Prove to me how Islam is not the most violent religion

Re:

I probably said that acts of Jewish terrorism are grossly underreported in American MSM

Re:

Which headline?
The NY Times is blatantly pro Israel however to maintain any credibility, they occasionally publish something that is less-than-flattering of Netanyahu or publish something that is already widely reported.


Re:

Perhaps "encouraged" may be more accurate.
Kind of like when 3 mafia gorillas show up at your door one night and "encourage" you to pay your gambling debt.
You do have a choice but you'll have no political career if you don't sign a pledge of allegiance to Israel.

 

The one that I previously posted the link to: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/aipac-congress-democrats.html

Can you show an example of it being pro Israel?

How would that work exactly? What if the people continue to vote them into Congress?

 

Good grief - The list of killing and murder of innocent civilians by CIA actions is longer than long. Have you no knowledge of history ?

 

You mean collateral casualties via drone strikes?

 

That is just a small part - and one I did not have in mind to be honest.

Training and arming Death Squads and Death Squad dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala was responsible for the deaths of many innocents.
Arming and supporting Suharto in Indonesia while he was committing genocide - an action which wiped out 1/3 of the people of East Timor

Arming and supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamist Jihadists of the same ilk in Syria - an action which led to deaths of over 500,000, the refugee crisis - spreading the plague of extremist Islamist ideology further over the world, and the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

This is just a few examples.

 

Re:

I believe your original question was "What do you think of the NY Times headline"

I read the article & was unimpressed with its content. It attempts to paint AIPAC as just another lobby & neglects to mention that it like the numerous other right wing Israeli lobbies are de facto foreign agents and that all aid to Israel is illegal due to the Symington-Glenn Amendment.
I suspect that the NY Times would have remained mute on the subject except for the fact that every other news source was covering the issue extensively.


Re:

Yes, gladly:
“Journalists blast NY Times for pro-Israel bias and “grotesque” distortion of illegal occupation of Palestine”
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/26/journalists_blast_ny_times_for_grotesque_pro_israel_bias_and_distortion_of_illegal_occupation_of_palestine/

EXCERPT “The Times regularly fails to mention that the Palestinian territories have been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967. It often uses euphemistic language to describe Israel’s illegal activity, dubbing lands unlawfully seized by Israel in violation of international law “disputed” territory.

Rights activists have been so frustrated by the publication’s skewed reporting that, in February, activists from progressive Jewish human rights groups created a very convincing-looking fake edition of the Times to protest its coverage of Israel-Palestine.”CONTINUED


Re:

People are unlikely to vote for people about whom they know nothing and the only way to project your message is to have the money to advertise your views & explain how they are better than their opponent's views.
Additional money is needed to have offices, maintain a staff, travel, etc.
If any politician who supports an even handed Mid East Policy remains popular. An opponent with more money can afford private investigators to find dirt, run numerous negative advertising, pay "experts" to criticize your positions.
It may take a few terms but the politician with the most money has a vastly superior chance of winning.

 

What is your evidence that AIPAC "are de facto foreign agents?"

Are you saying that "every other news source" was saying that AIPAC "are de facto foreign agents?"

Any other examples other than not properly referring to the occupation?

And how would not signing a pledge of allegiance to Israel affect the money that a Congress person can get?

 

So not actually CIA members? How is arming and supporting the same as murder?

 

Above is the complete list of your preceding posts. You have replied with 10 consecutive question spread over several posts! That is not how debating is supposed to go. The idea of debating is to give counter arguments, not an interrogation. Just words of advice if you want to engage in constructive debates and not have posters ignoring you

 

Re:

It's rather self evident, don't you think? In many cases AIPAC etc members are "dual citizens" (Israeli - American) who are working for a foreign government in the US.
The NRA, on the other hand, is a domestic organization concerned with domestic issues.


Re:

No.


Re:

Yes. For example:

"Killing Mosquitoes: The Latest Gaza Massacres, Pro-Israel Media Bias and The Weapon of “Antisemitism”"
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/04/...el-media-bias-and-the-weapon-of-antisemitism/

EXCERPT" One hundred Israeli snipers lay in wait, shooting at protesters, including an 18-year-old shot in the back while running away from the border. The Israel armyboasted in a quickly-deleted tweet that the massacre had been planned, deliberate and premeditated:

BBC News and other ‘mainstream’ news outlets, including the Guardian, carried headlines about ‘clashes’ at the Gaza-Israel border ‘leaving’ Palestinians dead and injured. As we noted via Twitter, an honest headline would have read:

"Israeli troops kill 16 Palestinians and injure hundreds" CONTINUED


Re:

Signing a pledge of allegiance to Israel doesn't affect the amount of money you're legally allowed to get but not signing the pledge ensures that you will get much less money than an opponent who does sign the pledge.


I hope you will read & consider the observations made by "Truth and Justice" in Post # 834.

 

Since when does debate not involve intense scrutiny? You have proven pathetically incapable of standing up to my scrutiny in the past so I shouldn't waste my time engaging with you! I expect to continue to be ignored by you!

 

Over a month since I made my first post in this thread and nobody has tried to challenge me on it or acknowledge I proved Islam is not the most violent religion.

 

Who do the Christians need protection from?

 

Not sure if this question is intentionally idiotic or what your deal is. Folks got thrown into GITMO en mass for being "suspected" of having an "affiliation" with Al Qaeda. Arming such a group with sophisticated weapons is orders of magnitude greater - not only violating international law but US Law.

And Yes - giving someone a weapons when you know those weapons are going to be used to kill innocents is the same as murder - and treated so by the courts. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/05/viktor-bout-sentenced-25-years-prison

 

Are you under the impression that the US sold arms to Al Qaeda after they discovered that they are a terrorist group?

 

I see that you didn't have anything in response to my reply! I guess you discovered that debate DOES actually involve intense scrutiny!

 

So you are saying that they work for the government of Israel? How could you possibly know that?

What do other news sources do that the NY Times doesn't do in regards to AIPAC?

Sorry, what does this have to do with media coverage, namely the New York Times' coverage? The above excerpt is reporting kills by Israeli snipers. What the hell?

So the BBC and The Guardian didn't mention the numbers killed? How does that make them biased in favour of Israel? They didn't mention Israeli deaths either - do you think that they should have?

"Legally allowed to get?" Does the law guarantee a certain amount?

 

It is not a big secret. The rebel opposition was dominated and led by Islamist extremists right from the beginning of the war in 2012 and the Administration knew this.

From the Defense Intelligence Agency in early 2012 -

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

Same thing from the NY-Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

So even early on in the war it was well known that the Rebel Opposition was comprised of Islamist Jihadists who wanted to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia Theocracy. This in fact was the whole "Call to Jihad".

A small band of rebels is not able to fight a nation state on its own. The Islamist Jihadists were given tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military technology from numerous nation states. It was a proxy war and our side was the Jihadists.

Numerous in congress spoke out about this issue. Here is Rand Paul on CNN's Sunday morning program "State of the Union"

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

 

Are saying that the US government sold arms DIRECTLY to Al Qaeda?

 

It matters not whether it was directly or indirectly. Since you have yet to figure out that the person who providing sophisticated weapons to a group that he knows is intent on using those weapons to kill innocents - is also culpable in murder - this conversation is pointless.

Next you will be asking if I personally saw the CIA operative handing weapons to a known Al Qaeda Operative.

I am not up to dealing with mind bending irrationality. If you want to believe that Al Qaeda got tens of thousands of sophisticated and restricted US technology from "Santa" ... have at it.

 

So what "group" are you saying that the US sold directly to before it got into Al Qaeda's hands?

 

Who said it was not going directly into the hands of Al Qaeda ? Who said it was "Sold" ?

Here is one guy "Congressman Rand Paul" who says we were arming Al Qaeda and ISIS.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

Here is another - Senator Richard Black

Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians
Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists

https://www.globalresearch.ca/virgi...ad-for-saving-the-lives-of-christians/5384338


Here is 10 more "Bipartisan" US congressmen- and women who tabled the "Stop Arming Terrorist Act"

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists

As stated previously - It is not some big secret.

 

Sorry, "chris155au", I've been advised to stay on topic of the thread at hand & would have to go way off topic to answer your questions.
Do you have questions or comments related to to the topic of this particular thread?

 

Advised by who? Not by anyone in this thread, otherwise I would've seen it.

 

Nobody, but I thought that this is what you meant. So are you saying that it WAS going directly into the hands of Al Qaeda?

Do you know who he is referring to by "their allies?"

Do you know who he is saying that the US have been fighting against "alongside" Al Qaeda and ISIS?

Do you know what he means by being "WITH" ISIS in Syria? He is talking here in very vague terms.

Isn't this referring to the stupid Americans who become radicalised? You think that he means that the US government were tricked into supporting the jihadists?