Derec
Contributor
Do you see it now, or are you still feigning blindness?I responded to post #7 which contained nothing about Tlaib backtracking, so what anyone could see was limited.
Do you see it now, or are you still feigning blindness?I responded to post #7 which contained nothing about Tlaib backtracking, so what anyone could see was limited.
Nope. They are complete wastes of oxygen, just like that corporal of theirs and that fourth one whom nobody can remember.If the National Review has them in their sights, Tlaib and Omar must be doing something right.
Except nobody has made that argument ever. Have you even read the article? The organization that was sponsoring them is supporting suicide terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians.It's reassuring that we are going back to the tired old argument that any criticism of Israel instantly means anti-semitism.
National Review said:The group celebrates terrorists, including an evil woman who helped murder 13 Israeli children. In an article titled “Let Us Honor Our Own,” a Miftah contributor describes Dalal Al Mughrabi as “a Palestinian fighter who was killed during a military operation against Israel in 1978” and as one of the Palestinian people’s “national heroes.”
The so-called “military operation” is more widely known as the “Coastal Road Massacre,” a bus hijacking that resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
Al Mughrabi is hardly the only terrorist Miftah celebrates. It described female suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as the “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” It singles out for recognition Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who blew herself up in a restaurant, killing 21 people (including four children).
Do you see it now, or are you still feigning blindness?I responded to post #7 which contained nothing about Tlaib backtracking, so what anyone could see was limited.
That is not what happened. She asked, Israel said yes, then they said no, then they said yes and she said no.It takes a mentally sick individual to say, "I'm gonna tell Israel my grandma is sick and show you how they wont allow me to go there!" Then Israel says "OK, you can go" and she says "No no no I'm not going!"
Ms. Tlaib was no worse than the gov't of Israel and Mr. Trump in that regard. Yet for some reason, some people only focus on the woman of color's behavior.I
Derangement and sickness is what it is.
That is not what happened. She asked, Israel said yes, then they said no, then they said yes and she said no.It takes a mentally sick individual to say, "I'm gonna tell Israel my grandma is sick and show you how they wont allow me to go there!" Then Israel says "OK, you can go" and she says "No no no I'm not going!"
It takes a mentally sick individual to say, "I'm gonna tell Israel my grandma is sick and show you how they wont allow me to go there!" Then Israel says "OK, you can go" and she says "No no no I'm not going!"
i have to think, ifDerangement and sickness is what it is
It takes a mentally sick individual to say, "I'm gonna tell Israel my grandma is sick and show you how they wont allow me to go there!" Then Israel says "OK, you can go" and she says "No no no I'm not going!"
It looks more like Israel is trying to please both sides.
Tell Trump they won't let his political rivals into the country, but show the rest of the world that they will be humanitarians in some cases.
I can see not wanting to cooperate with this two-faced approach. Either she should be allowed to travel as someone who has nit broken any laws in Israel or the US, or Israel should be held accountable for playing Trump's petty shenanigans.
i have to think, ifDerangement and sickness is what it is
1) Hillary was president
2) she pulled strings so Trump could not travel to, say, Scotland
3) Scotland announced tgat Trump could come but
A) could only go to his golf course
B) could not make any business deals on this visit
4) Trump refused to go
....then you would be lauding him for taking a moral stance against the wicked witch's childish one-up-statesmanship
The gov't of Israel did ignore Trump's wishes when they were privately expressed which shows its initial instincts were right on. They knew they were being trolled by Omar and Tlaib, but they knew that openess was the proper move from a PR point of view. When the gov't of Israel cravenly acceded to the political wish of Mr. Trump, they lost the high ground. And while their subsequent reversal did help the optics of attempting to regain it, it also highlighted their cravenness.It looks more like Israel is trying to please both sides.
Tell Trump they won't let his political rivals into the country, but show the rest of the world that they will be humanitarians in some cases.
I can see not wanting to cooperate with this two-faced approach. Either she should be allowed to travel as someone who has nit broken any laws in Israel or the US, or Israel should be held accountable for playing Trump's petty shenanigans.
i have to think, if
1) Hillary was president
2) she pulled strings so Trump could not travel to, say, Scotland
3) Scotland announced tgat Trump could come but
A) could only go to his golf course
B) could not make any business deals on this visit
4) Trump refused to go
....then you would be lauding him for taking a moral stance against the wicked witch's childish one-up-statesmanship
Sorry for derail, but it also goes to show how awful an ally that Trump is. Trump put Israel in a difficult position. It's no-win for them. I'm not defending Israel but more stating that Trump is by far the worst president that we've ever had.
...while their subsequent reversal did help the optics of attempting to regain it, it also highlighted their cravenness.
...while their subsequent reversal did help the optics of attempting to regain it, it also highlighted their cravenness.
It certainly opened themselves up to a nice poke in the eye from Tlaib, and then a little kick in the shins from her grandma.
...while their subsequent reversal did help the optics of attempting to regain it, it also highlighted their cravenness.
It certainly opened themselves up to a nice poke in the eye from Tlaib, and then a little kick in the shins from her grandma.
And maybe a stabbing by her cousins?
What makes you think those are Ms. Tlaib's cousins?...while their subsequent reversal did help the optics of attempting to regain it, it also highlighted their cravenness.
It certainly opened themselves up to a nice poke in the eye from Tlaib, and then a little kick in the shins from her grandma.
And maybe a stabbing by her cousins?
What makes you think Tlaib's settee literally kicked somebody's shin?What makes you think those are Ms. Tlaib's cousins?
I have no idea what you are babbling about. I never said anyone kicked anyone's shinWhat makes you think Tlaib's settee literally kicked somebody's shin?What makes you think those are Ms. Tlaib's cousins?
In other words, your response was either a poor attempt at humor or just another example of smear via bigoted association.They may or may not be her literal cousins, I have no idea. I have not even seen the names of the attackers released, although they did say they were minors.
I didn't say you did. Elixir did, in the post I was replying to when I made the "cousins" comment.I have no idea what you are babbling about. I never said anyone kicked anyone's shin
The cousins reference was somewhat tongue in cheek (and certainly no worse than Elixir's shin comment) but there is nothing "bigoted" about that. You just love throwing that word about.In other words, your response was either a poor attempt at humor or just another example of smear via bigoted association.
Times of Israel said:Palestinian Authority police have banned a Palestinian LGBT rights group from organizing any activities in the West Bank and threatened to arrest them, saying such activities are contrary to the “values of Palestinian society.”
Thank you for the clarification, because when you reply to a poster with "What makes you think Tlaib's settee literally kicked somebody's shin?", it is reasonable to infer you are asking that poster the question.I didn't say you did. Elixir did, in the post I was replying to when I made the "cousins" comment.
Riiight, that tongue in cheek comment implicitly assumes that arabic people are cousins - something that is not bigoted or racist at all.The cousins reference was somewhat tongue in cheek (and certainly no worse than Elixir's shin comment) but there is nothing "bigoted" about that. You just love throwing that word about.
Elixir made that statement in a response to you and thus it is reasonable to assume that you knew what I was referring to even if you did not write it.Thank you for the clarification, because when you reply to a poster with "What makes you think Tlaib's settee literally kicked somebody's shin?", it is reasonable to infer you are asking that poster the question.
Why is it bigoted or racist? People from the same region and belonging to the same ethnic group are more closely related to each other than to outsiders.Riiight, that tongue in cheek comment implicitly assumes that arabic people are cousins - something that is not bigoted or racist at all.
Sorry, anyone even remotely familiar with English would understand how silly your justification is.Elixir made that statement in a response to you and thus it is reasonable to assume that you knew what I was referring to even if you did not write it.
Ms. Tlaib was born in Michigan, not the Middle East. In a region with millions of people, why would anyone assume that any two random people were cousins of Ms. Tlaib?Why is it bigoted or racist? People from the same region and belonging to the same ethnic group are more closely related to each other than to outsiders.
I didn't say you did. Elixir did, in the post I was replying to when I made the "cousins" comment.