For example, regarding the topic of bigotry, it makes sense to consider things that happened even before Mohammed was committing genocide, because he didn't invent bigotry or genocide.

Similarly, to understand 1948, you have to contemplate 1947 and not much else. 1948 was a fairly unique event in world history, but 1947 was nearly identical, so the emotions that people have about the events of 1948 can be perfectly put into context by comparing it to the way they feel about 1947. Are the feelings stemming purely from bigotry or from a concept of fairness that's evenly applied? That's important, right? 

Millions of people were unfairly dispossessed of their homes in 1947, and even murdered, and the same thing happened in 1948 on a smaller scale. Any rational person, whose opinion can be counted as valuable, would feel the exact same way for individuals who were similarly affected in both years.  

It's bad when Sikhs and Hindus were forced from their homes with no right to return, and it's bad when muslims were forced from their homes with no right to return. It's bad when hundreds of thousands of Sikhs and Hindus were slaughtered, and it's bad when hundreds of muslims were slaughtered.

When people say "I want to commit genocide against 10 million Jews because 500 muslims were killed in 1948" that doesn't make much sense, but it makes even less sense when you understand that those same genocidally inclined people are entirely fine with the slaughter of 800,000 Sikhs and Hindus in the exact same set of circumstances a year earlier. 

When you say "LOOK AT 1948, but not 1947", I say that's a complete farce from the POV of an outside observer. It might make sense from the POV of a refugee who still remembers his family home from 1946, and only cares about themselves and not for others who suffered the same misfortune, but it makes you a hypocrite for feeling that way from the comfort of your own living room. 

1. And there were almost 1 million Jews spread out across the ME, who were being treated worse than modern-day Palestinians are, by [muslim] Ottomans for 600 years. Before that the Jews faced the same kind of discrimination from other muslim overlords. To say that the Jews had no reason to hope for a homeland is ridiculous. To say that Jews in "Palestine" at the time should be forced to live under muslim overlords for another millennium is heartless. 
2. Again, if you want to go back to 1200, which is 800 years ago, why just arbitrarily stop there? There were a lot of Jews and Christians even in Saudi Arabia [Mecca] back when Mohammed was alive, and Mohammed's genocides force-converted them to islam or killed them. Those genocides continued for centuries. Punitive islamic laws and violence against non-muslim women beat people down until they caved. You're not making a case for muslims as good guys by going that far back, just FYI.

The conflict keeps going because of islamic hypocrisy and bigotry. 

They can turn a blind eye to 8M infidels displaced and 800,000 infidels slaughtered in 1947 India, and they sang Kumbaya with Pakistan this entire time, but they're in a genocidal rage against Israel because 500 muslims were killed in 1948. 

You go ahead and act like that's normal, or even ok, I'm not there with you. I will never act like killing 800,000 people was fine but killing 500 was an atrocity...

The reason 1200 is brought is because that is the earliest proven time where the residents of what we now call Palestine were majority Muslim. The point is not paint anyone as bad or good.. I know that you can't strip away your moral indignation from simple objective facts. I can say that the temp is 65 degrees outside and not be angry/sad/dejected about it. 

The reason that I use 1948 is because that when the state of Israel was founded and they were by force displaced. I would think that they get over it by now but that is not the case. Look at the history of Hamas.. when was it founded? Formally it was 1987. When did it informally begin? 1973.. All of which are after 1948. There is a reason that this group only comes into existence after the establishment of Israel. 

I do not personally care who is in the wrong.. israel/jews or palestine/arabs/muslims. first, I am atheist and so have no dog in the religious battle. Second, all I am saying is that this will continue into perpetuity and gave the reasons why. 

BTW.. I was talking about Israel not india. You show your lack of intellect and self control by always going off into the weeds. Its clear that you never wrote research papers or such. 

 

Lastly, if you find my posts to be so worthless then do what a rational person does.. keep scrolling. Nothing you say is going to change my views of this topic. You waste your time.. you know this so not sure why you continue. 

Edited May 8 by impartialobserver

[WestCanMan]

55 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The reason 1200 is brought is because that is the earliest proven time where the residents of what we now call Palestine were majority Muslim. The point is not paint anyone as bad or good.. I know that you can't strip away your moral indignation from simple objective facts. I can say that the temp is 65 degrees outside and not be angry/sad/dejected about it. 

The reason that I use 1948 is because that when the state of Israel was founded and they were by force displaced. I would think that they get over it by now but that is not the case. Look at the history of Hamas.. when was it founded? Formally it was 1987. When did it informally begin? 1973.. All of which are after 1948. There is a reason that this group only comes into existence after the establishment of Israel. 

I do not personally care who is in the wrong.. israel/jews or palestine/arabs/muslims. first, I am atheist and so have no dog in the religious battle. Second, all I am saying is that this will continue into perpetuity and gave the reasons why. 

BTW.. I was talking about Israel not india. You show your lack of intellect and self control by always going off into the weeds. Its clear that you never wrote research papers or such. 

 

Lastly, if you find my posts to be so worthless then do what a rational person does.. keep scrolling. Nothing you say is going to change my views of this topic. You waste your time.. you know this so not sure why you continue. 

Buddy, look at what you just wrote there and try to say with a straight face that "you wrote research papers and such" lol. What you wrote there is gobbledygook. 

I completely understand that you're unable to connect the dots between India and Israel because it flies in the face of your confirmation bias. For others who are wondering, the point was made to show how hypocritical the muslim hatred of Israel is. That's it. They're incensed at the deaths of 500 people and they couldn't care less about 800,0000 people who were murdered the year before. 

When I see that I just automatically stop believing the 'concerned humanitarians' and consider them violent bigots. But you do you. You just keep on seeing what you wanna see, kiddo. 

[impartialobserver]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, look at what you just wrote there and try to say with a straight face that "you wrote research papers and such" lol. What you wrote there is gobbledygook. 

I completely understand that you're unable to connect the dots between India and Israel because it flies in the face of your confirmation bias. For others who are wondering, the point was made to show how hypocritical the muslim hatred of Israel is. That's it. They're incensed at the deaths of 500 people and they couldn't care less about 800,0000 people who were murdered the year before. 

When I see that I just automatically stop believing the 'concerned humanitarians' and consider them violent bigots. But you do you. You just keep on seeing what you wanna see, kiddo. 

its called staying on topic. the topic is israel vs. hamas. You created the thread and wrote the title... did you not ?

It is hypocritical. Religious fervor does that. However, that hypocrisy is not going to change because you are critical. They are incensed for a variety of reasons... honestly. The list of perceived reasons is too long to list in a single post. 

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Sure, but you have neither the skill or intelligence to get them across either LOL

Besides, why is it so important that I agree with you. It will never happen yet, you try and try and try again...with massive failure  LOL

I don't expect a troll to agree with me. I'm simply countering your bullshit.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

... when you don't even try.....

I just posted a cite that showed how hard they're trying. Do you not understand how links work? Do you need someone to hold your hand to show you how or do too many words deter you from even trying?

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

its called staying on topic. the topic is israel vs. hamas. You created the thread and wrote the title... did you not ?

Correct.

And a big part of this topic is understanding that 1948 has almost nothing to do with the hatred against Israel today. The people who want to commit genocide against Israel for killing 500 people don't care about 800,000 people that were murdered a year earlier in the same circumstances.

Quote

It is hypocritical. Religious fervor does that. However, that hypocrisy is not going to change because you are critical. They are incensed for a variety of reasons... honestly. The list of perceived reasons is too long to list in a single post. 

Yeah, but the list just boils down to "islamic religious bigotry", and I don't take that into account when I weigh the merits of a situation. 

[impartialobserver]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Correct.

And a big part of this topic is understanding that 1948 has almost nothing to do with the hatred against Israel today. The people who want to commit genocide against Israel for killing 500 people don't care about 800,000 people that were murdered a year earlier in the same circumstances.

Yeah, but the list just boils down to "islamic religious bigotry", and I don't take that into account when I weigh the merits of a situation. 

The list of grievances carried forth by Hamas/Palestine/Muslim world goes beyond just 1948 but it is a key part of it. A lot of their grievances have a root cause in the founding of the state of Israel. 

You should read the cities of salt trilogy. It gives a more intimate perspective on the greater Islam vs. the world conflict. No, it does not portray Westerners as the devil hence why it is banned in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, amongst others. 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Oct. 7 massacre was wrong. Israel reacts and depending on one's perspective takes it too far. However, look it from the larger, more general picture and ask yourself, "Do you see this conflict ever ceasing"? If Israel exists and the arab population stays in the area.. are they going to fight? Yes. There will be ups and downs, ebbs and flows, but this conflict will not stop. We can be morally outraged at Israel's aggressive actions against Hamas and the arab population. It will cease in time but then guess what? Hamas will counter attack and this starts up again. 

Not sure what your point here is...what i hear is is going to be ever ending conflict, so why debate it..it is pointless...and yet man continues to solve political problems with violence, but some how this terrorist organization has won the hearts and minds of to many Canadians, and most of them don't know squat about this entire region...they have taken a side because it is a popular thing to do...never once have they asked is it the right thing to do...there are two sides here, on one side there is a terrorist group, a city that has done nothing with the aid money it receives except to further the war with israel, and then gets the world to feel sorry for their plight, of their own doing.........on the other, a nation that has western morals and values, is democratic, and has been defending their nation since it's inception...

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure what your point here is...what i hear is is going to be ever ending conflict, so why debate it..it is pointless...and yet man continues to solve political problems with violence, but some how this terrorist organization has won the hearts and minds of to many Canadians, and most of them don't know squat about this entire region...they have taken a side because it is a popular thing to do...never once have they asked is it the right thing to do...there are two sides here, on one side there is a terrorist group, a city that has done nothing with the aid money it receives except to further the war with israel, and then gets the world to feel sorry for their plight, of their own doing.........on the other, a nation that has western morals and values, is democratic, and has been defending their nation since it's inception...

Can you think of a solution where Israel exists and free of violence all the while palestine gets all of its demands met? The two seem mutually exclusive. 

Yes, most do not know about the region and if asked one year ago to this date.. would not know what you were talking about if you brought up the word, "Hamas". 

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Can you think of a solution where Israel exists and free of violence all the while palestine gets all of its demands met? The two seem mutually exclusive. 

Yes, most do not know about the region and if asked one year ago to this date.. would not know what you were talking about if you brought up the word, "Hamas". 

Considering that Palestine wants all of the land that is now Israel...NO...Palestinians are not interested in a two state solution it has been offered many times, in the past and they have refused...from the river to the sea...what do you think that means...

The solution is to force Palestinians to come to the bargaining table with a open mind, they will never going to throw Israel from the land...the two state solution is the best they are going to get...until then cut all foreign aid,to Palestine and the UN agencies thatallow Hamas to  steal that funding for other purposes,  remove all of the phoney UN organizations from Gaza, west bank...and blockade and sanction them them if the terrorism does not stop...

[impartialobserver]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Considering that Palestine wants all of the land that is now Israel...NO...Palestinians are not interested in a two state solution it has been offered many times, in the past and they have refused...from the river to the sea...what do you think that means...

The solution is to force Palestinians to come to the bargaining table with a open mind, they will never going to throw Israel from the land...the two state solution is the best they are going to get...until then cut all foreign aid,to Palestine and the UN agencies thatallow Hamas to  steal that funding for other purposes,  remove all of the phoney UN organizations from Gaza, west bank...and blockade and sanction them them if the terrorism does not stop...

your solution assumes that other muslim nations would not come to the "aid" of Palestine and act as the rich benefactor for their war effort. Who knows.. they may agree to something now and then attack later.

 

Folks can live in poverty for a long time if they have a crusade or cause they are fighting for so not sure that sanctions would change their view. If anything, it would create desperation and widen the gap.  They lay claim to the land because the arab/berber population in what we call Palestine predates Judaism and Israel. 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

but some how this terrorist organization has won the hearts and minds of to many Canadians, and most of them don't know squat about this entire region...they have taken a side because it is a popular thing to do.

Schools stopped teaching critical thinking skills, and then parents did. Children today do not engage in the kind of problem solving results oriented play and 'education' our parents and grandparents taught young people any more.

Now you hear things like AOC saying "It's more important to be morally correct than factually accurate'.

And kids are taught that their feelings have a reality of their own. There's such a thing as 'personal truth' vs simply truth.

And that leaves people vunerable to stupidity. If we're being serious - if you have the ability to mentally edit out facts you don't like, then all you have to do is edit out october 7th and think about everything SINCE then and gaza looks like a terrible tragedy.  Attacked for NO REASON by a hostile force, a small oppressed state with no actual standing army watches is children and women get slaughtered and starved while a tiny handful of untrained men try desperately to protect them as they are bombed!!!!!

If anyone mentiones oct 7 just pretend that date is mixed in with every single thing that ever happened in world history going back 10 thousand years so you can't possibly think about one day.

See? Pull a few key facts and events out of it and suddenly this looks like a tragedy.    

That's what you get when we raise kids to care more about self delusion than facts.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I will never act like killing 800,000 people was fine but killing 500 was an atrocity...

Who, other than yourself, said they were fine with this? That's an atrocious thing to suggest.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

first, I am atheist and so have no dog in the religious battle.

You call yourself "impartialobserver" and claim you are atheist so "have no dog in the religious battle".  

Hate to have to tell you but atheism is a kind of religion in and of itself.  It is a belief system which claims there is no god and therefore man becomes his own god.  It exalts atheism as if it is the be all and end all of everything, when in fact atheism is nonsensical.  The result of atheism is that one must believe that everything just happened by accident and that life has no meaning.  If one is to accept that, then we are just a chemical accident that happened.  There is no purpose for life and nothing to look forward to.  That is the kind of religion atheism leads to.  Sounds very depressing but that is atheism.

Atheists also have their own biases and are not impartial.  Nobody is "impartial" as you claim to be.  You are biased toward the ideology atheism and all that it means. Of course it also means there are no absolute morals, no right or wrong other than what somebody says is right and wrong.  You claim to look at the world impartially, but you are only fooling yourself.  Everyone has their biases.  Your beliefs would have to be a result of claiming to be atheist.  I am not sure you are a real atheist.  Maybe you are only thinking you are, but maybe you are unsure.

Sadly there are some serious consequences for not believing in the true God of the Bible.  That could mean you think our culture and foundation which is built on Judeo-Christian civilization is of no more value than any other.  That means you would regard our culture as no more valid or no better than the Islamic culture or middle eastern culture which is Islamic.  Perhaps you would think western culture is no more value than Buddhism, Sikhism, or Hinduism since all are false religions.

Why would an atheist think Communism or Socialism is undesirable if there are no absolute morals or absolute right and wrongs in the world?

Edited May 9 by blackbird

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I am atheist

"

What does the Bible say about atheism?

Atheists are some of the most religious and faithful people ever. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be an atheist. Sun, moon, stars, oceans, the Earth, animals, babies, male, female, the human heart, emotions, our conscience, love, intelligence, the human mind, bone structure, the human reproductive system, biblical prophecies coming true all before our eyes, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and more and still there are some people who deny God’s existence.

Just stop and think about it. It’s impossible for something to come from nothing. To say nothingness caused nothing and created everything is absurd! Nothing will always remain nothing.

J. S. Mill who was a non-Christian philosopher said, “It is self-evident that only mind can create mind. For nature to make itself is a scientific impossibility.”

Atheism can’t explain existence. Atheists live by science, but science (always) changes. God and the Bible (always) remain the same. They know there is a God.

He is revealed in creation, through His Word, and through Jesus Christ. Everybody knows that God is real, people just hate Him so much they suppress the truth.

Behind every creation there is always a creator. You might not know the person who built your house, but you know it didn’t just get there on its own.

Atheists are going to say, “well who created God?” God is not in the same category as created things. God is not created. God is the uncaused cause. He is eternal. He simply exists. It is God who brought matter, time, and space into existence."

25 Important Bible Verses About Atheism (Powerful Truths) (biblereasons.com)

 

[ExFlyer]

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I don't expect a troll to agree with me. I'm simply countering your bullshit.

I just posted a cite that showed how hard they're trying. Do you not understand how links work? Do you need someone to hold your hand to show you how or do too many words deter you from even trying?

I have been on this thread form the beginning. I am glad you do not expect me to agree....then you should stop trying LOL

Even the US is now distancing itself from the crap Israel is doing... disagree with them...go ahead LOL

The US,which has a law giving Israel over 3 billion dollars a year in military supplies and is halting the supplies.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/biden-says-us-won-t-supply-weapons-for-israel-to-attack-rafah-in-warning-to-ally/ar-BB1m2CJt?cvid=6239eadc3a8a4751f6b6a6cec38ba899&ei=15

Edited May 9 by ExFlyer
Add link

[Moonlight Graham]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Not that I'm an expert but what about 1998?  

What do you mean?

[Black Dog]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Considering that Palestine wants all of the land that is now Israel...NO...Palestinians are not interested in a two state solution it has been offered many times, in the past and they have refused...from the river to the sea...what do you think that means...

Israel isn't interested in a two-state solution either.

Quote

The solution is to force Palestinians to come to the bargaining table with a open mind, they will never going to throw Israel from the land...the two state solution is the best they are going to get...until then cut all foreign aid,to Palestine and the UN agencies thatallow Hamas to  steal that funding for other purposes,  remove all of the phoney UN organizations from Gaza, west bank...and blockade and sanction them them if the terrorism does not stop...

"How can we stop them from hating us? I know, let's starve their children to death!"