Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I won’t protest and nobody I know will. You truly think he’ll do something that’ll make most or all of us behave in a manner that’ll put us in harm’s way. I cannot even have a rational conversation with people who think this way, because that simply wont happen with me or anyone I know or the majority of this board. And, he’s done things that have already directly affected my personal finances. 

I can’t believe he got reelected in the first place, I acted in a manner directly to prevent that, and the time to “protest” is in ‘26 and ‘28. At this rate, there’s bound to be major retribution, and I would hope that some of the backlash against the left stays in place, and we govern from a centrist fiscally responsible standpoint. But, that the nonsense and destruction on our college campuses brought forth by idiot professional protestors absolutely stops. 

I love the idea that authoritarianism regimes stop when the people they are shitting on tell them to stop.  Sure.  There's a first time for everything, I guess.  

And by the way, "protest" has already been defined by this admin as refusing to purchase a product (see the statements from the regime pronouncing the decision not to buy a Tesla as an "illegal and collusive boycott").  Fail to buy regime-approved products?  Instead buying products from companies disfavored by the regime?  

That y'all think that authoritarians will just go a bit far, and then stop.....well, that's a take.  One not based on any historical precedent, but sure.  If thinking that way brings you comfort, have at it.  Just don't delude yourself into thinking it's based in reality.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
12 minutes ago, rage-a-holic said:

All this. SOP in most countries. I have Mexican residency, but if I got picked up by policia at a political protest, they'd cancel my residency and toss me in the Rio Grande.

This guy wasn't picked up by the police at a political protest. Also, the US is not Mexico.

Is Free Speech a guaranteed right in Mexico? Is that right extended in their Constitution to legal permanent residents?

If the answer to those two questions is yes, are you suggesting the US should emulate Mexico and ignore its own Constitution?

11 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

Yes, if he broke the law, he should be punished. What law did he break?

The current regime hasn't charged him with any crimes. They've only vaguely suggested, as of this moment, that he's an anti-semite who supports Hamas and terrorism. Let's see the charges. 

Again, a legal, permanent US resident who's married to a US citizen is locked up, right now, barred from seeing an attorney, and is being threatened with deportation to Palestine, which is under the occupation of the government that he was protesting against.

How is that going to work out for him?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Here’s something to consider. Why don’t we wait to hear what law the guy broke before assaulting the decision to detain him?  

Because they've already said they didn't detain him for violating any laws.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Here’s something to consider. Why don’t we wait to hear what law the guy broke before assaulting the decision to detain him?  

Your insistence that such an offense exists when it's been confirmed that there was no crime or wrongdoing, or even breaking Columbia's private code of conduct, is just ridiculous. This legal resident is being deported for having unpopular speech, in a nation that specifically protects freedom of speech from government reprisals. For EVERYONE - not just citizens. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

“It is utterly despicable that they are carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety,” Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for IfNotNow, a Jewish group that is often critical of Israel, said of the Trump administration.

Sophie Ellman-Golan, the director of strategic communications for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, added, “Jews, regardless of where they stand on political activism and organizing, feel in their bones how deeply dangerous this is.”

That sentiment was echoed during a news conference near Columbia on Monday evening by several Jewish professors and activists who accused the Trump administration of using genuine antisemitism as a pretext to further its goals of deportation and limiting free speech.

“What’s happening on this campus — or to this campus — is not about protecting Jews,” said Marianne Hirsch, a retired English professor and Holocaust scholar whose parents were Holocaust survivors. “Pro-Palestinian speech and activism does not mean a lack of safety for Jews,” she added.

Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia who has supported the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, said in an interview that Mr. Khalil, whom he knows, is “dedicated to negotiation, mediation and finding peaceful agreements to conflicts.”

Professor Howley also noted that Mr. Khalil did not obscure his identity. Opponents of the protests, including the A.D.L., have blamed some protesters for wearing masks to hide their faces. Several faculty members even proposed a universitywide ban on face coverings at classes and other events.

But Mr. Khalil’s is a familiar face to critics and supporters alike. Over the past week, Mr. Khalil has been singled out on social media by critics of the protests.

The dispute among Jewish organizations represents more than just the general polarization of American life. Mr. Khalil’s case highlights fundamental tensions in the American Jewish community’s sense of how best to ensure its own security.

The American Jewish establishment has long defended civil liberties and the rule of law, seeing them as crucial bulwarks against the kinds of threats that many Jews fled Europe and elsewhere to escape. But American Jews are also vigilant against antisemitism, and for many people, supporting Israel has long been central and viewed as part of that vigilance.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City, said that defending Jews from supporters of Hamas — designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government, he noted — is of paramount concern.

At the same time, he argued for protecting civil liberties. “What I believe,” he said, “is what the mainstream of the American Jewish community believes. We have always been at the vanguard of free speech.”

Jonathan Jacoby, the national director of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group, expressed concern that the arrest and promised crackdown would widen divides between Jews and other minority groups.

“There has never been a safer and more flourishing experience than the American Jewish experience, living as a free people in an open society,” he said. “Anything that endangers that, or our relationships with other Americans — those are all Jewish concerns.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/nyregion/palestinian-activist-arrest-jewish-community.html

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Where in the fuck did I suggest a non-citizen has the right to vote?

Where in any of the articles regarding the protests does it say that this particular guy didn't follow lawful orders? To date, the current regime has not claimed he broke any laws whatsoever -- aside from exercising his rights to oppose the actions of a foreign government.

If you or anyone else shows that Khalil, the guy in detention who has not been allowed to see a lawyer, broke an actual law or refused lawful orders, then okay. But I'm not going to be silent over the detention of a legal US resident because Big Brother didn't like what he had to say.

If you are okay with the detention of a legal US resident because you didn't like his speech, then quite frankly, you are an authoritarian. And, if that's the case, then as an American who believes in the US Constitution, you are my sworn enemy. I'm quite serious about that.

I was just refuting the claim that legal residents have the same rights as a full-blown US-citizen. I think it is obviously not the case.

CHIEF

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, CHIEF said:

I was just refuting the claim that legal residents have the same rights as a full-blown US-citizen. I think it is obviously not the case.

CHIEF

No such claim was made.

Edit: Oh, and @CHIEF, are you okay with the detention and threatened deportation of a legal, permanent US resident, who's married to an American citizen and against whom no criminal charges have been filed, simply because the current regime doesn't approve of his speech?

Yes or no. Simple question.

Edited by bolverk
Posted
48 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This guy seems like a real ahole to me, and he needs to be punished to the full extent of the Law.  And as I understand it, the Law does not allow our Federal Government to summarily deport him.

What laws did he violate? The government isn't even pretending he broke the law.

Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

“It is utterly despicable that they are carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety,” Eva Borgwardt, the national spokesperson for IfNotNow, a Jewish group that is often critical of Israel, said of the Trump administration.

Sophie Ellman-Golan, the director of strategic communications for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, added, “Jews, regardless of where they stand on political activism and organizing, feel in their bones how deeply dangerous this is.”

That sentiment was echoed during a news conference near Columbia on Monday evening by several Jewish professors and activists who accused the Trump administration of using genuine antisemitism as a pretext to further its goals of deportation and limiting free speech.

“What’s happening on this campus — or to this campus — is not about protecting Jews,” said Marianne Hirsch, a retired English professor and Holocaust scholar whose parents were Holocaust survivors. “Pro-Palestinian speech and activism does not mean a lack of safety for Jews,” she added.

Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia who has supported the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, said in an interview that Mr. Khalil, whom he knows, is “dedicated to negotiation, mediation and finding peaceful agreements to conflicts.”

Professor Howley also noted that Mr. Khalil did not obscure his identity. Opponents of the protests, including the A.D.L., have blamed some protesters for wearing masks to hide their faces. Several faculty members even proposed a universitywide ban on face coverings at classes and other events.

But Mr. Khalil’s is a familiar face to critics and supporters alike. Over the past week, Mr. Khalil has been singled out on social media by critics of the protests.

The dispute among Jewish organizations represents more than just the general polarization of American life. Mr. Khalil’s case highlights fundamental tensions in the American Jewish community’s sense of how best to ensure its own security.

The American Jewish establishment has long defended civil liberties and the rule of law, seeing them as crucial bulwarks against the kinds of threats that many Jews fled Europe and elsewhere to escape. But American Jews are also vigilant against antisemitism, and for many people, supporting Israel has long been central and viewed as part of that vigilance.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City, said that defending Jews from supporters of Hamas — designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government, he noted — is of paramount concern.

At the same time, he argued for protecting civil liberties. “What I believe,” he said, “is what the mainstream of the American Jewish community believes. We have always been at the vanguard of free speech.”

Jonathan Jacoby, the national director of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group, expressed concern that the arrest and promised crackdown would widen divides between Jews and other minority groups.

“There has never been a safer and more flourishing experience than the American Jewish experience, living as a free people in an open society,” he said. “Anything that endangers that, or our relationships with other Americans — those are all Jewish concerns.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/nyregion/palestinian-activist-arrest-jewish-community.html

Watch, every single one of the progressive anti-Zionist Jewish organizations will eventually be labeled terrorist organizations. The ADL is pushing for this.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

No such claim was made.

Edit: Oh, and @CHIEF, are you okay with the detention and threatened deportation of a legal, permanent US resident, who's married to an American citizen and against whom no criminal charges have been filed, simply because the current regime doesn't approve of his speech?

Yes or no. Simple question.

No.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Watch, every single one of the progressive anti-Zionist Jewish organizations will eventually be labeled terrorist organizations. The ADL is pushing for this.

It wouldn't surprise me.

As I said above, there's a deeper reason why many Jewish groups opposed the relabelling of Judaism as a nationality versus an ethnoreligious group. Criticism of a foreign state can be more easily twisted into supposed anti-semitism and, therefore, be considered in alignment with terrorist organizations that actually do want the destruction of Israel.

The redefinition also can be leaned on to make American Jews as something other than "American" and, therefore, more vulnerable to various "punishments" meted out by the regime. 

Posted

To bring the discussion back into the realm of the informational, I thought I’d offer a bit on the process and rights people have with regards to visas and deportation. 
 

Visa Applications Overseas: Applicants for most classes of visa overseas, especially non-immigrant visas, have almost no appeal rights.  In fact, for most cases, they are assumed to be intending illegal immigrants until they prove otherwise to a consular officer.  Under a provision of immigration law, a consular officer can also refuse a visa if it is suspected the person intends to use the visa in a “manner inconsistent with its purpose.” This basically means that a person can be denied because the officer doesn’t like the cut of his jib, and officers are encouraged to deploy this provision when an applicant gives them the ick or bad vibes.

This is basically a superpower.  Courts have established that consular officer decisions overseas are not subject to appeal or judicial review.  Admin law judges are also endowed with this narrow superpower for their decisions. 
 

Visa Revocations: If a person is outside the US, a visa can be revoked at any time by the State Department with no review or appeal.  However, there almost always needs to be a specific reason, simply “cause you’re sus” won’t work.  Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DHS can revoke visas inside the United States for “good and sufficient cause” with no review or appeal. 
 

Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card):  Now you have significant rights.  A green card holder can have his status revoked but only for specific cause.  Usually, this is fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal activity.  Support for terrorism is also a reason. A revocation must be approved by an immigration judge.  It is not a simple discretionary decision. 
 

And that’s what the government needs to do here.  If this person has supported terrorism then the government needs to go before an immigration law judge and make the case.  I suspect if they do, it will be extremely flimsy. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

To bring the discussion back into the realm of the informational, I thought I’d offer a bit on the process and rights people have with regards to visas and deportation. 
 

Visa Applications Overseas: Applicants for most classes of visa overseas, especially non-immigrant visas, have almost no appeal rights.  In fact, for most cases, they are assumed to be intending illegal immigrants until they prove otherwise to a consular officer.  Under a provision of immigration law, a consular officer can also refuse a visa if it is suspected the person intends to use the visa in a “manner inconsistent with its purpose.” This basically means that a person can be denied because the officer doesn’t like the cut of his jib, and officers are encouraged to deploy this provision when an applicant gives them the ick or bad vibes.

This is basically a superpower.  Courts have established that consular officer decisions overseas are not subject to appeal or judicial review.  Admin law judges are also endowed with this narrow superpower for their decisions. 
 

Visa Revocations: If a person is outside the US, a visa can be revoked at any time by the State Department with no review or appeal.  However, there almost always needs to be a specific reason, simply “cause you’re sus” won’t work.  Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DHS can revoke visas inside the United States for “good and sufficient cause” with no review or appeal. 
 

Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card):  Now you have significant rights.  A green card holder can have his status revoked but only for specific cause.  Usually, this is fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal activity.  Support for terrorism is also a reason. A revocation must be approved by an immigration judge.  It is not a simple discretionary decision. 
 

And that’s what the government needs to do here.  If this person has supported terrorism then the government needs to go before an immigration law judge and make the case.  I suspect if they do, it will be extremely flimsy. 

This all tracks with my understanding as well.

Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It wouldn't surprise me.

As I said above, there's a deeper reason why many Jewish groups opposed the relabelling of Judaism as a nationality versus an ethnoreligious group. Criticism of a foreign state can be more easily twisted into supposed anti-semitism and, therefore, be considered in alignment with terrorist organizations that actually do want the destruction of Israel.

The redefinition also can be leaned on to make American Jews as something other than "American" and, therefore, more vulnerable to various "punishments" meted out by the regime. 

The nazis literally signed agreements with zionists (The Haavara Agreement of 1933), specifically because it gave the nazis a reason to set German Jews aside as separate and foreign. They were to ship all their Jews off to Palestine, and it was opposed by non-zionist German Jews who feared getting forcibly shipped off - or worse.

Quote

Until the Peel Partition Plan of 1937 forced Germany to reexamine its policy on Palestine, the Haavara Agreement did, for a while, meet both the goals of the Nazi regime and the goals of the Zionists. This becomes clear as Nicosia explores the impact on the Palestine issue of intra-German governmental and party considerations; he also investigates the roles English and Arab nationalism played in German policy calculations.

Nicosia examines the role of the SS, and it is noteworthy that there was some cooperation between the SS and the Revisionist Zionists in the period 1933-1937. There is of course some logic to this, since the SS recognized that the Revisionists were vigorously pursuing Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. This too was the rationale behind the German government's support of the Zionists' agricultural retraining program; incidentally, Nicosia thoughtfully provides a map showing the distribution of the retraining centers (Appendix 11, p. 217). In retrospect, it is difficult for us to imagine that the Nazis encouraged Zionists from Palestine to enter Germany, teach Hebrew, educate German Jews about Palestine, and even display the blue and white Jewish national flag; the Revisionist Zionists even wore uniforms. Clearly this was all done for the promotion of purely German domestic and economic ends, with no concern for the Palestine situation itself.

Hitler's attitude toward the British Empire was a crucial factor determining his approach to the Palestine question. "Hitler's Englandpolitik during the 1930s was the single most important factor that influenced the attitudes and policy of his regime toward the Arab world in general and Arab aspirations in Palestine in particular" (p. 83). To support the Arab cause in Palestine would have alienated Great Britain, which saw Palestine as strategically important at a time when Hitler was trying to obtain an Anglo-German alliance. It also would have violated racial ideology by supporting an inferior race (the Arabs) against a superior race (the British).

Zionists playing okeydoke with authoritarians and dictators is not exactly new.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What laws did he violate? The government isn't even pretending he broke the law.

 

On 3/10/2025 at 5:00 PM, Laxtonto said:

 8 USC 1182

and 8 USC 1227

This has been this way since 2005 and worst, has been used this way in the past. Note that no “material” support of terrorism needs to be alleged and no formal crime must be committed. Mere speech suffices. No due process, only "reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry".

As someone who works with international students on a daily basis, this is why I caution them all to not get involved in things like this. There is a much different set of rules for a green card holder or being on a student visa and being a citizen. It is not very difficult to come up with "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" as defined as "(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" 

I think this is the gist of it. 

https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1899892869332173133

"Coming to the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The Trump Administration is determined to deny or revoke your visa if you're here to support terrorists."

More in the video from Rubio above.

Also, as has been stated by others they're not in circles singing Kumbaya

Amid Latest Columbia University Controversy, Media Fails to Convey Pro-Terror Radicalism Driving Key Players | Combat Antisemitism Movement

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Girth Brooks said:

 

I think this is the gist of it. 

https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1899892869332173133

"Coming to the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The Trump Administration is determined to deny or revoke your visa if you're here to support terrorists."

More in the video from Rubio above.

Also, as has been stated by others they're not in circles singing Kumbaya

Amid Latest Columbia University Controversy, Media Fails to Convey Pro-Terror Radicalism Driving Key Players | Combat Antisemitism Movement

 

Fuck off, GRU.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Lerka Lerka said:

What happened to the Israel-Hamas war thread? 

Yep. Was just coming to ask that. Um, read the title folks. Nah, who cares, lets argue here.

Surly gonna Surly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

This is a lie.

Hey everybody!

BIG NEWS:
The United States of America is not a sovereign nation with its own Constitution, history, and traditions. In fact, we're not even America. We are Mexico.

Also:
We were always at war with Eurasia and 2+2=5.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Girth Brooks said:

 

I think this is the gist of it. 

https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1899892869332173133

"Coming to the United States on a visa is a privilege, not a right. The Trump Administration is determined to deny or revoke your visa if you're here to support terrorists."

More in the video from Rubio above.

Also, as has been stated by others they're not in circles singing Kumbaya

Amid Latest Columbia University Controversy, Media Fails to Convey Pro-Terror Radicalism Driving Key Players | Combat Antisemitism Movement

 

or to sum it up more cleanly

https://x.com/Joelmpetlin/status/1899268982487580797

 

 

For those interested in a more detailed legal explanation, Mahmoud Khalil is also deportable for another reason: Khalil is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas. That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B). That provision in the statute allows the deportation of even lawful permanent residents who are "representative" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb); see also id. at (B)(v) (“representative” defined as including “an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization.") Columbia University Apartheid Divestment (“CUAD”) supports armed resistance by Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization. See Sharon Otterman, Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs Armed Resistance by Hamas, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html…… (CUAD supports armed resistance by Hamas). Mahmoud Khalil is a spokesman for CUAD. See https://columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/24/cuad-negotiators-leave-talks-as-shafiks-midnight-deadline-passes/………… (“Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student on the CUAD negotiating team.”).

 

You may not like the law, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

FAFO, Mahmoud

Edited by Girth Brooks
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Maybe they were inflated, maybe they weren’t, no-one here is qualified to judge, but that article gets its info from (1) Honest Reporting, an Israeli pressure group that describes its mission as "combat[ting] ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel".  It has a decades long history of campaigns designed to silence criticism of Israel. It’s also targeted reporters, resulting in threat to them, from the AP, Reuters, NYT, CNN claiming they had foreknowledge of the Oct 7th attacks and claiming their accomplices with Hamas.  And (2) Henry Jackson Society a right wing, neoconservative think tank whose own founder calls it a far right, racist, anti-Muslim propaganda outfit.  
 

So just as someone should be very hesitant to believe Hamas numbers, you should be equally hesitant about this article.  

Edited by Jatrain
  • Haha 1
Posted

Oops?

 

Gaza aid worker killings: One humanitarian still missing in mass grave

 

Humanitarians work to recover the bodies of 15 first responders killed in their uniforms, who had been driving clearly marked vehicles, when they came under fire by Israeli forces on 23 March near Rafah, southern Gaza.

© UNOCHA
 
Humanitarians work to recover the bodies of 15 first responders killed in their uniforms, who had been driving clearly marked vehicles, when they came under fire by Israeli forces on 23 March near Rafah, southern Gaza.

“This is a huge blow to us…These people were shot,” said Jens Laerke, spokesperson for the UN aid coordination office, OCHA.

UN human rights chief Volker Türk issued a statement on Monday condemning the Israeli military's attack, calling for an independent, prompt and thorough investigation into the apparently systematic killings. 

“Normally we are not at a loss for words, and we are spokespeople, but sometimes we have difficulty finding them. This is one of those cases,” he told journalists in Geneva, referring to video footage taken near Tal-As-Sultan by an OCHA rescue party showing a crushed UN vehicle, ambulances and a fire truck that had been flattened and buried in the sand by the Israeli military.

Rafah mission
The clearly identified humanitarian workers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society, Palestinian Civil Defence and the UN Palestine refugee agency, UNRWA, had been despatched to collect injured people on 23 March in the Rafah area.

They came under fire from Israeli forces who were advancing in the area, OCHA’s top official in the Palestinian Occupied Territory said, in a detailed post on X.

Jonathan Whittall explained that on the day of the attack, five ambulances, a fire truck – and a UN vehicle which arrived following the initial assault – were all hit by Israeli fire, after which contact was lost with teams.

One survivor said Israeli forces had killed both of the crew in his ambulance, Mr. Whittall said. “For days, OCHA coordinated to reach the site but our access was only granted five days later…After hours of digging, we recovered one body - a civil defence worker beneath his fire truck.”

Bodies buried in the sand
The week-long rescue operation ended on Sunday 30 March with the recovery of the bodies of 15 humanitarian colleagues: eight from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), six from the Palestinian Civil Defence (PCD) and the UNRWA worker.

The body of one more PRCS worker is still missing at the site, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), which on Monday repeated its calls for information from the Israeli military.

Available information indicated that the first team had been killed by Israeli forces on 23 March; the other emergency and aid crews were struck one after another over several hours as they searched for their missing colleagues, OCHA said.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Türk said in his statement that the discovery of the bodies buried next to their "clearly destroyed" vehicles was "deeply disturbing".

"This raises significant questions with regard to the conduct of the Israeli army during and in the aftermath of the incident," he added.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1161736

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Pretty funny how one of the nation states funding hamas and Islamic extremism is just straight up bribing POTUS at this point

But Kamala was mean to some protesters who interrupted a rally, so same thing.

Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Do you ever stop jerking yourself off about this

Fuck no, I remain infuriated that a group of people let this happen on a false pretense, all in the name of moral self righteousness with zero fucks to give about actual Palestinian lives. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

Fuck no, I remain infuriated that a group of people let this happen on a false pretense, all in the name of moral self righteousness with zero fucks to give about actual Palestinian lives. 

You're making a lot of false assumptions here if you actually believe the scary Dearborn Arabs were at all responsible for Kamala not getting elected, and that no pro-Palestinian abstainer gives a fuck about Palestinian lives.

It actually just sounds like projection.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Friendly reminder that Zionism is Nazism but don't kill random Israeli LARPers over it, or anyone else really. That cover it? Or should I just link to the thread that is covering this.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
4 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Friendly reminder that Zionism is Nazism but don't kill random Israeli LARPers over it, or anyone else really. That cover it? Or should I just link to the thread that is covering this.

Define "random Israeli LARPers"

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...