Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Quote

The man accused of injuring 12 people on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall with a “makeshift flamethrower” and Molotov cocktails spent more than a year planning the “targeted act of violence” against a group calling for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza, law enforcement officials said Monday.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, intended to carry out a mass shooting in downtown Boulder and only switched to an explosive plan after he was denied a gun because of his immigration status, county investigators said in an arrest affidavit.

Police identified four additional victims in the attack on Monday, bringing the total to 12, Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty said during an afternoon briefing. The four additional victims had minor injuries, Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn said. Two people injured in the attack are still hospitalized. Officials could not say whether any of the victims were bystanders.

Soliman drove from Castle Rock to the Pearl Street Mall armed with 18 Molotov cocktails and a backpack weed sprayer filled with gasoline that he planned to use to kill a group of demonstrators who regularly walk in front of the courthouse, according to court records.

He threw two of the Molotov cocktails and police recovered another 16 at the scene, Dougherty said.

Federal officials said Soliman was living in Colorado Springs illegally with his wife and five children after overstaying a tourist visa that expired in 2023. Officials said the family cooperated with a search warrant and deferred questions about their immigration status to the Department of Homeland Security.

Soliman told investigators that he waited for a year to attack the group because he wanted his daughter to graduate from high school first, according to his arrest affidavit.

Soliman told federal officials he arrived at 12:55 p.m. and waited for the group to reach him, according to court documents.

To get as close to the group as possible, officials said Soliman dressed like a gardener. He wore an orange vest and bought flowers from Home Depot.

The attack happened just before the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, which began at sundown on Sunday.

Soliman planned for more than a year and specifically targeted Boulder’s Run for Their Lives chapter, which Soliman called a “Zionist group,” federal officials said.

Soliman told law enforcement “that he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead,” the affidavit stated.

The 45-year-old told investigators that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, according to court documents. He sprayed himself with gasoline and expected to burn alongside his victims.

 

Posted

Honestly at this point the functional difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is close to nothing, especially among the most likely to take direct action, even if that’s an unpopular stance to take on this board. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

You got to it prior to my response. You're basically asking a zealot nut job to have distinction in his insane plan of violence.

I would also add that it isnt JUST the policy of the government thats causing issue for Jewish people in the US. I'm of the firm opinion that the strong and clear anti-Isreal sentiment among certain political and non-political parties is contributing heavily. Joe public doesn't pay any attention to detail and thus the devil in the detail is lost. Those already inclined to dislike people of the Jewish faith have their positions bolstered by a perception (accurate or not) that its now a popular opinion/position.

Its certainly adding to antisemitic ideas in the broader strokes. Though I am fully capable of understanding that's not the ideological foundation of all pro-Palestinian supporters. The detail are being skipped over.

The idea there's this clear line of demarcation is false. The lines are very blurry and not at all obvious.

First, you have the far right, with ideas of white purity, who are absolutely convinced the Jews are behind a grand scheme to weaken the white race by blending the blood lines. 

Then you have the far right that thinks the establishment of the state of Israel is a clear sign of The Rapture. They want to put the full might of the United States behind Israel with no strings attached because they feel like in some way there's a religious duty to do so to herald the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Jewish Americans who consider themselves rabid supporters of the state of Israel encourage this in any way they can. 

Then you have Jewish sympathizers - like me, for example - who support the Israeli state out of some level of sympathy and possibly admiration - at least in my case - for Jewish heritage and culture.  

Then there are plenty of people who feel like the Jewish cabal is responsible for all kinds of ills, and the concentration of wealth, even if they don't believe the Jews have a grand scheme of weakening one race or another. 

Then there's the people who have decided their sympathies are with indigenous people of all stripes - never mind that it's often a nebulous term since homo sapiens have been conquering, settling new lands, committing genocide, and generally changing occupations of land ever since moving out of East Africa. It's not to say that any genocide is acceptable because that's how we've always done it, but it is to say that saying that one group of people or another have some kind of greater claim on a land because their ancestors lived there doesn't really mesh with reality. But that's neither here nor there as this growing sympathy with displaced populations, especially from colonialism stemming from the expansion of Europe throughout the world, has gained greater traction over the last few decades.  

This group fully backs Palestinians as the victims, and in my mind there's a very legitimate case to be made. I think you'd have to be stupid - or blindly loyal to the Israeli cause - to see how the Israelis have conducted themselves towards the Palestinians since the Zionist movement gained steam in the late 19th century to believe otherwise. 

There's also this strange to me amalgamation of identity politics, where people who identify themselves as disenfranchised have also glommed onto the Palestinian cause as a fellow group of people who are also disenfranchised and ultimately powerless against a state sponsored oppressor. Think of the LGBTQ+ groups and their allies. 

Some of these groups not only don't identify with each other on any other issue, but actually are active enemies of one another. 

I'd also say there's not just an adding to antisemitic ideas. There's an adding to anti-Arab, anti-Islam, and anti people who look different. And that's not just a US thing. That's very much a European sentitment, too, as we can clearly see from recent election results. And of course, none of this is new. What is remarkable is that we even try to build a multicultural society in the first place. I, for one, think it's the grandest experiment and the highlight of what we can achieve as a human race. I also believe it's filled with landmines that we refuse to acknowledge, and continue to minimize. As if we just have enough good intentions it will all work out in the name of human progress. Which I do not believe.

And then there's social media with its algorithms, measurements of engagement, vehicle for bonding and successful reinforcement of views no matter how extreme - in many ways the more extreme the more successfully and tightly knit the bonds that are formed.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

@SL Xpress I agree with all the points in your post. Seriously. My summation was done in haste prior to leaving so it was muddy at best.

I think what you're pointing out is a fantastic and a topic of absolutely worthy deeper discussion. 

However, your last point and in broader aspect the polarization of such topics make open and honest dialog difficult at best. For example, if someone is pro-Isreal, but not pro the current Isreali government that distinction is lost. If someone recognizes the brutality and issues of the current Isreali government but at the same time points out the issue with Hamas and their backing of Palestinian attacks on Isreal and to a lesser degree Palestinian policy in general, that distinction is also lost. 

In both examples and many others individuals will look at a smaller aspect of a point someone is making and lob that person wholesale into a particular camp. Frequently, they throw that position into the "dumb idiot enemy who I should ignore or chastise".

Because the devil is in the details and many people hate to be bothered with details, real discussion is nearly impossible most of the time.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

@SL Xpress I agree with all the points in your post. Seriously. My summation was done in haste prior to leaving so it was muddy at best.

I think what you're pointing out is a fantastic and a topic of absolutely worthy deeper discussion. 

However, your last point and in broader aspect the polarization of such topics make open and honest dialog difficult at best. For example, if someone is pro-Isreal, but not pro the current Isreali government that distinction is lost. If someone recognizes the brutality and issues of the current Isreali government but at the same time points out the issue with Hamas and their backing of Palestinian attacks on Isreal and to a lesser degree Palestinian policy in general, that distinction is also lost. 

In both examples and many others individuals will look at a smaller aspect of a point someone is making and lob that person wholesale into a particular camp. Frequently, they throw that position into the "dumb idiot enemy who I should ignore or chastise".

Because the devil is in the details and many people hate to be bothered with details, real discussion is nearly impossible most of the time.

I can't even discuss NIL and the transfer portal with people who don't follow it. Eyes start glazing over very quickly. They prefer their convicted opinions based on sheer ignorance. That's a complicated subject, but it's nowhere remotely close to as complicated as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Honestly at this point the functional difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is close to nothing, especially among the most likely to take direct action, even if that’s an unpopular stance to take on this board. 

"If we just got rid of the Jews,we wouldn't have these problems."

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Honestly at this point the functional difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is close to nothing, especially among the most likely to take direct action, even if that’s an unpopular stance to take on this board. 

Why would it be unpopular? People that recognize and understand the difference may not like the fact that they are in the vast minority, but the masses outraged by social media don't have time for all that book learning bullshit. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Why would it be unpopular? People that recognize and understand the difference may not like that fact that they are in the vast minority, but that the masses outraged by social media don't have time for all that book learning bullshit. 

That broad stroke brings up something I've struggled with in this discussion. Well, two items.

First, the Pro-Palestinian protestors often hold signs saying "Free Palestinian". Well, I'm all about freedom, I think the actions and things being done by the Isreali government are horrible. That said, what do they mean by Free Palestine? I get that complex ideas can't be conveyed in a protest slogan, but I'm not clear what exactly the protesters would like to occur. I mean the details. I'll own that my investigation in understanding isn't particularly deep, but where can I find their platform ideology.

Second is there have been some Hamas flags at some of the events. It isn't a lot, but it has happened. I'll start with a broad question. Can we agree Hamas is bad? If so, why would Pro-Palestine protesters allow them to attend and fly those flags at their events? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

To bring up the number and strength of the christian zionists in the US is no doubt treading CR.

12 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Honestly at this point the functional difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is close to nothing, especially among the most likely to take direct action, even if that’s an unpopular stance to take on this board. 

Maybe I'm not getting your point because I usually agree with you but I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. For example, I'd label current US gov't policy as pro-Zionist, but also explicitly antisemitic. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

When the slogan gets screamed by people lighting Jews on fucking fire and committing assassination of Israeli Embassy staff its going to create a bit of a messaging problem.

Edited by Incredulity
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I can't imagine how demented and repulsive someone has to be to write "lighting Jews on fucking fire", "assassination of Israeli(s)" and "messaging problem" in the same sentence. But here we are. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I can't imagine how demented and repulsive someone has to be to write "lighting Jews on fucking fire", "assassination of Israeli(s)" and "messaging problem" in the same sentence. But here we are. 

whats your point?

The arguments above are parsing the definition of "Free Palestine".  My point is when that phrase gets screamed when someone is committing unfathomable acts of terrorism the latitude for nuance around a phrase is pretty much gone.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Chopper said:

To bring up the number and strength of the christian zionists in the US is no doubt treading CR.

Maybe I'm not getting your point because I usually agree with you but I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. For example, I'd label current US gov't policy as pro-Zionist, but also explicitly antisemitic. 

Got it, I can refine that:

I think that among a very visible and very vocal subset of the “anti-Zionist” activists, there is very deliberate and dangerous ambiguity about what “anti-Zionism” actually means and who is a “Zionist.” The result of this ambiguity and the completely overheated rhetoric deployed against “Zionists”  means that among people who are most inclined to take dramatic and potentially illegal action, the difference between “Zionists” and “Jews” is nearly eliminated, especially since the vast majority of Jews, even those who oppose Netanyahu and the conduct of the war, believe that Israel has the right to exist as a uniquely Jewish entity. You get attacks, rhetoric, targeted behavior that, whether the motivated by “anti-Zionism” or “anti-semitism,” are indiscriminate in their targeting of Jewish people and the functional result is an atmosphere of anti-Semitic fear. 

There is an example of that on this board, one poster as asserted that “Zionists are Nazis.” Ok, we fought an existential and total war against the Nazis and hung many of them. If that’s the appropriate stance towards “Zionists” then there’s a pretty clear obligation for the person advocating that stance to be explicit about what Zionism is and who qualifies as a Zionist. 
 

But as I said, there is deliberate ambiguity in the way anti-Zionist rhetoric is deployed and created and I do think some uniquely bad actors in the movement are deploying it purposefully to stress-test American society and its tolerances while maintaining deniable distance.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

among people who are most inclined to take dramatic and potentially illegal action, the difference between “Zionists” and “Jews” is nearly eliminated

The problem is much larger than terrorism and that's perhaps where the discussion is taking a turn. Antisemitism is currently being used as a cudgel by people who either know better and dgaf, or are in a position where they SHOULD know better, to destroy lynchpins of our society and economy. I think it's wrong -- probably irresponsible -- to waive off differences or say there is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. There should be no confusion and to pretend otherwise is to either accede the domain or play into the hands of the truly evil in this country. 

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

whats your point?

The arguments above are parsing the definition of "Free Palestine".  My point is when that phrase gets screamed when someone is committing unfathomable acts of terrorism the latitude for nuance around a phrase is pretty much gone.

Only in this case, it seems. White supremacists can go shoot up a church or store, cite identical language to those being espoused by national political figures, and no one bats an eye when politicians then go and use the exact same rhetoric in speeches. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, Foosters said:

Only in this case, it seems. White supremacists can go shoot up a church or store, cite identical language to those being espoused by national political figures, and no one bats an eye when politicians then go and use the exact same rhetoric in speeches. 

example please.

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Chopper said:

(an example of a politician using white supremacist language in recent history?) Gosh where to start...

9hgagb.gif

Yes, no one batted an eye there!  Why are yall talking about that in this thread?  It is truly odd how conversations devolve. How you get from a crime perpetrated against Jews to arguing over the semantics of whether or not the terrorist was anti-Jew or merely anti-Zionist (as if that matters) to Elon doing his best Hitler impression is impressive. 

Edited by Rex Kramer
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Chopper said:

(an example of a politician using white supremacist language in recent history?) Gosh where to start...

9hgagb.gif

"Immigrants are poisoning the blood of this country."

"America for Americans."

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

And finally, this guy. Who, to this day, remains a quasi-hero to the right:

I read that as quasi-hetero, and it still made sense. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Foosters said:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/18/texas-greg-abbott-immigration-invasion-el-paso/

Literally just citing GOP talking points in his manifesto.

Below, the "abortion is genocide" theory:

Literally the first sentence of the domestic terrorist in Buffalo:

Also, see J6 and the multiple criminal terrorist acts that were spawned due to a constant stream of lies (that continues to this day!) that the Democrats stole the 2020 election. 

And finally, this guy. Who, to this day, remains a quasi-hero to the right:

 

Thank you for the reply.

 Don’t agree that per your previous post “no one bats and eye” as each of those instances received wall to wall MSM coverage and the point of that language being congruent with right political speakers was also covered extensively.

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And I just don't know how I feel about that.

Well maybe dad shouldn’t have tried to fry up some Jews (or Zionists). I realize it sucks for these kids but this shit stain of a human should have thought about that before he tried to off dozens of innocent people. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
20 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

That broad stroke brings up something I've struggled with in this discussion. Well, two items.

First, the Pro-Palestinian protestors often hold signs saying "Free Palestinian". Well, I'm all about freedom, I think the actions and things being done by the Isreali government are horrible. That said, what do they mean by Free Palestine? I get that complex ideas can't be conveyed in a protest slogan, but I'm not clear what exactly the protesters would like to occur. I mean the details. I'll own that my investigation in understanding isn't particularly deep, but where can I find their platform ideology.

Second is there have been some Hamas flags at some of the events. It isn't a lot, but it has happened. I'll start with a broad question. Can we agree Hamas is bad? If so, why would Pro-Palestine protesters allow them to attend and fly those flags at their events? 

Hesitant to respond because I'm on vacation with my daughter and will be mostly out of pocket for the rest of the week and will be delayed in getting back to anyone who cares to reply, but I'll answer your "Free Palestine" question on my part only.

That phrase (again, only speaking for myself) means ending the illegal occupation of all the West Bank and Gazan territories, the return of illegally annexed lands (essentially Israel reverting back to its internationally recognized 1967 borders with a little wiggle room for negotiating equitable land swaps), and an acknowledgement by Israel's government that Palestine has the right to exist, including a formal recognition of the State of Palestine like most of the world currently does.

Now, I fully acknowledge that others are more expansive and would like all of the former Palestinian Mandate to be returned, just as the current Israeli government seeks to take all Palestinian land (along with chunks of Syria and Lebanon). I reject both maximalist groups as they seek to genocide/ethnically cleanse one another based on ethnicity/religion.

Items on my wish list include: 1) the return of the 1000's of Palestinian men, women, and adolescents held without charges (hostages, if you will) in Israeli prisons who are suffering all sorts of physical and psychological abuse, (e.g., sexual assault and torture), as has been thoroughly documented and 2) bringing Israeli war criminals to justice. The same obviously goes for Hamas's leaders.

You didn't ask about expectations for Palestinians, but I'll go ahead and state without hesitation that all Israeli hostages or their remains must be returned and a future Palestinian government must acknowledge Israel's right to exist within its internationally recognized borders, working tirelessly to stop any potential terrorists from attacking Israel. Reparations of some sort would be nice, but that would open a whole 'another can of worms.

None of the above is likely to happen, but as someone who is sympathetic to "the cause," I thought I'd speak up.

Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
52 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Hesitant to respond because I'm on vacation with my daughter and will be mostly out of pocket for the rest of the week and will be delayed in getting back to anyone who cares to reply, but I'll answer your "Free Palestine" question on my part only.

That phrase (again, only speaking for myself) means ending the illegal occupation of all the West Bank and Gazan territories, the return of illegally annexed lands (essentially Israel reverting back to its internationally recognized 1967 borders with a little wiggle room for negotiating equitable land swaps), and an acknowledgement by Israel's government that Palestine has the right to exist, including a formal recognition of the State of Palestine like most of the world currently does.

Now, I fully acknowledge that others are more expansive and would like all of the former Palestinian Mandate to be returned, just as the current Israeli government seeks to take all Palestinian land (along with chunks of Syria and Lebanon). I reject both maximalist groups as they seek to genocide/ethnically cleanse one another based on ethnicity/religion.

Items on my wish list include: 1) the return of the 1000's of Palestinian men, women, and adolescents held without charges (hostages, if you will) in Israeli prisons who are suffering all sorts of physical and psychological abuse, (e.g., sexual assault and torture), as has been thoroughly documented and 2) bringing Israeli war criminals to justice. The same obviously goes for Hamas's leaders.

You didn't ask about expectations for Palestinians, but I'll go ahead and state without hesitation that all Israeli hostages or their remains must be returned and a future Palestinian government must acknowledge Israel's right to exist within its internationally recognized borders, working tirelessly to stop any potential terrorists from attacking Israel. Reparations of some sort would be nice, but that would open a whole 'another can of worms.

None of the above is likely to happen, but as someone who is sympathetic to "the cause," I thought I'd speak up.

Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.

Fair, and because the devil is in the details I think it best to break all these out into individual aspects.

My first question, speaking as a US citizen who is supportive of Isreal, I take massive issues with the intertwined aspects of Hamas and the Palestinian Government.

So my first question would be, what is the plan as you see it to end this entanglement. I can't see Israel going very far down the road without first addressing this particularly vexing question. You are in all your requests asking for all of it, 100% of the Palestinian demands. I think starting with release of mutual prisoners is a great starting point. Prior to any next big steps that involves Israel giving up something there must be a give and take. 

Hamas is the elephant in the room and as such I'm firmly of the opinion that it likely must be addressed early in the conversation.

Posted
5 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Fair, and because the devil is in the details I think it best to break all these out into individual aspects.

My first question, speaking as a US citizen who is supportive of Isreal, I take massive issues with the intertwined aspects of Hamas and the Palestinian Government.

So my first question would be, what is the plan as you see it to end this entanglement. I can't see Israel going very far down the road without first addressing this particularly vexing question. You are in all your requests asking for all of it, 100% of the Palestinian demands. I think starting with release of mutual prisoners is a great starting point. Prior to any next big steps that involves Israel giving up something there must be a give and take. 

Hamas is the elephant in the room and as such I'm firmly of the opinion that it likely must be addressed early in the conversation.

I will have a lot more to say about this, and other stuff in this thread, in the morning, but suffice to say while all of this might sound good in a vacuum, the reality is that your position here is surface level only, ignores a great deal of context, and makes some false assumptions, seemingly unintentionally.

There's more to unpack here but I'm just now getting back from poker and need to go to bed, but I'll leave you with two things here: 

1. The Israeli state absolutely does not give a shit of a fuck about the hostages. That isn't to say Israelis don't, of course they do, but the government does not care at all beyond their ability to use them as a bludgeon, or at best a bargaining chip. The people of Israel, of course, recognize this, which is why there have been many, many protests regarding the administration's utter callousness and lack of any real motion regarding the hostages.

2. Netanyahu has spent years propping up Hamas in order to maintain it as a permanent enemy in order to use it as the perfect excuse to wage permanent war against a captive population, and to keep himself in power in order to avoid going to prison for corruption. This is not speculation, it is fact and the reporting on this has mostly been done by Israeli media. It's very easy to find via a simple Google search but I can dig up the articles in the morning if you like.

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

I will have a lot more to say about this, and other stuff in this thread, in the morning, but suffice to say while all of this might sound good in a vacuum, the reality is that your position here is surface level only, ignores a great deal of context, and makes some false assumptions, seemingly unintentionally.

There's more to unpack here but I'm just now getting back from poker and need to go to bed, but I'll leave you with two things here: 

1. The Israeli state absolutely does not give a shit of a fuck about the hostages. That isn't to say Israelis don't, of course they do, but the government does not care at all beyond their ability to use them as a bludgeon, or at best a bargaining chip. The people of Israel, of course, recognize this, which is why there have been many, many protests regarding the administration's utter callousness and lack of any real motion regarding the hostages.

2. Netanyahu has spent years propping up Hamas in order to maintain it as a permanent enemy in order to use it as the perfect excuse to wage permanent war against a captive population, and to keep himself in power in order to avoid going to prison for corruption. This is not speculation, it is fact and the reporting on this has mostly been done by Israeli media. It's very easy to find via a simple Google search but I can dig up the articles in the morning if you like.

I do agree with your points. To support point 2 above I'll provide a well written and comprehensive NYT link below. Again, devil is in the details, I am supportive of Isreal, but I am not supportive of the current Isreali administration. I am also against Hamas and their Qatar support which is a big aspect of the Palestinian discussion.

The reason why I used the word entanglement is because its exactly that, a messy web. It's why I chose to break out that specific aspect among many. The entire thing is extremely convoluted and addressing one aspect at a time is really the only way to discuss it, imo.

Hamas and Isreal link by NYT

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Newdoc said:

Well maybe dad shouldn’t have tried to fry up some Jews (or Zionists). I realize it sucks for these kids but this shit stain of a human should have thought about that before he tried to off dozens of innocent people. 

For the record, they're not undocumented. They came here legally and then applied for asylum. All legal under our laws. Punishing the family seems like medieval shit. Attempts have been made to reform immigration laws over the years but always blocked by the fascists because the only competent thing they can do is try to blame someone else for their failures. (Well that and embezzle, and commit fraud.) They've had the past 6 months to look for him and people like him but focused instead kidnapping editorial authors, elementary kids with cancer were their primary concern, and making big shows at mexican restaurants to try to frighten everyone. 

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
14 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So ICE has arrested the guy's entire family and is undertaking expedited deportation proceedings (they appear to be here legally).  And I just don't know how I feel about that.

What's their exact status?

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

For the record, they're not undocumented. They came here legally and then applied for asylum. All legal under our laws. Punishing the family seems like medieval shit. Attempts have been made to reform immigration laws over the years but always blocked by the fascists because the only competent thing they can do is try to blame someone else for their failures. (Well that and embezzle, and commit fraud.) They've had the past 6 months to look for him and people like him but focused instead kidnapping editorial authors, elementary kids with cancer were their primary concern, and making big shows at mexican restaurants to try to frighten everyone. 

Were they granted asylum?

No lawyer, but I'm guessing if you're here under asylum and a family member carries out a terrorist attack then there is legal justification to remove you from our country. Seems pretty straightforward.

Posted
19 hours ago, Chopper said:

(an example of a politician using white supremacist language in recent history?) Gosh where to start...

9hgagb.gif

It is worth noting that the ADL, otherwise known as the most prominent and powerful Israeli lobby, that presents itself as a civil rights organization and voice for/defender of all American Jewish people, whose leader (Jonathan Greenblatt) frequently goes on national television to viciously attack anyone and everyone who dares to publicly criticize Israel's actions, completely debased itself by immediately defending this action right after it happened.

This organization is one of those that is largely responsible for the continuing false conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

It's also worth noting that the ADL supplies the US government with the statistics it presents to the public about the instances of antisemitism in the US, in which it always includes thousands of instances of speech that is critical of Israel and/or Zionism. Examining the ADL’s Antisemitism Audit

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

No lawyer, but I'm guessing if you're here under asylum and a family member carries out a terrorist attack then there is legal justification to remove you from our country. Seems pretty straightforward.

Hmm well if it is a law pertaining to asylum it should be very easy to find, esp in summary form. Go ahead and provide me a link, will ya? 

If you're not able, I will conclude it's not so straightforward after all. I'm waiting on pins and needs -- literally -- to find out. Though I do accept your admission that you're no lawyer.

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It is worth noting that the ADL, otherwise known as the most prominent and powerful Israeli lobby, that presents itself as a civil rights organization and voice for/defender of all American Jewish people, whose leader (Jonathan Greenblatt) frequently goes on national television to viciously attack anyone and everyone who dares to publicly criticize Israel's actions, completely debased itself by immediately defending this action right after it happened.

This organization is one of those that is largely responsible for the continuing false conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

It's also worth noting that the ADL supplies the US government with the statistics it presents to the public about the instances of antisemitism in the US, in which it always includes thousands of instances of speech that is critical of Israel and/or Zionism. Examining the ADL’s Antisemitism Audit

Yep they've destroyed their own credibility. I ignore 'em. Greenblatt is a piece of shit. If we could follow the money trail...

Posted
22 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The result of this ambiguity and the completely overheated rhetoric deployed against “Zionists”  means that among people who are most inclined to take dramatic and potentially illegal action, the difference between “Zionists” and “Jews” is nearly eliminated, especially since the vast majority of Jews, even those who oppose Netanyahu and the conduct of the war, believe that Israel has the right to exist as a uniquely Jewish entity.

I think Israel has a right to exist as a uniquely Jewish entity.

But the right to exist is different from a supposed right to expansion.  And that's particularly true where it want to retain its Jewish character.  

If Israel is going to be both an expansionist entity, then it either needs to be a multi-ethnic country or a practitioner of ethnic clensing.  I don't support the latter option.  But that's the option that this Israeli government is undertaking.  

I don't think opposing that renders one either anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel.

27 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

What's their exact status?

Were they granted asylum?

No lawyer, but I'm guessing if you're here under asylum and a family member carries out a terrorist attack then there is legal justification to remove you from our country. Seems pretty straightforward.

Is there a legal justificiation for removing someone from the country based on the actions of a family member?  Can you please cite the legal authority for that proposition?

Punishing family members for actions in which they did not participate is pretty anathema to our system of justice.  And I'm not familiar with any circumstance in which we have done that before.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Hmm well if it is a law pertaining to asylum it should be very easy to find, esp in summary form. Go ahead and provide me a link, will ya? 

If you're not able, I will conclude it's not so straightforward after all. I'm waiting on pins and needs -- literally -- to find out. Though I do accept your admission that you're no lawyer.

So from what I can gather, they overstayed their tourist visa then applied for asylum. It had not yet been granted, so their visas can be revoked.

Security Concerns or Criminal Activity (8 CFR 214.1, INA Section 221(i)): A visa can be revoked if the visa holder or their family is deemed a threat to national security or public safety. In Soliman's case, he allegedly carried out a terrorist attack on June 1, 2025, in Boulder, Colorado. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department, as reported on June 3, 2025, by outlets like The Guardian, revoked the family’s visas due to Soliman’s actions, likely under the suspicion that the family could pose a security risk or be complicit, though no public evidence confirms the latter.

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is there a legal justificiation for removing someone from the country based on the actions of a family member?  Can you please cite the legal authority for that proposition?

Punishing family members for actions in which they did not participate is pretty anathema to our system of justice.  And I'm not familiar with any circumstance in which we have done that before.

I don't know if we've done it before, but above is the likely justification. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Got it, I can refine that:

I think that among a very visible and very vocal subset of the “anti-Zionist” activists, there is very deliberate and dangerous ambiguity about what “anti-Zionism” actually means and who is a “Zionist.” The result of this ambiguity and the completely overheated rhetoric deployed against “Zionists”  means that among people who are most inclined to take dramatic and potentially illegal action, the difference between “Zionists” and “Jews” is nearly eliminated, especially since the vast majority of Jews, even those who oppose Netanyahu and the conduct of the war, believe that Israel has the right to exist as a uniquely Jewish entity. You get attacks, rhetoric, targeted behavior that, whether the motivated by “anti-Zionism” or “anti-semitism,” are indiscriminate in their targeting of Jewish people and the functional result is an atmosphere of anti-Semitic fear. 

There is an example of that on this board, one poster as asserted that “Zionists are Nazis.” Ok, we fought an existential and total war against the Nazis and hung many of them. If that’s the appropriate stance towards “Zionists” then there’s a pretty clear obligation for the person advocating that stance to be explicit about what Zionism is and who qualifies as a Zionist. 
 

But as I said, there is deliberate ambiguity in the way anti-Zionist rhetoric is deployed and created and I do think some uniquely bad actors in the movement are deploying it purposefully to stress-test American society and its tolerances while maintaining deniable distance.

I don't think you're wrong at all about the lines being blurred within American society, but this is effectively entirely the fault of how Zionism and the Israeli state has been portrayed to the American public by the government and mainstream media outlets for decades. There is almost a complete lack of education on the subject, by design, which leads to the average American to simply assume that Zionism and Judaism are the same thing, and therefore if you are anti-Zionist you must be antisemitic. On the flip side of that, if you are actually antisemitic, conflating the two is beneficial to you because you can simply use Zionism as a bludgeon to shit on Jews, or worse, commit acts of violence against them.

The general lack of public education on the subject also naturally leads to increases in levels of antisemitism across the board any time Israel does something fucked up and it gets reported on national TV.

I do think you are absolutely correct that there are some uniquely bad actors in the movement that present and use anti-Zionist rhetoric in a very insidious way.

With regard to my assertion that you're referring to here about Zionism effectively being equitable to Nazism, I feel like I should offer some clarification, even though I know it may be an unpopular opinion (though more and more people are seeing it for what it is every day). I consider Zionism, specifically as it is practiced by the Israeli government, to be functionally indistinguishable from the racist, genocidal/exterminationist practices of Nazism. I am not at all referring to the everyday Jewish person (or non-Jewish person, for that matter) who may or may not feel some type of positive way towards Israel or feels that a Jewish state should exist.

Pivoting to the question "Does Israel have the right to exist?" that has again surfaced in this thread: Let's be clear in stating that no nation has an inherent right to exist, and especially no nation that behaves the way Israel does has the right to exist as it currently does. Do I think that Israel should exist? Yes! I am 100% for Israel existing as a safe haven, not just for Jewish people, but for all people and all creeds. That being said, it simply cannot continue to exist as the ethno-nationalist, religious supremacist apartheid state that it currently is. Such a state cannot be sustained permanently, and it should not be allowed to. Their society has been spiraling for some time now, and collapse is inevitable. Thus far it is only postponed, not prevented, by the unconditional support it receives from the Western world.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, burnt beanz said:

So from what I can gather, they overstayed their tourist visa then applied for asylum. It had not yet been granted, so their visas can be revoked.

From what I read they applied for asylum quickly upon arriving in the US as tourists while their tourist visa was still active. Arrived in August 2023, I think, and applied for asylum the following month. Obtaining asylum is currently a 5 year process due to insufficient processing so he was in limbo. What I actually wrote however is that snatching up the family to punish them seems like some medieval shit. That's not a legal judgment. It seems like retribution on the wrong parties, punishing the murderer by harming his family, and also closing the barn door after the horses have left. In other words, it seems like political bullshit that does nothing. 

For example it seems hypocritical/sketchy/fuckedup, to say the least, for the US to allow into the US 8 members of the family of El Chapo (3 weeks ago) and then snatch up someone else's little kids. 

Incidentally the US is required by law to offer asylum. 

I'm no immigration lawyer and neither are you. The difference is for some reason you're not holding back on offering your personal legal judgments when you have no idea what you're talking about. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

Today we're going to tackle the difficult topic of, "Is it possible to be a Zionist yet oppose how Israel has conducted the war?"

Yes, it's possible. And popular.

And that concludes today's lesson. Thank you for listening. 

Posted
7 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I do agree with your points. To support point 2 above I'll provide a well written and comprehensive NYT link below. Again, devil is in the details, I am supportive of Isreal, but I am not supportive of the current Isreali administration.

I don't doubt your stance, but maybe learn to spell it correctly?

  • Haha 2
Posted

Another key point: if an asylum applicant adds dependents to the application, the asylum case stands or falls on the decision for the applicant. You can’t pass off the claim to a spouse or child for another bite, a denied asylum claim means everyone on the petition is ordered removed. It’s gonna be super likely that this guy’s app got pulled out of the pile for some expedited attention. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, Chopper said:

What I actually wrote however is that snatching up the family to punish them seems like some medieval shit.

Actually, what seems medieval to me is firebombing innocent, unsuspecting people in a park.

If you're visiting any country in the world and a close family member does that, I'm going to guess you will be escorted out.

38 minutes ago, Chopper said:

For example it seems hypocritical/sketchy/fuckedup, to say the least, for the US to allow into the US 8 members of the family of El Chapo (3 weeks ago) and then snatch up someone else's little kids. 

The ideology that Mr. Soliman espoused runs in the same stream as that which led to the worst terrorist attack against our country and causes conflict all over the globe. That's not the same as a drug kingpin's family.

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Another key point: if an asylum applicant adds dependents to the application, the asylum case stands or falls on the decision for the applicant. You can’t pass off the claim to a spouse or child for another bite, a denied asylum claim means everyone on the petition is ordered removed. It’s gonna be super likely that this guy’s app got pulled out of the pile for some expedited attention. 

Thank you for the detailed explanation in both posts.

12 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Update, the nomination for father of the year has been withdrawn.

image.thumb.png.59734c8368d10ebe410e91c4449de210.png

Wait, I thought she came on a tourist visa?

 

Posted
1 minute ago, burnt beanz said:

Actually, what seems medieval to me is firebombing innocent, unsuspecting people in a park.

JFC, firebombing innocent people wasn't a medieval act. It's a unique form of violence. That doesn't make it medieval. Molotov cocktails came into existence in .. well you can look it up and maybe learn a little something.

OTOH punishing a guilty person's family IS a medieval act, in that it was very common for the times.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

The bottom line is that this is an issue with a hell of a lot of gray that the majority of people seem to want to view as black and white.  And if you choose to view this issue as black and white, well it's pretty easy to get radicalized (in either direction).

We currently do not live in a world capable of handling complexity and nuance.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Chopper said:

JFC, firebombing innocent people wasn't a medieval act. It's a unique form of violence. That doesn't make it medieval. Molotov cocktails came into existence in .. well you can look it up and maybe learn a little something.

OTOH punishing a guilty person's family IS a medieval act, in that it was very common for the times.

 

Or look up Greek fire?  Look up medieval incendiary tactics, attacks, and material such as tar and pitch.  

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...