And then after that, maybe he'll be a full-bore Nazi who drops the dome of the rock on himself or something. Each iteration gets a little more hysterical, a little more wild-eyed.

Here we see how his Palestinian friends dehumanize other Israelis besides Seidemann.

Arguing with someone who's completely off the deep end on every topic is a fruitless exercise.

I'm just predicting what the next iteration of this story will look like from you.

They seem plainly-stated enough, and your attempt at "interpretation" isn't well-grounded.

But then you strike me as the sort of person who thinks halal soup is an islamofascist plot to suborn the west into dhimmitude through the Campbell's corporation. So your arguments not being well-grounded is par for the course, I suppose.

At any rate, I eagerly await the story of this guy throwing himself at Arab rocks (and maybe a dissertation on the ethnicity of stone?) with your next OP.

I'm sure you've at least heard of it. it's basically creationism in disguise, and its proponents spend most of hteir time trying to "disprove" evolutionary theory (or "Darwinism" as they call it.)

One of the things that the proponents of Intelligent Design, such as Ken Ham (the Noah themepark guy) and Roy Comfort ("God designed bananas for the human hand!&quot regularly do is demand debate from actual scientists. If you're curious, one such scientist, P.Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota, has a blog where he covers these demands for debate on occasion.

of course, since these ID people are just full of shit, have no supporting material for their "theories," and spend all their efforts on performing "gotcha!" arguments rather than actually making the case, giving them the debate they demand is a fruitless endeavor that yields no results and elucidates no one.

The scientist side of the "debate" really can't respond in any useful way to the mountain of bullshit thrown out since it's, well, bullshit - and usually delivered in a rapid-fire stream (this is the origin of the term "gish gallop," after ID'er Duane Gish.) How does one have an intelligent debate with someone who asserts that man and dinosaurs lived together four thousand years ago until an invisible unknowable entity created an untraceable flood that killed all the dinosaurs?

Either way - debate or no - the IDiot claims victory, either because "the science establishment is afraid to confront me!" or "mr. Professor-pants couldn't refute my points!" - even if the IDiot is crashed, the debate itself gives tacit legitimacy to their deranged nonsense by putting it in a respectable forum.

So most scientists just ignore demands for debate from creationists, and are content to let the little putzes yell at each other about how "scared" the scientific community must be.

Relevance to this discussion?

You're the Kent Hovind or the John D. Morris to my Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould.

"Dehumanizing" is apparently one of these (along with "denial" and "disingenuous," is there some hangup about the letter D?) You're trying to cram this paragraph into a word that you plainly don't understand the meaning of (similar to how Ben-Dror Yemini's recent article struggles with the term "blood libel.&quot

He's saying, in plain terms, that so long as the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues, rocks will continue being chucked at Israelis by Palestinians.

That you struggle with this is a little baffling. It's simple enough.

Yr talking to someone who linked to an article from some random kid who isn't even Israeli titled 'Israeli leftist enjoys being hit by Arab rocks'. With a bullshit and utterly dishonest title like that, one would think the person who posted it would point out that it's dishonest to say he enjoyed being attacked....

That one or that of a random 16 yr old English newbie blogger who hates leftists

My guess would be yes to the being thrown under the bus. I wish I could say I'm surprised that someone from England and here at DU, an American, react so virulently to an Israeli who dares to not use the attack on them to try to foster more hate and intolerance...

And 'Arab rock'? WTF??? The last time I saw that term used it was at the very anti-Arab Arutz Sheva....

Only LWers...

"Everything is stupid! I'm smart! Everyone else is stupid!"

We let these creatures get behind the wheel of two-ton chunks of steel capable of traveling at eighty miles an hour

Goddam it, but I hate that song!

At least you seem to have SOME taste

Of course I voiced my opinion in the thread you were locked out of. Even being locked out of it, you should still be able to read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113452239

How utterly bizarre!

You asked me for my interpretation of what the victim of that attack said. Even though he'd made himself clear and you and the newbie blogger twit decided to twist it into something ugly, I provided you with a link to the original thread on it that you were locked out of so you could read the discussion in there that I was involved in.

And yr response to that? 'DENIAL!!!!!!'

Given that you've made multiple untrue accusations about me in this forum based on some fucked up 'interpretation' of what I say, even after being corrected, I'm absolutely sure you have no ability or wish to take what someone clearly says in the context of what they've said.

You've taken what he said and twisted it into something ugly, and I suspect the rage has a lot to do with the fact that he chose not to use the attack on him to foster hatred and intolerance, and also that Palestinians dared to go round schools in the area and talk to the kids about throwing rocks, because the latter clashes with yr strongly held and long voiced opinions that Palestinians don't speak up in opposition to violence against Israelis...

As to what he actually wrote, and not yr nasty interpretation of it, I've already provided you with the link more than once...

You accused posters here of being 'Israel-haters'. You've been asked more than once now to put yr money where yr mouth is and say who's an 'Israel-hater'. Yr ignoring that, which is no surprise as it's yet another nasty smear with no basis in truth...

You're just playing games now.

An Israel hater is someone who pretends to be sympathetic to Palestinians in general, but who only cares about Palestinians when Israel or the Jews can be blamed.

Remember? The thread you were locked out of where people like me were there discussing the article he wrote?

I don't play games, which is what you blindly accuse anyone who dares to disagree with you of. I'm saying here very clearly that having had experience of the way you distort and twist things I've said to try to accuse me of being things I'm not has me very understandably discarding anything you have to say about what anyone else has said. It's the whole credibility thing...

...and since it seems you never will, we're done.

Are you sure we're done? Because I'm a bit concerned that you'll appear in another thread yet to be posted repeating the same nonsense as you have here.

Also, that was one incredibly ugly title that came with the OP you just posted. A victim of a crime enjoyed it? That's fucking sick shit...

Shira just thought it was an awesome article and was in such a rush to share with us, that she even forgot the meanings of several words.

maybe you need to repeat your early grade school geography lessons.
Everyone knows its a river in Egypt.

Anyway
hello
Its been a while.

Which is why I asked what exactly I was supposed to be in denial of....

Long time, no see, Mr Dastardly! Nice to see you again

It's not some hyphenated word intended to be flung at anyone you disagree with. It's actually got a definition and you should really go read the definitions of terms before you fire them off at other DUers....

I must have missed that. when your eyes are rolling like mine were, reading can become challenging

Ultranationalism, nativism, anticommunism, anti-immigration...

Is it opposites day?

Don't blame you for the eye-rolling. Mine sometimes glaze over and I sometimes miss a few bits in the endless torrents of attacks...

This is the kind of Palestine you guys support, isn't it?

I have yet to find any Israel-haters who have come out against it or Sari Nusseibeh's official statement condoning it.

You didn't include the "admit it" that you usually do when you know you're telling a lie, so maybe this time you're just honestly wrong.

It will involve the misuse of the words 'denial' and 'neo-fascist' while shrieking that the condemnation isn't good enough because at some point he may have used the word 'could' instead of 'should'. Or because he's a Palestinian, they can't be trusted to be honest and say what they mean. Or a multitude of other excuses that I've seen trotted out in this forum

...or Nusseibeh for his official statement on that rally. I can't find anything here or anywhere else on the web.

And what is there to condemn, exactly? A couple of jackasses stomped on flags and made Nazi salutes? Spending my time condemning them seems about as productive as condemning Kanye West for his weird confederate fetishization.

Except that Kanye - Oh god this hurts to say - likely has a bigger impact on the overall culture. In both places.

I mean, to point her to an 'Israel-hater' who blah blah whatever blah, one would need to know who here are 'Israel-haters'. Because all I see amongst the regulars is people who are critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, and that's no more being an 'Israel-hater' than criticising the foreign policy of the US makes one an 'America-hater'

Nusseibeh is widely recognized as one of the most moderate Palestinian voices (against BDS actually) but he couldn't find it within himself to officially condemn the rally.

As I just showed you.

And - again - that pack of dorks is hardly worth the attention you demand they be given. Are you the press agent for these guys or something?

You're confusing an official statement with what he stated in an interview.

but gee don't let that get in your way

You repeatedly refer to 'Israel-haters' amongst us, so put yr money where yr mouth is and point them out.

.....but only when Israel or Jews can be blamed?

You demanded we show you posts from them, but seeing yr the only one who's seeing these supposed 'Israel-haters', I don't think it's unreasonable at all to ask you who they are so we can fulfil yr demand...

The lesson from this is if someone throws wild and untrue accusations about other DUers around, demands that others point out posts by these supposed 'Israel-haters', then flat out refuses to point out any of the 'Israel-haters' that they're referring to, it's probably best not to resort to wild and untrue name-calling if one's concerned in the slightest about their credibility...

You really need to come to terms with the fact that people who dare criticise Israel for its treatment of Palestinians aren't 'Israel-haters'...

Where she accused me of lying about her ethical stances. Sadly, I had links to back it up. She just claimed I was lying again and asserted that I believe all Jews are evil Nazi motherfuckers. Without any backing on that claim, either.



Usually by now one of her friends comes by and tries to make a coherent argument to fish her out with... Wonder what's up?

Is there a name for your personal, private reality?

That was a lie, wasn't it?

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

My Dear Students of Al Quds University,
-

The university is often subjected to vilification campaigns by Jewish extremists with the
purpose of discrediting its reputation as a prestigious academic institution with a unique,
humane calling:
to strive to instill noble values in its students; to spread the spirit of
democracy and openness toward other world cultures; and to present the genuine face of
the Palestinian people, calling for peace against the extremism and violence to which we
ours
elves are subjected as a people denied our rights under occupation.
These extreme elements spare no effort to exploit some rare but nonetheless damaging
events or scenes which occur on the campus of Al Quds University, such as fist
-
fighting
between students
, or some students making a mock military display. These occurrences
allow some people to capitalize on events in ways that misrepresent the university as
promoting inhumane, anti
-
Semitic, fascist, and Nazi ideologies. Without these
ideologies, there
would not have been the massacre of the Jewish people in Europe;
without the massacre, there would not have been the enduring Palestinian catastrophe.
As occurred recently, these opportunists are quick to describe the Palestinians as a people
undeservin
g of freedom and independence, and as a people who must be kept under
coercive control and occupation. They cite these events as evidence justifying their
efforts to muster broad Jewish and western opinion to support their position. This public
opinion,
in turn, sustains the occupation, the extension of settlements and the confiscation
of land, and prevents Palestinians from achieving our freedom

http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2013/November/pdfs/al-quds-statement-11-18-13.pdf


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=51718

and the thread that this one is based on, maybe the man there can not be moved to hate but it seems some can be quite easily
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113452239

reading the statement by Daniel Seidemann on being hit by a rock as he waited in traffic.

Once you have read both I hope that you realize that nowhere did Daniel Seidemann say he enjoyed any of the incident. What he did do was show courage of conviction by his words.

The author of the OP has posted something beneath contempt, IMHO, and when pressed for an answer below regarding who she believes are Israel haters she conveniently disappears. This is not a call out. This is simply is a factual assessment.

Please read the thread.

You will know them by their works.


On edit: I would love for Shira to come back and show some common sense by explaining herself and why she disappeared so conveniently when an answer was expected.

Team seems a strong word.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 10:57 AM - Edit history (2)

That's nothing to be proud of. Your fellow advocates here won't even try refuting that as they're in denial, deflecting towards the title of the OP and the age of the writer rather than discussing the content of the article.

And what question, pray tell, did I not answer?

=========

You've left many questions unanswered, so I'm not sure why you expect others to answer while you continue to evade between your hit-and-runs here. The following are the latest questions you've been dodging:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post384

It educates DUers as to your motives.

When one sees truth as hit and runs they really need some time off.

Hi there,
I just read this post and I'm quite shocked that I'm being compared with people who are comparing me with Islamophobes and Right-Wing extremists. I seriously did something wrong if I made somebody perceive me in this way. This one article was meant to prove the point that it is absurd, the way that Seidemann defends his own left-wing viewpoint by essentially justifying violence against Jews. Does the fact that I do not identify with the extreme Israeli left mean that I'm automatically right-wing? I admire Seidemann's trying to improve Israel as a country and his efforts for peace, and would never want him to use violence against himself as an opportunity to foster more "hatred and violence"- rather, I wish he didn't use it as a platform to justify the Arab 'it's okay to throw rocks, we're occupied' narrative. Especially after a 2 year old Israeli girl had her skull smashed by a rock, and this March a 3 year old was put in a coma for 2 months when it happened. It's not okay to throw rocks wwith the intent of hurting people, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.

I openly admit that the title was badly chosen but I refuse to be qualified as a 'right-wing nut' or a 'tea-partyist' which are absurd conclusions to make. Moreover, the patronising comments on here still don't refute the original argument that I made which is the language that Danny Seidemann used in his article is to a large extent self-deprecating if not self-dehumanising.

Somebody also criticised me for saying 'Arab Rock'. People also say "Israeli tank", "American Tomahawk", "Russian rifle". We can get into semantics but the point still stands that I didn't say the rock was an Arab. So what's your point? I used an adjective to describe posession, is the world really so upside down?

You make up your own facts and figures. You create your own reality and unfortunately, it's a dystopian end times novel that you live in.
We can help you through this if at any time you are ready to face some hard truths.

And you denied that fact.

Get over yourself.

I can't tell a Palestinian by looking at them, my husbands black and he's lighter than all the people on the video and I'm about the same color as them, so how can I tell what race they are? I couldn't understand the language on the video. I don't trust you to give me a play by play. You don't tell the truth. I denied that they were terrorists. I said kids throwing rocks are still kids. Not terrorists. You are determined to call most Palestinian youths terrorists. You loved calling them terrorists and hordes and minions. Grow up a little will you Shira? It would help the discussions.
You're the one running around here (figuratively) bullying everybody who disagrees with you. You are harming the cause of Zionism you profess to support. And I thank you for it.

This video doesn't have enough information for me to make a determination of what was going on at the time. It has a narrator with a particular point of view and needs independent analysis of the full video and interviews with all parties involved to determine what was the cause of the incident.
This video has been edited to favor the narrators point of view. Edited videos are not good evidence as some vital information may have been cut out.

Let me know when you need another reality check. Not that you'll understand what's happening.

I'm glad you noticed, I was worried about you for a while there.

Check out some of the other posts on this board and you might have a better sense of what you are dealing with.

Are you really saying that the Palestinian people would have to be bigots to be incensed by the way they've been treated by the Occupation? That it couldn't simply be the natural feelings of ANY occupied/colonized people towards the country that holds power over them?

It's wearing thin...you can't put EVERYTHING down to antisemitism, shira.

but defend the killing, maiming ,incarceration, brutalizing, you name it of Palestinian children when Israel does it

somehow I'm just not very convinced and BTW doesn't PalWatch a rightwing group that demonizes Palestinians for a living use MEMRI run by 'ex' Mossad and Shin-Bet agents as their translators MEMRI has been caught on a number of occasions translating Israeli as Jew and statements such as "I / we will be killed" as "I / we will kill

BTW your youtube channel megahat lady is a BIG fan of a white supremest antiBlack antiArab youtube group called Waffen Reich she has prominently on her page

...out of sheer, racist & malicious intent? It seems you do, otherwise why would you compare what Israel does to the PA and Hamas, organizations that genuinely hate the Jews and deliberately target Jewish innocents?

IDF fired in the air and the shot mysteriously landed in the back of a nearby 14 year old

back in late '80's and early 90's the Minneapolis police had a few similar mystery's they would shoot in the air and the bullet would land in the back of the skull of a Black teenager really puzzling how that happens

....and deliberately violent towards minorities?

They're just as bad as Hamas and PA leadership that dehumanizes Jews as apes and pigs, encouraging violence against them, and glorifying would-be killers?

Just to be clear...

Then again, I know you won't answer.

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 02:05 AM - Edit history (2)

America was founded by assholes. Slavery was written into the constitution. Lynching blacks was a way of life until recent history. The Ku Klux Klan had members who were also judges, police officers, representatives and many other positions of authority. We committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. Put Asians in internment camps and stole their shit. Blacks weren't considered human until the twentieth century. That's worse than Hamas. Never glorify America unless you want to be laughed at.
Now Israel. I've already informed you that the government policies are racially motivated and minorities don't have as many rights as the majority. They have been stolen from, killed and are being held in violent occupation. If they were Israeli Jews their homes would not be demolished, their kids would not be shot in the back by IDF and they wouldn't be drinking shitty water. Racism pure and simple. Not to mention the rallies in the streets where nice Jewish families scream " Go home nig***' in English to African migrants. Amazing that they say it in English, but I guess it's easier to say ni*** to a ni*** so that they understand that it's their black ass they want to go home. Video of that go home ni*** rally was posted here. I mentioned it to you before but you just blamed religious fanatics.
Both countries are currently racist against minorities still. I have provided proof that you can verify by just googling.

yeah, we all know that racism exists in both Israel AND America. That's no exactly a current event. I'd be impressed though if you could find someplace that is LESS racist than both those two countries. That's what I'd love to see some proof of.

Yeah, our constitution included slavery. It's the oldest living constitution on the planet, cut it some slack. If I was 200+ I'd probably be a little racist too. The fact is that founders like Jefferson and Franklin were the downright strongest and most successful advocates for human rights around. People are destined to live in the world that they're born into. Judging people in the 18th century who succeeded in staging a violent revolution and then building fucking democracy from the ashes because they had slaves? Or because they compromised and wrote concessions like 3/5 of a person into the document in order to keep the whole thing from falling apart? Fuck that... those are hard fucking decisions and they ACTUALLY made the correct calls.

India had fucking Gandhi and the whole continent slaughtered a million people the instant they got independence. Really consider that. Gandhi was willing to trade the butchering of A MILLION INNOCENT TERRIFIED FAMILIES for the independence of his nation. He opposed it sure. Lip service... he did what he could. Blah blah. He COULD have just let the British stay and then no one would have been killed.

Do you see what I'm saying? History did not offer these people clearly marked right or wrong choices. And even when it did, like, say the Nazis. I think deciding to fight them was clearly the ethically correct move. I do. I'm glad I didn't have to fucking do it though, because they were fucking tough. They killed, like, tons of US servicemen before we even slowed them down. BTW, you know what Gandhi's advice to the Jews of Nazi Germany was, literally? He recc'd non-violent resistance. Really. And why not, it was working for him, right? In retrospect though it makes him sound like a real dick.

Basically, if it's that easy to make Gandhi look like such a monster then we can do that to anyone, no matter how awesome their accomplishments. Racism still exists, but that doesn't mean it's the cause of anything. It usually just means they're the ones who get blamed for it.

And seriously, I challenge you to find somewhere on the planet that's actually less racist than the US. Find a place where a minority population actually lives; that is my only requirement.

I will state facts and if you can dispute them you are welcome to try. I get irritated at the whitewashing of America and the nostalgia people feel about the Olden Days. In the olden days I would have been murdered in my teepee or beaten and raped on a plantation.
I don't have to cut some slack to a document that forced my ancestors to be owned by some racist asshole,raped, and have their children stolen from them and sold off. That constitution is the reason that I can't trace my family tree past a particular plantation in Alabama. I have an old photograph tajes just after the civil war of my great great great grandmother sitting on the porch of her shack in the slave quarters. She died right there in that shack, a few hundred yards from her massa's house.
You want me to be thankful to Thomas Jefferson for that? His he slept with his wife's slave half sister, had children with her, promised to free her and their children. When he died he made no provision to free his own fucking woman, the mother of his children from slavery. Great morals. His children, the fruit of his own loins, sold like cattle because the were too dark to be considered human. That's what he did to disgust me, along with the 3/5 clause. It shouldn't be a hard decision to decide to free your own goddamn children. Human rights advocate my ass. He paid lip service to it but he did not perform his due diligence.

Wasn't talking about India.

Yes I see what you are saying and you are wrong.

I am not interested in finding another place to go. I want this place to own up to its history and do better in the future. If we are constantly making excuses for bad behavior or racism, or murder, or ethnic cleansing, or genocide, or war, we aren't any better than those that came before us.


I challenge you to face the reality of the world we live in today and face the facts of history.
Think about that, before you and your team start challenging others about history and factual evidence.

To begin, you aren't stating facts that contradict my argument, you're just voicing disagreement. I'm certainly not wrong though because this discussion is just our opinions. There is no objective right or wrong.

I'm not sure why you think I'm nostalgic for olden days or seek to whitewash slavery. It's possible to admire people for their accomplishments while simultaneously critiquing then for their flaws. You have decided that Thomas Jefferson, who actually opposed slavery his entire life, and was the person to finally outlaw the slave trade, can't measure up to your reasonable ethical standards. Which he can't, of course. But we've had the benefit of 200 years' advancement. The rights we both enjoy today is based on the work of generations of people who were each able to affect a finite amount of change. Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner who bought and sold people that he earnestly believed were inferior to him. But what you describe as a moral failing I see as a lack of understanding. Human Rights is based on changing the way people think about others. We can't fault someone from 200 years ago for lacking an enlightened viewpoint that we were lucky enough to have handed to us. TJ was undeniably racist. He also laid the groundwork for a solid, workable democracy, and made breakthroughs in Human Rights that are deserving of respect.

No. You shouldn't respect him for owning slaves, even as he denounced the practice. You should criticize it. But everyone agrees, hypocrisy is bad. Slavery is bad. Nor should you love the constitution for guaranteeing 20 years of uninterrupted slave trading. But you really should love it for granting you equal rights under the law, the vote for everyone regardless of race or gender, and the right to denounce a founding father for being racist.

What you describe as "justifying genocide and ethnic cleansing" Seems to be anything that might offer context for acts you've already designated as immoral. But morality is fluid, it evolves. Will someone from 200 years in the future consider our society ethical as his own. Doubtful. But how can we meet an ethical standard based on beliefs we have not learned yet?

There is a constant argument between factions over what ideology we should embrace. There is no such thing as universal ethics. We decide what's ethical according to our beliefs. Denouncing something like slavery in 2013 is a little pointless though. Everyone already agreed on that one. It's easy because someone else already figured it out before we were born.

In 2001 I spent a month in Myanmar. It's not a super popular destination. Every single other American I met there was a missionary. Preaching the gospel to the heathens. Since the state is super cut off from the rest of the world they practice a variety of weird, very cool combinations of Buddhism and animism. It's unique. Now, the Christians I met there were genuinely some of the nicest folks I've ever met. They were donating their time out of legit concern for the eternal souls of the Burmese. (And if they're right about Jesus and hell then they're doing them a great service I'll admit.) Of course for them to save the souls of Burma means this cool religion that I don't understand at all will vanish forever. Cultural homogenization across the globe would be ideal for those sweet, selfless, (clueless IMO), Americans.

So what do you think? Are they acting ethically?

Thomas Jefferson did not outlaw slavery. Period. He participated actively in the slave trade, even passing ownership of his own black children to his white heirs. He took his mistress, who was a Slave to Europe where she then refused to leave because she was free. Upon his promise to free her and her children when they returned to America, she agreed to return. He did not live up to his end of the contract. That show a lack of integrity.

As an athiest I do not care about religious beliefs of others as I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't card if the Christian missionary's go around and try to convert people interested in the supernatural. As for providing relief services, that's a good thing. Humanitarian aid to those in need is what we all need to strive toward. As long as they are not forcing belief in exchanged for relief I'm all for it. If should be given freely from those who have much to those who have little.

Yes I can judge people in history based on my standards. Those beliefs and practices did far more damage as far as human life is concerned, than good. Millions of blacks died in the middle passage and millions more died from lack of food, care, exposure, disease, exhaustion, beatings, hangings, lynchings, and other forms of human rights abuses that were enshrined in our constitution by our founding fathers.
Trying to gloss over that by saying that they did more good that harm depends on your perspepctuve and level of privilege. And it's an outright lie to claim that Thomas Jefferson was the guy that ended slavery since it did not end for decades after his death.

Denouncing slavery and other crimes against humanity is never pointless.

My facts are all straight. It's your reading comprehension that sucks.

I said TJ outlawed the slave TRADE, aka the importing of slaves on ships from Africa. Which he did.

Regarding Sally Hemings... You know that no one really knows if he fathered her children, right? It's not a fact, it's a dispute no one knows the answer to. And slaves weren't just automatically free in Europe. She didn't petition her freedom because TJ promised to free her CHILDREN once they came of age. Which he DID.

There was a TV special where the back and white sides of the family met. He dud promise to free her too, which he did not.
I suppose I was generalizing Christians as missionary's who care for the unfortunates. That was opinion.

The testing confirmed he may have been. It's a whole deal. He probably is, but the topic is "hotly debated."

I never said I am the only one who knows what the world is like.
Murder is not a justifiable act, it's the unlawful killing of another human being by another. There may be mitigating circumstances, but it's still unlawful. Yes I do judge murderers, and I judge history. That's what we need to do to avoid repeating the same mistakes we made before, and being easy on ourselves does not lead to positive progressive change.

The uncomfortable reality you need to deal with is the occupation and the human rights abuses associated with it. I don't want to get to a point where I think some murders are acceptable, some genocide is okay, a little bit of slavery is okay if it benefits those in power, ethnic cleansing is cool if it helps out another oppressed population. Sorry.

End the occupation. That's a solution. How it happens is up for debate.