DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Tucker shades the truth yet again, this time about Churchill

---

Sorry Boomer.

---

Never thought I'd see you making fun of Tucker. He can't help it he's a boomer.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Tucker shades the truth yet again, this time about Churchill

---

Sorry Boomer.

---

Never thought I'd see you making fun of Tucker. He can't help it he's a boomer.

---

Isnt Tucker younger than you are?

---

>created a societal cancer
>dies of cancer pic.twitter.com/FWtplD0PWc

— Lone Star Nationalist (@The_Texan_Goy) March 23, 2026

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Tucker shades the truth yet again, this time about Churchill

---

Sorry Boomer.

One need only look at the state of western Europe today and it is abundantly clear Winston Churchill was no hero.

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

To answer your questions, yes, I condemn all of the hateful beliefs and acts you describe in your post.

---

So...no. Ok.

---

I actually said just the opposite but ok little buddy.

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Well, the degree to which Chabad represents most Jews' opinions is debatable. It certainly doesn't represent all Jews. But it is a mainstream movement within Judaism, and far from being a fringe group. The Kushners donated 2 million dollars to it.

"As American Jewry overall has experienced an increase in Jewish engagement in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, in what has been deemed "The Surge," the largest rise has been seen among those connected to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, outpacing all other denominations and among unaffiliated Jews, according to survey data from Jewish Federations of North America"

So it is a very relevant question...and one that remains unanswered by Christian Zionists.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Well, the degree to which Chabad represents most Jews' opinions is debatable. It certainly doesn't represent all Jews. But it is a mainstream movement within Judaism, and far from being a fringe group. The Kushners donated 2 million dollars to it.

"As American Jewry overall has experienced an increase in Jewish engagement in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, in what has been deemed "The Surge," the largest rise has been seen among those connected to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, outpacing all other denominations and among unaffiliated Jews, according to survey data from Jewish Federations of North America"

So it is a very relevant question...and one that remains unanswered by Christian Zionists.

---

I know a fairly large number of Jews. Zero Chabad members.

So for now I call BS on the claim that Chabad represents Judaism any more than Joel Osteen is a good example of a Christian in practice.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

To answer your questions, yes, I condemn all of the hateful beliefs and acts you describe in your post.

---

So...no. Ok.

---

I actually said just the opposite but ok little buddy.

---

Actually, you didn't.

You did not to specifically denounce Chabad which was a specific question posed regarding a specific organization.

Which is actually an ironic place to end up in a thread you started bearing false witness against people like Tucker Carlson in an attempt to get people to condemn them as antisemitic.

But I suppose it's par for the course that a Judaizer wouldn't say anything negative about any group associated with anything remotely Jewish, Jewish adjacent, or associated with the movie Spaceballs.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Well, the degree to which Chabad represents most Jews' opinions is debatable. It certainly doesn't represent all Jews. But it is a mainstream movement within Judaism, and far from being a fringe group. The Kushners donated 2 million dollars to it.

"As American Jewry overall has experienced an increase in Jewish engagement in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, in what has been deemed "The Surge," the largest rise has been seen among those connected to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, outpacing all other denominations and among unaffiliated Jews, according to survey data from Jewish Federations of North America"

So it is a very relevant question...and one that remains unanswered by Christian Zionists.

---

I know a fairly large number of Jews. Zero Chabad members.

So for now I call BS on the claim that Chabad represents Judaism any more than Joel Osteen is a good example of a Christian in practice.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Asking for a condemnation of a single Jewish Supremacist organization like Chabad is hardly painting with a broad brush. I'll wait.

You can do it Mothra. "Chabad Lubavitch is an evil Jewish supremacist organization that teaches racism and serves Satan."

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Well, the degree to which Chabad represents most Jews' opinions is debatable. It certainly doesn't represent all Jews. But it is a mainstream movement within Judaism, and far from being a fringe group. The Kushners donated 2 million dollars to it.

"As American Jewry overall has experienced an increase in Jewish engagement in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, in what has been deemed "The Surge," the largest rise has been seen among those connected to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, outpacing all other denominations and among unaffiliated Jews, according to survey data from Jewish Federations of North America"

So it is a very relevant question...and one that remains unanswered by Christian Zionists.

---

I know a fairly large number of Jews. Zero Chabad members.

So for now I call BS on the claim that Chabad represents Judaism any more than Joel Osteen is a good example of a Christian in practice.

---

How dare you chide him for stereotyping and painting with a broad brush. You should know by now that a few examples of bad Jews means all Jews are bad.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Tucker shades the truth yet again, this time about Churchill

---

Sorry Boomer.

One need only look at the state of western Europe today and it is abundantly clear Winston Churchill was no hero.

---

Yeah, anyone standing up to your buddies Hitler and Stalin, you'd hate.

No surprise there.

---

How did they arrest the guy over this?

— Rush (@Rush1776Rush) March 24, 2026

Mothra said:

---

However, if I merely take you at your word that Chabad believes and teaches what you claim it does, then yes, it is an evil and racist organization.

---

Quote:

---

Are all Jews evil and bad because Chabad exists?

---

Quote:

---

Do you condemn all white people as evil and racist because the KKK exists?

---

Never forget when Trump prayed at the grave of Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe Schneerson in Brooklyn.

Chabad is a jewish movement that believes all gentiles should be enslaved. pic.twitter.com/fZtKPDoye7

— Parody Jeff (@Parodyjeffx) March 7, 2026

Chaim Mentz: "Religious Jews come [into the IDF] w/ a different mindset. When you have regular people…they [have] a concept of contain the enemy. Religious Jews go and say there's no such thing as containment. They're the enemy. Destroy them to the end."

(i.e., Wipe out Amalek) https://t.co/IrWzslKidz pic.twitter.com/dqXEl3o3EJ

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) March 23, 2026

The first amendment exists to speak against your government and the Supreme Court has ruled that Hate speech is free speech, at least 3 times.
Yet this sheriff abused his power and arrested a person for embarrassing him. Redcoat shit.

pic.twitter.com/xfQz5PIqa6

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 24, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Liar speaks: " You are the guy who supports the people wiping their ass with the constitution"

Not in the least. You lose again, Adolf.

---

pic.twitter.com/v63WCTI7tC

— Brock Riddick (@BrockRiddickIFB) February 21, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not sure why you included a photo of your grandpop, but OK

---

Lots of peoples are good at holding grudges for an inordinately long time, but you have to respect the Jewish ability to get _other_ people to care about trivialities like this four decade old ethnic grudge against Roald Dahl for getting angry over Israel's 1982 Lebanon invasion. https://t.co/lCYnstqOGC

— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) March 24, 2026