Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Well, actually, I wasn't even critical of Palestinian nor Palestinians rather, I pointed out that the wasn't a lot of options for them elsewhere. Which, I now know is being critical of Palestinian. 

Wait? Who is going where? When? Everyone know about this?

Maybe some brit and a frenchie can draw another map.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Wait? Who is going where? When? Everyone know about this?

Maybe some brit and a frenchie can draw another map.

I'm afraid to answer on the grounds that I may be taken as a hater of one group or another. As such, I plead da fiff. That right Who's on Fifth. Saks? 

The correct or righteous side, whoever that may be, needs to pull the Ole' English and plant some fucking flags. That shit worked for them on 4 continents. 

 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

I'm afraid to answer on the grounds that I may be taken as a hater of one group or another. As such, I plead da fiff. That right who's on Fifth? Saks? 

The correct or righteous side, whoever that may be, needs to pull the Ole' English and plant some fucking flags. That shit worked for them on 4 continents. 

 

4? Try 7.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t know why we are inserting ourselves into the equation.  Why are we calling deadlines?  If I’m Israel I attack before that deadline. 

It does not make a difference except to control the Sunday morning talk shows. yeah, most people don't watch them, but DC does. That then feeds the talk shows the rest of the week.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Well did our commentary adversely affect hostage release?

I think so. From their perspective fuck it, we are not going to get out. So might as well sink everything.

Martyrdom and all that.

Posted (edited)

IDF soldier taken hostage from a military outpost. Only a dumbass would make comparisons to a basketball player caught with some weed. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

IDF soldier taken hostage from a military outpost. Only a dumbass would make comparisons to a basketball player caught with some weed. 

No one should give a shit about a dumbass basketball player who went to Russia to play and was stupid enough to take weed with her.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
On 2/11/2025 at 2:43 PM, InkaUtexas said:

Wait? Who is going where? When? Everyone know about this?

Maybe some brit and a frenchie can draw another map.

Where’s Lord Balfour when he’s needed?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/17/miami-shooting-israeli-men

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-florida-man-arrested-after-shooting-2-israelis-he-thought-were-palestinians/

hhg5645-640x400.webp.bd55144f4e6907b5ac1821bd85d7c48b.webp

This is a batshit story. 

Jewish (almost certainly Zionist) Florida Man™ shoots at two brown guys in Miami Beach, believing that they are Palestinians. Turns out they're actually visiting Israeli tourists, a father and son. Shooter brags to the cops that he killed them, but they're very much alive. The son took a bullet in the shoulder but is fine, father was grazed. 

Both victims take to social media right after the incident to post "Death to Arabs!", apparently thinking the shooter was Palestinian, or at least some variety of Arab.

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted

Israel and the US say no to the Pan arab plan to rebuild gaza. I read it and it is well designed. I thought this is what would happen. Damn I was wrong. 

The US and Israel have rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip that would allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living there to stay in place.

The proposal, endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, is their alternative to President Donald Trump's idea for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan, which calls for Gaza to be governed temporarily by a committee of independent experts and for international peacekeepers to be deployed there.

But both the White House and Israeli foreign ministry said it failed to address realities in Gaza and stood by Trump's vision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Israel and the US say no to the Pan arab plan to rebuild gaza. I read it and it is well designed. I thought this is what would happen. Damn I was wrong. 

The US and Israel have rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip that would allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living there to stay in place.

The proposal, endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, is their alternative to President Donald Trump's idea for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan, which calls for Gaza to be governed temporarily by a committee of independent experts and for international peacekeepers to be deployed there.

But both the White House and Israeli foreign ministry said it failed to address realities in Gaza and stood by Trump's vision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o

 

What if the Arabs sweeten the pot and allow 1 Trump branded hotel in Gaza?

Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What if the Arabs sweeten the pot and allow 1 Trump branded hotel in Gaza?

He would want Dubai and Riyadh. He was supposed to be the anchor for palm dubai but they said nah since he wanted, insisted, on a casino. The reason the palms don't "touch" Dubai was that. They technically were free floating. The Umma said nah.

But at least they had a plan.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Israel and the US say no to the Pan arab plan to rebuild gaza. I read it and it is well designed. I thought this is what would happen. Damn I was wrong. 

The US and Israel have rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip that would allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living there to stay in place.

The proposal, endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, is their alternative to President Donald Trump's idea for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan, which calls for Gaza to be governed temporarily by a committee of independent experts and for international peacekeepers to be deployed there.

But both the White House and Israeli foreign ministry said it failed to address realities in Gaza and stood by Trump's vision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o

In the meantime, Netanyahu has already reneged on the ceasefire deal by cutting all food, fuel, medicine, and other supplies to Gazan refugees. In other words, the Israeli government is trying to starve the Palestinians out of Gaza with our complicity in this latest war crime, of course.

Surly’s “Christ follower” contingent, however, remains unphased.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
In the meantime, Netanyahu has already reneged on the ceasefire deal by cutting all food, fuel, medicine, and other supplies to Gazan refugees. In other words, the Israeli government is trying to starve the Palestinians out of Gaza with our complicity in this latest war crime, of course.
Surly’s “Christ follower” contingent, however, remains unphased.

Well, I’m 100% confident that the answer to “what would Jesus do” is “starve out people to complete ethnic cleansing.” It’s right there in the Gospel of Trump, which is the only book of the Bible they believe in.
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, I’m 100% confident that the answer to “what would Jesus do” is “starve out people to complete ethnic cleansing.” It’s right there in the Gospel of Trump, which is the only book of the Bible they believe in.

That and Psalm 2A

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, I’m 100% confident that the answer to “what would Jesus do” is “starve out people to complete ethnic cleansing.” It’s right there in the Gospel of Trump, which is the only book of the Bible they believe in.

Why doesn't anyone ever ask "What Would Joshua Do"? or "What Would God Have Jews Do"? and reference some good old fashion war and cleansing of the Levant?

God in the Torah and Nevi'im is pretty clear that, according to God, there is a time to kill and a time to....you know...

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Israel and the US say no to the Pan arab plan to rebuild gaza. I read it and it is well designed. I thought this is what would happen. Damn I was wrong. 

The US and Israel have rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip that would allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living there to stay in place.

The proposal, endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, is their alternative to President Donald Trump's idea for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan, which calls for Gaza to be governed temporarily by a committee of independent experts and for international peacekeepers to be deployed there.

But both the White House and Israeli foreign ministry said it failed to address realities in Gaza and stood by Trump's vision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o

 

so much for the theory he was just tossing ethnic cleansing out there to prompt others to come up with a plan

 

he's also negotiating directly with hamas, while telling gazans (who are also hostages of hamas) that they need to give up the israeli hostages or it will be levelled, but chummy with russia which has been taking ukrainians hostage for a decade+ now.

Edited by elfenix
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Donald Glover Reaction GIF

Question for you spoilered, in case you think it is a personal call out, or attack.

Spoiler

Is this not a clear violation of the first amendment? And, if not, why isn’t it?

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Question for you spoilered, in case you think it is a personal call out, or attack.

  Reveal hidden contents

Is this not a clear violation of the first amendment? And, if not, why isn’t it?

 

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

Thanks for your answer. Do you know if a court came to the conclusion he went too far? Does that matter?

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
1 hour ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

Read the article. They (both the school and the DHS) have no standing to do any of what was threatened and that's why both backed down when pressed by attorneys. It is 100% a scare tactic being used in order to silence constitutionally protected speech that the president doesn't agree with.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

The specifics listed in the article state that he was actually granted his green card AFTER the protests that you are claiming (and being repped in support lulz) were unlawful or "went too far with it". If he had broken any laws, do you think he would have still been granted a green card?

His school claimed that he had allegations of misconduct and withheld his academic records. When his lawyers asked "no but really", suddenly there was no issue.

 

This is simply silencing speech that you don't care to hear. I certainly know that many of the surly community delight in crushing free speech and are delighted at what is yet to come.

Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks for your answer. Do you know if a court came to the conclusion he went too far? Does that matter?

In effect the answer to both in this specific case has been no. Not saying that is right or wrong but definitely seems like going to have a legal battle. 

  • Drool 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The specifics listed in the article state that he was actually granted his green card AFTER the protests that you are claiming (and being repped in support lulz) were unlawful or "went too far with it". If he had broken any laws, do you think he would have still been granted a green card?

His school claimed that he had allegations of misconduct and withheld his academic records. When his lawyers asked "no but really", suddenly there was no issue.

 

This is simply silencing speech that you don't care to hear. I certainly know that many of the surly community delight in crushing free speech and are delighted at what is yet to come.

I was just answering a question on the legal argument from one side here in relation to the right to protest and put no personal opinion. Please stop projecting an opinion on my statements. 

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, GoneFission said:

I was just answering a question on the legal argument from one side here in relation to the right to protest and put no personal opinion. Please stop projecting an opinion on my statements. 

I don't think his intent was to accuse you of anything, probably just poor word choice.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

Posted
Just now, Bevo said:

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

Gotta read the fine print:

 

* NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU UNDER A LAWLESS, FASCIST REGIME.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

And yet, you liked the post of the dipshit saying it was "good" that someone is being deported for speech that is protected under the law. Interesting.

Posted

 8 USC 1182

Quote

(B) Terrorist activities

Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

and 8 USC 1227

Quote

B) Terrorist activities (i) In general Any alien who- (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity; (II) 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 in clause (iv)); (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of- (aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; (V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi); (VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; (VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity

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" 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
32 minutes ago, 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" 

Hell, I told my cousin's stepdaughter the other day to not get involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Even though she's a full US citizen, her mom is from Azerbaijan and there is no telling what this administration will do to your family if you publicly protest against Israel. Her mom is also a US citizen, but Azerbaijan does not formally recognize dual citizenship and it is unclear what would happen if, say, the DHS were to deport her mom if she was arrested for protesting.

What a fucking paragraph to type regarding US citizens, by the way, but this is the world we live in now. It's amazing to me that some of you (not referring to the person I am quoting) are seemingly on board with this administration flat out making peaceful protests against a foreign country illegal and/or straight up black bagging people that do so.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

And by the way, if you think this shit is going to stop at pro-Palestinian green card/visa holders, you're kidding yourself. This is simply a test run for what they want to do to any person inside the US (citizen or not) that is critical of the administration.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I have exactly zero percent sympathy for this person’s activities or views but it is impossible to view this any other way than a blatant attempt to deport someone for protected speech.  They haven’t even provided examples of his support for Hamas rhetorically, just that he led a campus protest. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2

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...