Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

And Thomas Massie is an idiot who is no longer in office because of it.

No traditional conservatives are going to vote for Massie in any large numbers. He's a poor man's Ron Paul without the likability. And he has too much hatred of Israel.

He has no shot of being president.

---

Thomas Massie lost his primary because

Pro-Israel interest groups spent over $9 million directly to unseat Thomas Massie in the 2026 Kentucky Republican primary, contributing to a record-breaking $32.6 million in total ad spending for the race. This figure includes more than $4 million from the United Democracy Project (AIPAC's super PAC) and over $4 million from the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history.

...and Boomercon fell for it.

As far as being president, we will see. 2028 is still two years away and by then the Boomers will be down another -8% of the population.

---

Problem is, when you lose in your own backyard, you're not going to do very well in a national election, especially when you're an uncharismatic wallflower who runs on Israel hate.

---

Lincoln was uncharismatic, ugly, had a high pitched voice, and lost in his own backyard 5 times.

---

Lincoln was an eloquent speaker and debater.

---

So is Massie

His Boomer Ziocon controlled opposition refused to debate the guy... how nuts is that? You are running against an incumbent but are too scared to debate him?

Same with Byrone in Florida. He refuses to debate Fishback because he knows he'd get torn to pieces.

Its incredible how Boomer Ziocons run from debate because their insane ideology cant stand any scrutiny from real America First conservatism

---

No, he's not. Not by any objective measure. I get that you like him because he shares your Jew hatred, but he's just not an eloquent or dynamic speaker.

---

The first person to bring up Jews in this thread was....

---

What's a "Boomer Ziocon" again?

---

You.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

And Thomas Massie is an idiot who is no longer in office because of it.

No traditional conservatives are going to vote for Massie in any large numbers. He's a poor man's Ron Paul without the likability. And he has too much hatred of Israel.

He has no shot of being president.

---

Thomas Massie lost his primary because

Pro-Israel interest groups spent over $9 million directly to unseat Thomas Massie in the 2026 Kentucky Republican primary, contributing to a record-breaking $32.6 million in total ad spending for the race. This figure includes more than $4 million from the United Democracy Project (AIPAC's super PAC) and over $4 million from the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history.

...and Boomercon fell for it.

As far as being president, we will see. 2028 is still two years away and by then the Boomers will be down another -8% of the population.

---

Problem is, when you lose in your own backyard, you're not going to do very well in a national election, especially when you're an uncharismatic wallflower who runs on Israel hate.

---

Lincoln was uncharismatic, ugly, had a high pitched voice, and lost in his own backyard 5 times.

---

Lincoln was an eloquent speaker and debater.

---

So is Massie

His Boomer Ziocon controlled opposition refused to debate the guy... how nuts is that? You are running against an incumbent but are too scared to debate him?

Same with Byrone in Florida. He refuses to debate Fishback because he knows he'd get torn to pieces.

Its incredible how Boomer Ziocons run from debate because their insane ideology cant stand any scrutiny from real America First conservatism

---

No, he's not. Not by any objective measure. I get that you like him because he shares your Jew hatred, but he's just not an eloquent or dynamic speaker.

---

The first person to bring up Jews in this thread was....

---

What's a "Boomer Ziocon" again?

---

You.

---

Which is?

"Did "Gazans" perpetrate October 7th or any other attack on Israel? Or was it Hamas, Hezbollah, etc?

That response was obtuse and your know it."

Now you're quibbling.

Hamas - not Hezbollah - carried out and claimed responsibility for October 7. But Hamas is also the governing authority in Gaza. So when people discuss Gaza in the context of the war, they're obviously discussing a conflict that began with an attack launched by the territory's ruling regime.

It seems like you're avoiding the substance of the point by focusing on semantics. The relevant fact is that the war did not arise in a vacuum, and Hamas's role in governing Gaza is central to understanding it.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

---

I don't disagree, but are you saying the Gazans are terrorists?

---

Did "Gazans" perpetrate October 7th or any other attack on Israel? Or was it Hamas, Hezbollah, etc?

That response was obtuse and your know it.

---

Now you're quibbling.

Hamasnot Hezbollahcarried out and claimed responsibility for October 7. But Hamas is also the governing authority in Gaza. So when people discuss Gaza in the context of the war, they're obviously discussing a conflict that began with an attack launched by the territory's ruling regime.

It seems like you're avoiding the substance of the point by focusing on semantics. The relevant fact is that the war did not arise in a vacuum, and Hamas's role in governing Gaza is central to understanding it.

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.

---

The next time you're correct about my politics will be the first.

Hilarious you equate any questions critical of Israel as "progressive" while claiming to be objective.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

---

That is a drastic backtrack and reformation of the plain facial meaning of your comments thus far in this thread.

---

I commented on a position you claimed was absurd. I did not say that was my position. Indeed, it wasn't, for those with basic reading comprehension and no agenda.

---

You have claimed antisemitism multiple times in this thread and others with respect to any poster or group critical of the modern country of Israel and its policy toward Gazans, et. Al.

It's a perfectly reasonable inference of your position and you know that.

---

Respectfully, that is utter bull *****

It's part of the problem when you enter a conversation late, lack context, and don't know the history of interactions between the parties involved in the discussion.

---

Keep deflecting that well and you could be in line to be the USA goal keeper for the next World Cup.

You have said what you said. Deal with it.

---

Please cite the specific post where I said that anyone critical of the modern country of Israel and its policy toward Gazans is anti-semitic.

I would think it wouldn't be too difficult for you, given that you allege I said it multiple times on this thread.

I'll hang up and listen.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.

---

The next time you're correct about my politics will be the first.

Hilarious you equate any questions critical of Israel as "progressive" while claiming to be objective.

---

LOL. Sure bro. Anyone can look at your posting history and see for themselves.

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.

---

The next time you're correct about my politics will be the first.

Hilarious you equate any questions critical of Israel as "progressive" while claiming to be objective.

---

LOL. Sure bro. Anyone can look at your posting history and see for themselves.

---

lol, ok "bro".

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

> The Carolinas just got hit by Hurricane Helene. Over a hundred people dead. Billion in damages. Millions without power or running water.
> As their representative you are invited onto Fox News primetime to speak to the nation about the disaster effecting your state
> The host sets the stage and cues you up to ask for the nation to help your desperate constituents
> Instead you deliver the most unhinged/out of pocket appeal for the nation to think about Israel... a foreign country 10,000 kilometers away on the other side of the earth
> A few years earlier you voted against federal aid for hurricane relief so you could sent more money to Israel
> You are Lyndsey Graham.

Lindsey Graham was a staunch defender of Israel first—and of his own Senate seat.
Let us recall that he voted against federal aid for hurricane Harvey and Sandy. pic.twitter.com/GFSz1cVrrD

— Erick (@RotmanErick) July 12, 2026

Sean Hannity muttering "oh my god..." in that clip under his breath is still gets me every time

When even one of the top Israel First propagandists in the country is shocked by your complete dismissal to even act remotely concerned about the people whom you claim to represent you know you are a ****ing reprobate

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

That's great deflection, still largely irrelevant to the determinations made (which, to be clear, I am neither negating or endorsing, just pointing out). I don't recall more than a few fringe groups levying genocide charges at the US with respect to Iraq, but if you have a list, feel free to provide.

The default position on war crimes is still insane to me. The moral relativism of "well "they" did something as bad or worse" as any kind of justification or excuse holds no sway for me. We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

---

We are better as is Israel. It is you who are making them morally equivalent. Provide the proof of that equivalence and we could have a dialogue.

The failure to understand the nature of this conflict is why so many, including yourself, come to extreme conclusions.

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

That's great deflection, still largely irrelevant to the determinations made (which, to be clear, I am neither negating or endorsing, just pointing out). I don't recall more than a few fringe groups levying genocide charges at the US with respect to Iraq, but if you have a list, feel free to provide.

The default position on war crimes is still insane to me. The moral relativism of "well "they" did something as bad or worse" as any kind of justification or excuse holds no sway for me. We (and our allies) should be better than literal terrorists.

---

We are better as is Israel. It is you who are making them morally equivalent. Provide the proof of that equivalence and we could have a dialogue.

The failure to understand the nature of this conflict is why so many, including yourself, come to extreme conclusions.

---

The IDF sodomized a POW so badly his intestines were falling out of his ass.

Western media has failed to accurately describe events at the heart of an Israeli military scandal, after Israel’s top military lawyer, major general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, was arrested for leaking footage of IDF soldiers allegedly gang-raping a Palestinian prisoner in a… pic.twitter.com/BaVHGrii0f

— Novara Media (@novaramedia) November 6, 2025

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

I doubt anyone outside the Western media bubble is shocked by it.

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

Israel has killed and kidnapped thousands for every victim of Hamas.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

Israel has killed and kidnapped thousands for every victim of Hamas.

---

Ah yes. Equating administrative detention to kidnapping. That's one way to play the shock effect game.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

Israel has killed and kidnapped thousands for every victim of Hamas.

---

Ah yes. Equating administrative detention to kidnapping. That's one way to play the shock effect game.

---

Ah yes. Polysyllabic latinate terminology. That's the time-tested warrant for all evils.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

Israel has killed and kidnapped thousands for every victim of Hamas.

---

Ah yes. Equating administrative detention to kidnapping. That's one way to play the shock effect game.

---

Ah yes. Polysyllabic latinate terminology. That's the time-tested warrant for all evils.

---

"Kidnapping victims" with legal counsel definitely says "evil".

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

historian said:

---

That's not what I said. It's the world's only Jewish state but it's not a theocracy (government ruled by clergy) like the Vatican & Iran. However, Israel & Judaism go together.

Most importantly, Israel has a special role in God's plans. I have no doubt that God was involved in the creation of the modern state of Israel and in their continued survival and prosperity against all odds. His covenant with them continues.

---

You're nuts.

---

Nice retort. Way to refute his positions, Brainiac.

---

historian is over there writing on the walls with his own feces.... what is he suppose to refute?

That God created the present day secular state of Israel?

---

That's what's funny about the modern state of Israel.

Super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles.

---

I forgot the America Firsters prefer this. Damn those Western freedoms and democracies! This is FAR better:






Sure am glad we don't have gay pride parades in the U.S.

Speaking of the US, imagine that since the day the US was founded, several neighboring countries had repeatedly gone to war against it. Specifically, right after it was founded, let's say that it had been attacked by a coalition of countries consisting of, say, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia and Argentina. And let's say their goal was to eradicate the U.S. Ok to respond to that attack?

Imagine just a 7-8 years later, 3 of those countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

Now, let's fast forward another 11 years, and imagine that several of those same countries once again attacked America with the goal of eradication.

And then 5 years later, let's imagine that two of those countries decided to launch a surprise attack on the 4th of July.

Now, let's imagine that several of our enemies decided to arm militia groups in Mexico and Canada, and gave them an endless supply of weapons to launch attacks throughout the United State. Imagine that over the following decades, hostile governments and armed groups on America's borders repeatedly launched rockets, bombings, raids, and other attacks against American civilians.

Imagine that one of those groups eventually gained control of the entire country of Mexico, and that country's goal was American annihilation. Imagine that territory remained under the control of an organization that openly called for the destruction of the United States and regularly attacked American communities.

Then imagine that this country carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in modern American history murdering civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and kidnapping hundreds of people.

Under those circumstances, would you view military action against those groups as self-defense, or would you expect America to simply put up and tolerate the deaths of its women and children? Would American be "blood thirsty war mongers" for finally attempting to wipe out the group responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the years?

---

Lmao, we've been going back and forth for about a year now and you still don't know my beliefs? Out of all the "America Firsters" on this board, NONE of them are pro-Islam. If we had it our way, they'd all be deported.

That's a nice analogy, but there's no need for it… From the moment settlers arrived on this continent, they were surrounded by hostile adversaries. For over 200 years, many settlements faced violent attacks and conflicts. Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield are just a few examples.

Foreign powers also played a role in these conflicts. France armed Native Americans during conflicts like King Philip's War and was even more involved during King William's War. Britain used Native American alliances against the colonies during conflicts with the Americans roughly 100 years later. In the end, we conquered them and won.

I'm America First, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-interventionist. My view is that America should prioritize its own interests, and I don't believe our relationship with Israel is essential. You'll argue that we need that alliance, I disagree.

---

Ah, so you believe the settlers in Jamestown, Zwaanendael, and Deerfield were "blood-thirsty warmongers" for defending themselves against the hostiles?

As for America First, you might need to talk to your leader, Tucker Carlson, as well as MTG, who have both been apologists and expressed support for Islam. Tell me you aren't unaware of this.

---

Warmongers? No, they were brutally slaughtered by Indians. The Dutch at Zwannendael and the English at Deerfield negotiated the land via treaties, they were still murdered by their Indian neighbors. But you completely missed my point, which is I'm pro-American conquest, not Israeli conquest; they have a right to exist, if they can fight for it. I just don't want the US involved in that fight.

As for Tucker, idk why you keep bringing him up. We share some similar beliefs but I think he's tied to CIA. His connections to Thiel and Saudi are sus as well. And I have said repeatedly that MTG is a coward, idk why you keep bringing her up to me

---

Unfortunately, it's you who are missing the point. You described Israel as "super gay and degenerate on one side, while it's blood thirsty warmongers on the other. I guess they aren't bound by the same rules as us Gentiles." Those are your words.

So that naturally begs the question, to any reasonable person, regarding whether battling for survival against a hostile enemy - as Israel has done the last 70 plus years - makes them "blood thirsty warmongers" in your book? You say the rule doesn't apply to "gentiles," so it begs the question - would you consider America blood-thirsty warmngers for doing the same thing as Israel? It sounds like the answer is no. It's ok for America to do it, but not ok for Israel.

Indeed, it does appear you hold Israelis to a different standard than the gentiles.

As for Tucker and MTG, I was referring to America First generally, and you are well aware those two are leaders in the movement. It's good to hear you've broken with your fellow America Firsters on this board on those two issues. You still have promise.

---

America First is a broad philosophy and many people claim the right side of the spectrum, there's no distinct leader. The modern use was made popular by Trump. Nick Fuentes calls his movement America First and I guess Mtg and Tucker use it as well?

As for Israel and Early Americans, I believe the differences are staunch. But there's no point in going at it as you don't believe the genocide claims like I do.

---

So it's the genocide claims from the last year or so that you're referring to when you claim they are bloodthirsty warmongers?

---

I would go a bit further back

---

Whether or not what is happening in Gaza is genocide is overall not that relevant. Israel has a long and well documented history of attacking and killing civilians, basically from its inception. Sometimes possibly justified, other times pretty clearly not. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

The steadfast and resolute devotion of so many American evangelicals to equating the modern state of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel in the Bible is such a fascinating phenomenon.

---

Israel is no saint, but genocide is a bit of a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would use, IMO.

And it is clear that Israel IS composed of at least a large number of the descendants of Abraham.

---

Your quibble in that regard would be with the large number of NGO's and watch dog groups (including the UN and at least 2 Israeli organizations as well) that have characterized the ongoing war in Gaza as genocide.

Not sure if you are trying to be cute with your second line, but it's non sequitur and I think you know that.

---

They're not looking for genocide. They're looking for advocacy of a cause. Genocide has been hijacked for shock value without any resemblance to reality. War crimes? Perhaps. Genocide? No.

---

Impossible to know all of the dozens of organizations that have levied genocide claims are using the same criteria, but "Genocide" does have an established definition which was the basis for the findings by several organizations (including the Israeli ones).

Also the implication that war crimes are a safe harbor / morally superior is a wild take.

---

The same ones that found the U.S. guilty of genocidal acts in Iraq? We've stretched the credulity of genocide because of the horrific cowardice of the UN and other nations (US included) during the Rwandan genocide. The failure to act (or even recognize) swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Since that point and the uptick in asymmetrical wars globally, civilian body counts are being used as fodder for political objectives. That's especially useful in a long standing conflict with heavily entrenched sides. Aside from any "labeling", a genocide designation requires legally bound bodies to intervene (see UN signatories) militarily.

And there's nothing "moral" about this conflict, especially when the most heinous war crimes have been committed by Hamas.

---

Israel has killed and kidnapped thousands for every victim of Hamas.

---

Ah yes. Equating administrative detention to kidnapping. That's one way to play the shock effect game.

---

Ah yes. Polysyllabic latinate terminology. That's the time-tested warrant for all evils.

---

"Kidnapping victims" with legal counsel definitely says "evil".

---

Is the legal counsel provided before or after they get raped?

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I'm not saying the labels carry the same weight. I'm saying they share the same defect: they're asserted with a level of certainty that the evidence doesn't justify.

To be clear, I did not declare everyone who accuses Israel of genocide an antisemite. That was your mischaracterization of my comments.

---

That is a drastic backtrack and reformation of the plain facial meaning of your comments thus far in this thread.

---

I commented on a position you claimed was absurd. I did not say that was my position. Indeed, it wasn't, for those with basic reading comprehension and no agenda.

---

You have claimed antisemitism multiple times in this thread and others with respect to any poster or group critical of the modern country of Israel and its policy toward Gazans, et. Al.

It's a perfectly reasonable inference of your position and you know that.

---

Respectfully, that is utter bull *****

It's part of the problem when you enter a conversation late, lack context, and don't know the history of interactions between the parties involved in the discussion.

---

Keep deflecting that well and you could be in line to be the USA goal keeper for the next World Cup.

You have said what you said. Deal with it.

---

Please cite the specific post where I said that anyone critical of the modern country of Israel and its policy toward Gazans is anti-semitic.

I would think it wouldn't be too difficult for you, given that you allege I said it multiple times on this thread.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

Lame attempt. Your various statements are all across the thread. Keep the hips low so you don't trip while you backpedal.

---

Lame, and yet you can't cite a single post, despite alleging that this is what I said throughout the thread?

LOL. And when caught in a lie (or an overstatement, at a minimum), projection.

Of course.

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.

---

The next time you're correct about my politics will be the first.

Hilarious you equate any questions critical of Israel as "progressive" while claiming to be objective.

---

LOL. Sure bro. Anyone can look at your posting history and see for themselves.

---

lol, ok "bro".

---

About the retort I expected from a lefty.

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

Tried to find any credible reports of prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders , and I don't see much. It looks like Israel has detained some medical personnel that they have accused as being a part of Hamas, but most of this is unsupported by any verifiable evidence.

America of course did a similar thing in Iraq, as opposed to letting militants back out on the street.

Do you think the US is "kidnapping" thousands of illegal aliens when we arrest and deport them?

Words mean things. When they are used incorrectly the result is confusion.

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

Don't add lying to your hyperbole efforts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Do you think the US is "kidnapping" thousands of illegal aliens when we arrest and deport them?

Words mean things. When they are used incorrectly the result is confusion.

---

"Words mean things" has become the new rallying cry for people who deny the plain meaning of words (apartheid, genocide, etc.).

You should at least make up your mind about the legal status of Palestinians before comparing them to illegal aliens. But yes, if they're being held indefinitely without due process, that is kidnapping.

---

I wasn't comparing Palestinians to illegals, I was contrasting your misuse of the term "kidnapping." Cops arresting criminals is not kidnapping. ICE deporting illegals is perfectly legal, constitutional, & normal. Hence, "words mean things." By the same token, western antisemites abuse the terms "apartheid" and "genocide" to falsely accuse Israel of what their barbaric enemies do. It's classic fascist, Alinskyite, Marxist projection.

Funny that you should use those words incorrectly (or hint at it) when you claim that you're not an antisemite. I want to believe you but for that to happen blaming Israel for cannot be your default position. Sometimes it seems that way. It helps to use words correctly. Words mean things.

And don't try to tell me that one can be anti-Israel without being an antisemite. That's an obvious falsehood that defies logic and common sense. Words mean things.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

Don't add lying to your hyperbole efforts.

---

Are you sure it isn't true, or do you just not care?

https://www.google.com

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Do you think the US is "kidnapping" thousands of illegal aliens when we arrest and deport them?

Words mean things. When they are used incorrectly the result is confusion.

---

"Words mean things" has become the new rallying cry for people who deny the plain meaning of words (apartheid, genocide, etc.).

You should at least make up your mind about the legal status of Palestinians before comparing them to illegal aliens. But yes, if they're being held indefinitely without due process, that is kidnapping.

---

I wasn't comparing Palestinians to illegals, I was contrasting your misuse of the term "kidnapping." Cops arresting criminals is not kidnapping. ICE deporting illegals is perfectly legal, constitutional, & normal. Hence, "words mean things." By the same token, western antisemites abuse the terms "apartheid" and "genocide" to falsely accuse Israel of what their barbaric enemies do. It's classic fascist, Alinskyite, Marxist projection.

Funny that you should use those words incorrectly (or hint at it) when you claim that you're not an antisemite. I want to believe you but for that to happen blaming Israel for cannot be your default position. Sometimes it seems that way. It helps to use words correctly. Words mean things.

And don't try to tell me that one can be anti-Israel without being an antisemite. That's an obvious falsehood that defies logic and common sense. Words mean things.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

Don't add lying to your hyperbole efforts.

---

Are you sure it isn't true, or do you just not care?

https://www.google.com

---

Of course it's true. Because businessmen, doctors, teachers, and community leaders would never be part of Hamas or its network…

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

"Kidnapping victims" with legal counsel definitely says "evil".

The legal counsel:

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Also hilarious that a thread about a recently deceased UNITED STATES SENATOR has descended into a debate over the war acts of a foreign country.

Seems pretty indicative of where hai actual priorities were. It wasn't with the wellbeing of the people of South Carolina.

---

If you want to know where the thread went off the rails, start with the people who can't discuss an American politician for five minutes without turning the conversation into a referendum on Israel. It is they who derailed the thread. That fixation says more about them than it does about him.

---

I never said the thread is off the rails. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly fair given Lindsey Grahams record in the senate and numerous unequivocal public statements over the last few years. My initial reaction was quite literally "Israel must be mourning the loss of their best senator".

Whatever else he was, I don't think he had America's, and certainly not the people of South Carolina's, best interests at heart.

---

I get why a progressive such as yourself would hold that position.

---

The next time you're correct about my politics will be the first.

Hilarious you equate any questions critical of Israel as "progressive" while claiming to be objective.

---

LOL. Sure bro. Anyone can look at your posting history and see for themselves.

---

lol, ok "bro".

---

About the retort I expected from a lefty.

---

Yep, me over here with my classic "lefty" positions of believing taxes should be lowered across the board, the federal government shouldn't be able to snatch people off the streets with no warrant and based on suspicion alone, we shouldn't perpetrate (or fund) war crimes and adults should generally be allowed to do as they please to the extent no one is harmed.

You know nothing about me but still want to throw a pejorative (in your mind at least) label on me because I disagree with you about Israel and America's almost completely uncritical support thereof (which Lindsey Graham was a major facilitator of during his (too long) term in the senate).

The_barBEARian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's a fig leaf. Look at what you're defending and tell me they have effective access to counsel. It's a calculated method of removing prominent businessmen, doctors, teachers, and other community leaders in order to force compliance with land grabs. In other words, taking hostages by the tens of thousands.

---

"Kidnapping victims" with legal counsel definitely says "evil".

The legal counsel:

---

You love your AI.

Still waiting for you to define Boomer Ziocon. Cat seems to have gotten your tongue.