Why are people who describe themselves as "Progressives" in favor of Hamas and Iran?

You know, I could fill my rebuttal with convoluted rhetoric, anemic comments, twisted narratives, cheap shots, etc., just like you are doing, but I won't. I'm going to stick close to the subject, with a modicum of diplomacy, a courtesy which you do not extend to me.

Now then....

Your argument contains several claims and assertions regarding the U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War, the nature of support to rebel groups, and the outcomes of such support. It intertwines elements of truth, speculative assertions, and controversial interpretations. Below, we'll address key points by separating factual content from speculation, identifying logical fallacies, and correcting misrepresentations where appropriate.

Your claim that the U.S. exclusively supported groups that coalesced into the Islamic State (IS) is a mischaracterization. The U.S. did support certain rebel factions through programs like Timber Sycamore, aimed at assisting groups opposing the Assad regime. However, the assertion that all these groups unified under IS is inaccurate. The Syrian opposition is highly fragmented, consisting of various factions with differing ideologies and objectives. While it's documented that some U.S.-supplied weapons ended up with extremist groups, including IS, due to the chaotic nature of the conflict, the intention was to support groups considered moderate by the U.S.

Describing Timber Sycamore as a publicity stunt dismisses the complexity of the covert operation, which had significant implications for the conflict's dynamics. The program's aim was to train and arm vetted Syrian opposition forces. While there's a debate about the effectiveness and the unintended consequences of the program, reducing it to a mere "publicity stunt" oversimplifies and misrepresents its scope and impact.

Your argument asserts that the U.S., intentionally or through negligence, supported the Islamic State. This is a contentious claim lacking substantial evidence. The U.S. has actively fought against IS, notably leading an international coalition to conduct airstrikes and support ground operations against IS in Syria and Iraq. The confusion may stem from the chaotic nature of the Syrian conflict, where alliances and battle lines frequently shifted, and where arms provided to certain groups were captured or sold to extremist factions, including IS. However, suggesting a direct, intentional support of IS by the U.S. conflates these issues and ignores the broader context of U.S. engagement against IS.

"Stop Arming Terrorists Act" and Claims of Supporting Al-Qaeda and ISIS: This act, introduced by some U.S. lawmakers, aimed to prevent U.S. government funds from being used to support groups considered terrorists, reflecting concerns over the indirect benefits some extremist groups might have received. However, portraying this as proof of intentional support for Al-Qaeda and ISIS oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexities of the Syrian conflict and U.S. foreign policy.

Your argument accuses of historical revisionism and omissions without acknowledging the multifaceted nature of international relations and the Syrian conflict. The Syrian Civil War is characterized by its complexity, involving multiple factions, shifting alliances, and external interventions. Any analysis or critique should consider these dynamics rather than attributing singular motives or outcomes to the involved parties.

Your argument employs emotionally charged language, speculative assertions, and guilt by association. Phrases like "Genocide Joe" and comparisons involving complex international conflicts are used to provoke emotional responses rather than foster a nuanced understanding of the issues. Additionally, asserting broad conclusions without providing evidence or acknowledging counterarguments falls into the realm of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalization and straw man arguments.

So, while your argument raises concerns about U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War and the unintended consequences of supporting certain rebel groups, it largely relies on speculative assertions, mischaracterizations, and logical fallacies. A nuanced analysis requires a careful consideration of the conflict's complexity, the intentions and outcomes of foreign intervention, and the distinction between direct support and unintended consequences of such interventions.

 

First thing I'd do, is make sure the information about the number and make-up of reported casualties is accurate.

All the data comes from Hamas, a terrorist organization. Why would anyone believe what terrorists say about their enemies, is a mystery to me.

Furthermore, why would anyone believe that soldiers would intentionally kill harmless women and children instead of the armed men attacking them? Would you ignore armed men attacking you? Hamas doesn't report the deaths of its members or members of other terrorist organizations. Do you seriously believe that the whole of the Israeli army ignores armed men firing at soldiers?

 

Most data is actually from the UN using independent observers. And the piles of dead women and children don’t lie.

The means in which they are engaging is what is causing the gross fatalities.

 

It doesn't prove it was Obama's intent to arm them, that's absurd. The issue is one of unintended consequences, which is always a reality when it comes to the chaotic middle east. Moree detail on this., below.

First off, Gabbard's legislation never made through the legislative process, so, let's get that out of the say

Now then:

The claim that the Obama administration was directly arming terrorists, as suggested by Representative Tulsi Gabbard and others, refers to a complex and contentious issue within U.S. foreign policy during the Syrian Civil War. To address this claim accurately, it's important to differentiate between direct support to designated terrorist organizations and the unintended consequences of U.S. actions in the region.

The Obama administration, through programs like Timber Sycamore, provided support to Syrian rebel groups fighting against the Assad regime. The goal was to support what the U.S. considered "moderate" opposition groups, with the aim of fostering a democratic and peaceful transition of power. This support included training, arms, and financial aid.

The Syrian opposition is not a monolithic entity but a complex web of factions with varying ideologies and goals. While the U.S. aimed to support moderate groups, the fluid dynamics of the conflict, including shifting alliances and the presence of extremist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate), complicated these efforts.

There have been documented instances where U.S.-supplied weapons and support intended for moderate groups ended up in the hands of extremist factions. This happened through a variety of means, such as capture, defection of moderate fighters to extremist groups, or the complex interplay of alliances on the ground. These unintended consequences have fueled criticisms and concerns regarding U.S. policy in Syria.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard has been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy in Syria, particularly the support of Syrian rebel groups. Her concerns, articulated in her promotion of the "Stop Arming Terrorists Act," are based on the premise that U.S. support, even if indirect, has bolstered extremist groups, including those classified as terrorist organizations. Gabbard's position highlights the moral and strategic complexities of providing military aid in conflict zones where the situation on the ground can rapidly change.

Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Support: There is a significant distinction between intentionally providing support to terrorist groups and the indirect bolstering of such groups through the unintended consequences of policy decisions. The evidence supports the latter as the primary issue with U.S. involvement in Syria; there is no substantial evidence that the Obama administration's policies were designed to directly arm terrorist organizations like ISIS or al-Nusra Front.

So, while the Obama administration did not intentionally arm terrorists, the chaotic and complex nature of the Syrian Civil War led to outcomes where U.S. support indirectly benefited extremist factions. This nuanced reality underpins the criticisms and concerns raised by figures like Tulsi Gabbard but does not substantiate claims of direct support to terrorists as a matter of U.S. policy. It's important to recognize the difficulty of making decisions with far-reaching implications in such unpredictable and rapidly changing environments.

Critics, with the benefit of hindsight, may not fully appreciate the complexities and pressures faced by policymakers. They were not in the situation room, privy to all the intelligence, nor grappling with the immediate and long-term strategic implications of their decisions. It's plausible that members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
House Permanent Select Committee, where Gabbard's legislation was reviewed, had access to more comprehensive information and perspectives, which probably is why her legislation never made it out of those committees, also noting that the Senate and the House were under Republican control at the time.

But, isn't monday morning quarterbacking on legislation, and pontificating about the evils of Obama, fun?

 

Nope.

Disclaimer: The UN has so far not been able to produce independent, comprehensive, and verified casualty figures; the current numbers have been provided by the Ministry of Health or the Government Media Office in Gaza and the Israeli authorities and await further verification. Other yet-to-be verified figures are also sourced.​

https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-169

But are there gross fatalities? Even the UN is not so sure anymore.

 

Have you been hanging out in that cornfield again?

 

He didn't say it was a liberal position. He used the term people, not all people. And it was posed as a question. Please explain the lie because I missed it.

 

No No Patricio -- you are parroting a "Moderate Rebel Lie" .. a piece of propaganda pablum .. of which there was no short supply .. tune into any mainstream media and be filled with State Sponsored BS. and you spend the first half of your post in personal invective and Ad Hom fallacy.

The Rebel Groups the US was supporting .. Prior to the formation of the Islamic state .. so from late 2011 when the insurrection began in earnest to 2013 - was 99 % radical Islamist groups similar to or affiliated with Al Qaeda .. the main spawn being a group by name Al Nusra .. but were may others some with close affiliations .. other with loose .. then you had the foreign fighters flood into the country tens of thousands .. ISIS in Iraq was rather defunct at the time and sent what they had for troops but the leadership was able to re form ISIS in Syria.

All of these groups conducting the insurrection 99% -- are affiliated with the larger groups in some way .. and are the same Saudi inspired salafi jihadist ideology united in wanting Strict Sharia... that being the whole rallying call to holy Jihad.

Those were the folks being armed . supplied supported .. and we have never been able to identify the other 1% .. NY-Times reporting in 2013 that they could not find any.

a coalition of 30 nations .. weapons, arms , supplies , logistics . 99% going to the Islamist Jihadists .. the other 1% we have no idea where they are but they were fighting for the Islamist Jihadist cause either way so .. count that up to 100% ..

THEN -- the Islamist State was established -- in 2013 .. the radical islamists in control of every major city in Syria outside of Damascus.

From this time on -- it is IS -- all the groups that are fighting Assad that we are supporting are IS .. and it is IS who we are supporting after 2013 .. Do you understands Patrick ! Timber Sycamore is long over .. the folks we "supposedly arming covertly" but was overt as all heck -- an open secret and everyone knew including Hersh to did a piece on the CIA rat line you can go read.

Its 2014 Patrick -- Timber Sycamore is now overt assistance .. the coalition going hard (at genocide) . .. the Islamic State a reality .. selling oil through turkey .. has administration in all cities .. managing power- water - infrastructure .. and of course .. published wide over the internet ... the Strict Sharia - Dark Age Style that was supposed to be better the Butcher Assad .. who didn't let us put pipeline through his land .. and is now paying the price.

2014 Patrick .. the Dog has got off the leash and gone into Iraq ... by 2015 has beaten back the combined forces of Iran - Syria - Hezbolla .. thanks to Massive amounts of arms, supplies, support from the Obama Coalition of the very willing ... that he bragged about .. IS is at Assads Door in Damascus .. at which point the Russians come in and after 2 more years .. US heavily supporting the Islamic State .. Russia defeats ISIS ..

The Islamic State was our Proxy army -- there was no other army in Syria fighting Assad past 2013 to support and the "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" .. even though it didn't pass .. which is hilarious you said that to begin with .. was to "STop Arming TErrorists" .. in particular .. ISIS and Al Qaeda = The Isamic State .. as named by the Cosponsors of the bill. Your desperate claim that this was not about supplying Arms to the Islamic State .. a function of I am not sure .. but your claim is false .. Stopping the arming of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria was exactly what he Bill was about.

Now go read the material I gave you .. I have more once finished if you like .. Rand Paul on CNN in 2015 talking about how we are arming Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria .. but fighting them in Iraq..

Do you think Congress was Lying Patricio ? -- accusing Obama -- and Genocide Joe of arming, supporting, supplying Al Qaeda - ISIS .. 14 Bipartisan in Congress just made the whole thing up just to burst your bama lama necessary illusions bubble .. is that what you are trying to tell us ?

 

Nobody is quarterbacking any legislation but you friend .. 14 Bipartisan Co-Sponsors of the Bill state directly that

" the U.S. government has been violating this law for years by quietly supporting allies, partners, individuals and groups who are working directly with al-Qaida, ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and other terrorist groups by providing them with money, weapons and intelligence support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government."Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill To Halt U.S. Arms Supplies To Syrian Allies : NPR

There is nothing to QB mate -- these covert operations to overthrow Gov'ts work directly and indirectly .. in this case .. a coalition of 30 nations working towards the goal of arming the insurgency and the Islamic State that came out of that insurgency.

What part of .. Our arms, support, was all going either directly or indirectly to the anti Assad forces .. do you not understand .. and that the only forces fighting Assad after 2013 ..are under the banner of the Islamic State .. KK ?

Told you .. "Moderate Rebel Lie" --- that is the big lie .. and it is no longer a secret that this was yet another Big Pentagon Lie -- just doing its job in the Fog of War.

Find us these "Moderate Rebels" .. back up your assertion .. give us some names of these Moderate groups fighting Assad .. and Sorry the FSA - Free Syria Army was ISIS - Al Qaeda and related spawn ... fighting under the banner of the Islamic State.

 

Give me a source, a link for each claim of fact you made and If you list Paul you'll have to link to where he is getting his information from because i'm not taking his word for anything. And will continue the debate from there

 

I gave you a links for every claim.. which claim do you feel lacks support ?

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

Did you need the link again for that one ? ,, and that you don't take a US Congressman's word for anything .. is not required .. nor that you don't take the word of 13 other bipartisan in congress saying the same thing as Paul .. as you can find it all in the above article published in the American Conservative .. all well referenced with sources ..

You on the other hand have come up with Zero in support of your claim .. other than sin of omission and ad hom fallacy.

Find us these "moderate rebels" in control a major city in Syria that the US was supporting .. holding up a front in the war .. ..show which location these folks were operating out of .. the general location .. "here are the moderate faction on the front line against Syrian forces" one battle where these Moderates won the day .. taking a city.

Good luck because it is a fictitious fantasy .. made up by the Pentagon for your entertainment .. one well known and well falsified .. The "Moderate Rebel Lie" .. brought to you by Genocide Joe and Company 500,000 civilians dead .. did you forget that link Patricio ?

 

I went over your post, I didn't find any links.

 

Your link to the AMerican conservative, I think you have misinterpreted it. Here is what I get from it:

The article discusses how the Obama administration, alongside Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, provided arms to opposition groups in Syria with the intention of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad. It highlights a series of covert operations and logistical supports facilitated by the CIA to arm what were considered "relatively moderate" groups, which included factions with Islamic extremist elements. The piece also mentions the unintended consequences of these policies, such as the strengthening of al-Qaeda affiliates in the region. It argues that U.S. policy inadvertently bolstered jihadist forces, including the al-Nusra Front, by allowing allies to channel weapons to these groups, thus contradicting America's counter-terrorism goals.


From your article:

And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.

That's subjective and putting a spin on it, equating 'relatively moderate anti-Assad groups with 'various degrees of Islamic extremism.' They can't just leave 'relatively moderate' alone, they have to spin it. I"m not impressed with this author's reportage. He seems to have it out on Obama, as do you.

That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.

That confirms my point, if you want to argue unintended consequences, that is a fair argument, but you seem to be implying Obama deliberately armed terrorists bent on destroying the United States without mentioning the full context. It really does sound like you are monday morning QBing what happened.

The point is, the middle east is a toilet, in my view, there are many factions who have been at each other's throats for thousands of years, and this idea that we can go in their with magic bullets with a perfect foreign policy, sorry, that's dreaming. Obama did the best he could in difficult circumstances. If it didn't work out as he wanted it, that's the nature of the beast and given that fact, I can cut obama some slack. but, what I gather is you are scouring the landscape to diss Obama.

That's an easy game to play,. I can do the same Nixon, Bush, Reagan, and Trump. I should think they would win that pissing contest, hands down.

 

This is a ridiculous assertion.

 

"Relatively moderate" according to the CIA -- the quotation marks there for a reason .. the author reminding you that it is Job # 1 of the CIA - Pentagon - State Department to Lie about Covert operation .. but what ever ... we have the information we need -- The CIA in conjunction with a large Coalition .. particularly Yemen, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and most other border nations Israel (of course) , Jordan, Iraq -- engaged in a massive effort to ship large amounts of Arms, Support, Supplies to an insurgency in Syria .. to overthrow Assad and bring democracy and freedom to Syria .. the classic trope .. which is hilariously moronic to anyone who has the faintest clue about Syria and the ME --- Syria being a Shining Star on the Hill in terms freedom and Democracy ..

but great -- we agree on the above -- Massive effort to support a proxy army in Syria to take out Assad because he was not allowing Western Energy Corridor through his territory .. what ever .. who cares .. the reason is not the point Patricio .. The action was completely illegal under international Law already .. please tell me you understand that much ?

In the beginning from late 2011 to late 2013 -- we have a large number of Salafi - radical Islamist extremist Sunni groups .. the Spawn of Mother El Saud nut-job ideology .. engage in an insurrection. Perhaps there were a few moderate groups involved in the beginning but nobody has managed to find them and the CIA didn't care .. and what the CIA lacked in caring .. the Rest of the Coalition had orders of magnitude less than that .. Saudi Shipments of arms did not care one iota .. the level of extremist .. the dominant players on the field at this time were Al Qaeda (and close affiliates) and ISIS which had reconstituted itself. That is where the Arms are going .. from Turkey .. El Saud .. Qatar .. orchestrated by the CIA .. oh .. and lest we not forget Behghazi Libya .. our Gal Hillary .. Loading up Al Qaeda.

Up until this point .. plausible deniability is not existent but --- is good enough for the US citizen -- not a high bar. The nature of the insurgency being armed can remain a little grey .. and we don't care much about this .. as it does not come into play in our Genocide Argument .. the nature of the people we are arming that is.

U understands Patrick --- so you won't bring it up again right ? we don't care about the nature of the insurgency in the early part of the war ... although if we did we can find Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency briefs -- stating there are no moderates in the mix as early as 2012 .. predicting the rise of ISIL .. an Islamic State in the Levant .. but .. again .. we don't care -- there is no certifiable Genocide going on at this point.

Come late 2013 -- there are no moderates left -- what ever fiction and myth -- at an end. A new Caliphate is Declared .. a new Islamic State .. from this point is the insurgency .. there are no other groups fighting on the front line. Every major city .. all the territory of former Syria -- is not under control of IS.

Do you understand Patrick .. No moderates left .. if you are arming the insurgency .. you are arming IS .. just like if you are arming the Azov Nazi's in Ukraine .. you are arming the Ukraine Army .. Do you understand Patrick ..... after this point in the conflict .. anyone talking about "moderates" - some moderate front in the war -- is lying to you. Telling you the "moderate rebel lie"

Our massive coalition of more than willing 30 nations .. as of 2014 and beyond .. is arming .. supporting.. supplying the Islamic State .. those are our proxy soldiers .. our proxy army.

Do you understand Patrick .. No Moderates past this point .... do not pass go .. do not collect 200 dollars .. the support going strait to the Islamic State... which is a thriving enterprise .. with a whole lot of economic cooperation .. not on the sanction list like Cuba .. able to export Oil .. conduct international banking .. to launder proceeds from mass criminal enterprise.

And we armed .. supported and supplied this new State .. from 2014 to 2017 .. as they were our Ukraine fighting Russia in the Middle east.

Do you understand Patrick --- No moderates past this point .. all support going to IS... A strict sharia wonderland .. and no guessing need be done at this point as to the nature of what we are supporting .. The nature you are going to tell us about right now .. tell us what it is like waking up in the morning in your Town .. being a marginalized group .. that ISIS has just liberated from the Evil Assad.

Do you feel "Liberated " and explain why or why not ? What a joke ... Democracy and Freedom .. tell me about this democracy and freedom we have brought to Allepo - Homs - .. you choose the "liberated city" tell us about the democracy and freedom you and your family are about to experience ?

Do you understand Patrick ? Good .. then show this understanding by telling us about the liberation of our Druze family ? compare life under ISIS vs life under Assad -- from a "Freedom and Liberty" perspective .. for our marginalized family increase - decrease - no change ?

Explain to us what life was like under these "So called" Moderates. now that we don't have to guess.

 

I understand that you have a narrative, and so, understand this, I don't agree with the picture you are painting.

Why?

It's easy to sit in your easy chair behind your computer and bellyache about what Obama did, but when the rubber hits the road, you really don't know all the facts that Obama was privy to, the choices, pressures, circumstances, objectives, advice his military was giving him, the depth and scope of the reality he was facing. You don't know.

If you alleging he deliberately armed our enemies, there is no argument on earth that would convince me of that allegation. That's not who Obama is.

 

That Obama deliberately armed our enemies is not in question ? What part of the Islamic State was not our Friend .. is not sinking in ? and Obama armed them to the teeth .. with sophisticated US technology .. how else did you think an insurgency is going to succeed against a Nation State ?

Yer not getting it .. The "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" --- was all about discontinuing the deliberate arming of Al Qaeda - ISIS -- the Islamic State. and doing so deliberately ??? the deliberate part is not a question after the formation of the Islamic State. That is who we were Arming .. suppling .. supporting a coalition of 30 nations.

What part of "Coalition of 30 nations" --- not sinking in .. "Deliberate Coalition" .. didn't happen by magic --- 30 nations .. arming , supporting, supplying our Proxy army in Syria .. The Islamic State.

Do you know who the Islamic State was Patricio ? .. not our friends Patricio ... Al Qaeda .. ISIS .. our sworn enemies supposedly... at least if you buy into the lie .. the "Moderate rebel Lie" are Al Qaeda and ISIS not our Enemies Patricio ? cause Obama sure as heck deliberately armed them to the teeth.

 

What if that other nation's goal is to cleanse your nation from the Earth? Because that's kind of what's happening too. I get being upset over how Israel is handling this, but none of the folks upset seem to register that Palestine has culpability in this too. Many of the citizens there, not even counting those who actively fight, support the terrorists. I'm no big fan of Israeli policy, but common sense says that you don't just ignore an entire population of people living right next to you who want your destruction. Problem is, the Palestinians subscribe to the same policy.

War is war. It is not humanitarian, it is not polite. As long as the people in control of both Israel and Palestine want conflict to continue, it will. Innocent people will die. And you can't single out either group because both are doing the same thing to each other. Israel is just better and more comprehensive at it.

 

Diplomacy is the only way. Now diplomacy will be much harder, because of the atrocities Israel has committed, and the decades of oppression Israel has placed upon the Palestinians, but diplomacy is the only way. Paradoxically, the more Israel bombs, the bigger their problems will become as furious family members of those murdered by Israel become radicalized, wanting revenge.
It is definitely going to end in a two sate solution, likely with heavy international peacekeeper presence on the border for at least a generation, so the hatred of those on both sides has time to simmer down.

Amnesty should be given to both members of Hamas and members of the IDF, both very guilty of the murder of innocents. Continuing death by hunting down either group will just lead to more cycles of violence. It is time for it to end.

 

Then we should label both of them as terrorist organizations, because that’s what it sounds like they both are.

 

Even some Israelis have had enough of Netanyahu.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is facing challenges on multiple fronts, with his domestic support appearing to erode at a time when international frustration with the war in Gaza has reached new heights.

The Israeli leader has come under ever-sharper criticism from allies like the United States as the civilian death toll climbs in Gaza, and the Israeli military’s killing there this week of seven aid workers has heightened global anger. President Biden was expected to speak with Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday, days after Mr. Biden said he was “outraged and heartbroken” over the strike.

At home, Mr. Netanyahu has been confronted with protests and divisions within his governing coalition.

A call Wednesday night for early elections from a former general who is a key member of Mr. Netanyahu’s war cabinet heaped more pressure on the prime minister. Benny Gantz, a popular political rival to Mr. Netanyahu, said that elections should be held in September — around the one-year mark of the war. (New elections in Israel are not legally required until late October 2026.)
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/0...-highlights-the-domestic-pressure-he-is-under

 

NOT ANTI-WAR, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE: Palestine activists block Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate and roads to Chicago O’Hare airport in coordinated attempt to bring America to its knees.

They hate us.
They hate America.
They hate Jews.

'Pro Hamas protesters are preventing cars from entering SeaTac Airport near Seattle.'

Florida wasn't as much fun for them.

'In Florida, we drag these people out of the road and arrest them.'

And the video shows that is exactly what FL did.

 

Well, this one is seems ok with Gazans raping Jewish women.

Google Employee and Hamas Rape Apologist Fired After Protests Whines ‘McCarthyism Is Alive and Well.’

'Yesterday, we told you about Google employees who were forcibly removed from Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian’s office after staging a ‘protest’ demanding the company end business with Israel.'

'One of those employees had an interesting take on Israeli women who were raped by the terrorists:'

 

Israel's own defense has groups who assess the strength of opposition.

What they find is DRAMATICALLY different that what Netanyahu projects. The many groups of brigades defending Gaza are ALL active according to Israeli military analysis. Those being killed by the thousands are civilians.

Israel is LOSING their war against Gaza.

The acts of humanitarian crimes perpetrated by Israel are witnessed by all in Gaza - citizens, the press, aid workers, etc.

There is no question that Israel's denial of sufficient aid is causing civilian death by starvation - especially among children.

Israel is sending drones that have speakers calling out for help as if by wounded women and children. When people come out to rescue them, the drones shoot them!!! They recently sent a drone that dropped a bomb on a playground being used by children. There is absolutely NO morality exhibited by Israel.

The IDF has told their troops that they may shoot at anyone, and witnesses see starving people attempting to get aid being killed by IDF snipers.

Your idea that the IDF is shooting at those who shoot at them is just too ignorant for words.

The humanitarian atrocities of Israel will NEVER be forgotten.

 

This is as profoundly silly argument.

You can find idiots who will say almost anything. But, those who objects to the holocaust rained down on Palestinians are not characterized by accepting rape.