Yeah because the two I mentioned actually fit your description of terrorism whereas the peaceful protestors.highlighting the U.N. defined war crimes and human rights abuses being carried out in Gaza by the IDF do not bear ay comparison to your description of terrorism
You sick lying stoopid puppy
@mott-the-hooplesaid "The FBI defines terrorism, according to U.S. law, specifically 18 U.S.C., section 2331, which defines terrorism, both domestic and international, as any activity that is violent, or dangerous to human life, which violates federal or state law, and appears to be intended to: Intimidate or coerce a civilian population"
these campus >protestors< fit this definition
So the police beating peaceful protesters are terrorists then along with the Jan 6th rioters
@suziannesaid That's quite a long way to row a boat, innit?
For boats read Chinese made ribs with outboard motors
They tend to be English speaking migrants who don’t like the French and can’t speak French
They are halfway English already
@rajk999said What does Muslims in your area have to do with Islamic extremists killing, raping and kidnapping Jews?
It’s Muslims like the Muslims in my area that are being slaughtered in Gaza whilst extremist Christian scum like you jump up and down clapping on the sidelines you psycho
You say Islam is a religion of hate and violence that’s clearly a lie because the vast majority of Muslims are not hateful or violent
All religions and ethnicities have extremist haters, more so if they are constantly being slaughtered by other religions in their thousands for decades
@mott-the-hooplesaid "But trump still broke campaign finance law."
No, he didnt. The fed election comm said he didnt.
this is just lib democrats abusing the justice system...and when it is over, you will still be a whining liberals pos
They never said that at all, they just didn’t bother prosecuting it, Trump has spent four years lying about the 2020 election because he’s too much of bed wetter to take a rejection and a loss.
He’s literally raging at the electorate and he means to get even with them like a nasty stalky ex boyfriend.
He’s convinced laws aren’t meant for men like him so maybe the law is chucking everything it can at him to prove him wrong.
@mott-the-hooplesaid none of our principle involves fuking a child, you perverted sob
Is that what the video shows or are you referring to all them conservative types who are constantly doing that.
Let’s be honest it’s not the liberals who have a penchant for unripened fruit!
Is he also funding the van that’s driving around NY doxxing faculty and students who simply support a sovereign Palestine.
Your making an eternal and perfectly valid stance effectively illegal and you want us to worry about who pad for some tents, even if, by some miracle your link isn’t utter BS
@cliff-mashburnsaid Take them to this show?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYa9rpZTxmU
Parents rights yes, parents rights no!
Freedom of speech yes, freedom of speech no!
The rule of law yes, The rule of law no!
Do you humps ever have any actual permanent principles
@sh76said ===Are you saying European Jews did not colonise Palestine?===
Nobody colonized "Palestine." "Palestine" was never a sovereign entity. It was governed by the Turks, and later the British, who either allowed or did not stop European Jews from moving in. There were always significant (discriminated against) Jewish settlements in the area as well, of course. The last sovereign ...[text shortened]... Gaza something that approaches the ankles of what we did to Hamburg or Dresden during World War II.
lol so because Palestine and the people that lived were the eternal victim of imperil geopolitics and strategic map making they didn’t exist when they weren’t ethnically cleansed and displaced byUS supported and armed European jewss
Uh ok.
@averagejoe1said We could ask you the same questions. See below. But for me, I do not want answers anymore. My stuff from now will contain the answers in my posts. Very civilized. No posters or screaming.
@shavixmirsaid That would be one country within the Schengen arrangement will have rejected them.
And that, I presume, will be on an individual basis.
Sending them to Rwanda???
It’s funny not funny that the government claims it is perfectly fine to find yourself in Rwanda as an asylum seeker whilst the stated purpose of sending them their at great expense per head is to act as a deterrent to the boats.
Seeing boatload after boatload of mainly young men tromping up the beach is disconcerting but so I seeing the plight of where these people are coming from such as Sudan, Afghanistan and the Middle East
30 Apr '24 14:27
Back to Top