Busload of Lebanese Olympians refuse to let Israeli team on bus!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps when Jeff, and/or his wife and kids are victims of Muslim Terrorism, his tune will change. It is one thing to be compassionate and care about human rights, it is another to be blindly ignorant of the fact that many of the Muslim refugees and Muslims in general hate America and want to destroy us. They even hate liberals and would blow your Muslim loving backside up in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Wow, such bigotry. What evidence do you have that many of the Muslim refugees hate America? Really all of you supporting bans on Muslims are cut from the same cloth. You are unable to see Muslims as individuals. To you, each and every one of them is a potential -- if not actual -- terrorist. You literally can't perceive a Muslim being anything other than a terrorist.

I've never understood why allegedly loving someone is supposed to be an insult. Do you take pride in hating instead? Not many years ago you probably would have called me a "n-word" lover.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Not that PP but I agree with this. Sometimes people need to get 'mugged' in order to get it. I would not like to see anyone become victims of terrorism, and I'm sure neither to you. We are simply asking that those who don't believe terror is a threat understand they don't get to decide for me or you - or anyone else in the US - what is best for OUR families. When a 5 year old special needs girl can get horribly abused by three migrant child refugees and the only thing liberals are concerned about is whether or not the migrants were Syrian and whether or not they had a weapon? Preposterous!

I would never want a disaster -- either natural or man-made -- to befall you and your family. If it did, I certainly hope that you don't see help from people like you. But, maybe that experience would help you get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I'm enjoying the circle jerk going on between the two pro-Israel posters. The two of you have so much in common that I almost wonder if it is one poster with two computers. Both of you routinely negatively stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few, spout blatant falsehoods about Islam, and call for collective action against all Muslims. Yet, you squeal to high heaven when a specific Israeli policy is criticized. The fact that you consider criticism of a specific government policy to the the same general prejudice against an entire religion explains a lot about your thinking.

Also, why is it that both of you can't confine yourself to a single response to one of my posts. Both of you routinely reply multiple times. Do you just not take time to collect your thoughts and have to reply again after you've thought about it more, or are you trying to make it appear that there are more than just two of you?

Edit to add: It is also pretty funny that you two are engaged in an off-topic discussion about free speech, criticizing me, on my website, and essentially trying to provoke me into deleting your posts.

And also, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never negatively stereotyped all Muslims (in fact, I've expressed sympathy for the refugees and suggested humanitarian aid) and never called for collection action against all Muslims. If you think so, your pro-Muslim bias is coloring enverything you're reading.

Do you support a ban on Muslim refugees? Do you support a ban on legal immigration by Muslims?

As I've said previously, I support a temporary ban on Muslims coming specifically from those countries that are hotbeds of terrorism until we have better vetting abilities in place. (Until then, I support sending humanitarian aid to the refugees in Syria.) So I'm in favor of helping them, but not in favor of the way you want to help them. That doesn't make me anti-Muslim. I'd simply like to lower the risk of terrorists sneaking in and protect American lives. I know you disagree and have stated that you think a "small risk" to American lives is acceptable.

So to put it in other words, you would support Jim Crow laws but not slavery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I'm enjoying the circle jerk going on between the two pro-Israel posters. The two of you have so much in common that I almost wonder if it is one poster with two computers. Both of you routinely negatively stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few, spout blatant falsehoods about Islam, and call for collective action against all Muslims. Yet, you squeal to high heaven when a specific Israeli policy is criticized. The fact that you consider criticism of a specific government policy to the the same general prejudice against an entire religion explains a lot about your thinking.

Also, why is it that both of you can't confine yourself to a single response to one of my posts. Both of you routinely reply multiple times. Do you just not take time to collect your thoughts and have to reply again after you've thought about it more, or are you trying to make it appear that there are more than just two of you?

Edit to add: It is also pretty funny that you two are engaged in an off-topic discussion about free speech, criticizing me, on my website, and essentially trying to provoke me into deleting your posts.

And also, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never negatively stereotyped all Muslims (in fact, I've expressed sympathy for the refugees and suggested humanitarian aid) and never called for collection action against all Muslims. If you think so, your pro-Muslim bias is coloring enverything you're reading.

Do you support a ban on Muslim refugees? Do you support a ban on legal immigration by Muslims?

As I've said previously, I support a temporary ban on Muslims coming specifically from those countries that are hotbeds of terrorism until we have better vetting abilities in place. (Until then, I support sending humanitarian aid to the refugees in Syria.) So I'm in favor of helping them, but not in favor of the way you want to help them. That doesn't make me anti-Muslim. I'd simply like to lower the risk of terrorists sneaking in and protect American lives. I know you disagree and have stated that you think a "small risk" to American lives is acceptable.

So to put it in other words, you would support Jim Crow laws but not slavery?

Not comporable at all.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps when Jeff, and/or his wife and kids are victims of Muslim Terrorism, his tune will change. It is one thing to be compassionate and care about human rights, it is another to be blindly ignorant of the fact that many of the Muslim refugees and Muslims in general hate America and want to destroy us. They even hate liberals and would blow your Muslim loving backside up in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Wow, such bigotry. What evidence do you have that many of the Muslim refugees hate America? Really all of you supporting bans on Muslims are cut from the same cloth. You are unable to see Muslims as individuals. To you, each and every one of them is a potential -- if not actual -- terrorist. You literally can't perceive a Muslim being anything other than a terrorist.

I've never understood why allegedly loving someone is supposed to be an insult. Do you take pride in hating instead? Not many years ago you probably would have called me a "n-word" lover.

OMG. Because at least one of us has suggested a compromise - with humanitarian aid delievered to refugees - until we can vet them more reliably, now we're accused of calling you a n------- lover? And remember.... we're talking about a TEMPORARY ban from countries where terrorism is rampant, not a ban on all Muslims. And you're talking about hate? Are you unable to see the hatred and disgust you're demonstrating for someone who doesn't agree with your approach to the Syrian refugee situation but still demonstrates support for their plight through a different - and temporary - solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I'm enjoying the circle jerk going on between the two pro-Israel posters. The two of you have so much in common that I almost wonder if it is one poster with two computers. Both of you routinely negatively stereotype all Muslims based on the actions of a few, spout blatant falsehoods about Islam, and call for collective action against all Muslims. Yet, you squeal to high heaven when a specific Israeli policy is criticized. The fact that you consider criticism of a specific government policy to the the same general prejudice against an entire religion explains a lot about your thinking.

Also, why is it that both of you can't confine yourself to a single response to one of my posts. Both of you routinely reply multiple times. Do you just not take time to collect your thoughts and have to reply again after you've thought about it more, or are you trying to make it appear that there are more than just two of you?

Edit to add: It is also pretty funny that you two are engaged in an off-topic discussion about free speech, criticizing me, on my website, and essentially trying to provoke me into deleting your posts.

And also, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never negatively stereotyped all Muslims (in fact, I've expressed sympathy for the refugees and suggested humanitarian aid) and never called for collection action against all Muslims. If you think so, your pro-Muslim bias is coloring enverything you're reading.

Do you support a ban on Muslim refugees? Do you support a ban on legal immigration by Muslims?

As I've said previously, I support a temporary ban on Muslims coming specifically from those countries that are hotbeds of terrorism until we have better vetting abilities in place. (Until then, I support sending humanitarian aid to the refugees in Syria.) So I'm in favor of helping them, but not in favor of the way you want to help them. That doesn't make me anti-Muslim. I'd simply like to lower the risk of terrorists sneaking in and protect American lives. I know you disagree and have stated that you think a "small risk" to American lives is acceptable.

Perhaps when Jeff, and/or his wife and kids are victims of Muslim Terrorism, his tune will change. It is one thing to be compassionate and care about human rights, it is another to be blindly ignorant of the fact that many of the Muslim refugees and Muslims in general hate America and want to destroy us. They even hate liberals and would blow your Muslim loving backside up in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Not that PP but I agree with this. Sometimes people need to get 'mugged' in order to get it. I would not like to see anyone become victims of terrorism, and I'm sure neither to you. We are simply asking that those who don't believe terror is a threat understand they don't get to decide for me or you - or anyone else in the US - what is best for OUR families. When a 5 year old special needs girl can get horribly abused by three migrant child refugees and the only thing liberals are concerned about is whether or not the migrants were Syrian and whether or not they had a weapon? Preposterous!

We were "mugged" during 9-11. What change came of that?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps when Jeff, and/or his wife and kids are victims of Muslim Terrorism, his tune will change. It is one thing to be compassionate and care about human rights, it is another to be blindly ignorant of the fact that many of the Muslim refugees and Muslims in general hate America and want to destroy us. They even hate liberals and would blow your Muslim loving backside up in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Wow, such bigotry. What evidence do you have that many of the Muslim refugees hate America? Really all of you supporting bans on Muslims are cut from the same cloth. You are unable to see Muslims as individuals. To you, each and every one of them is a potential -- if not actual -- terrorist. You literally can't perceive a Muslim being anything other than a terrorist.

I've never understood why allegedly loving someone is supposed to be an insult. Do you take pride in hating instead? Not many years ago you probably would have called me a "n-word" lover.

OMG. Because at least one of us has suggested a compromise - with humanitarian aid delievered to refugees - until we can vet them more reliably, now we're accused of calling you a n------- lover? And remember.... we're talking about a TEMPORARY ban from countries where terrorism is rampant, not a ban on all Muslims. And you're talking about hate? Are you unable to see the hatred and disgust you're demonstrating for someone who doesn't agree with your approach to the Syrian refugee situation but still demonstrates support for their plight through a different - and temporary - solution?

Unless you have called me a "Muslim lover" then you probably would have also called me an "n-word lover'. I understand your need to respond to every post whether it was directed to you or not -- frequently multiple times -- but at least try to follow the conversation.

Temporary prejudice is no better than permanent prejudice. If there is a refugee from a country in which terrorism is rampant and that refugee can be vetted reliably, why would you block him? Based on what you have said, you would block him because of his religion. Yet, you deny having religious prejudice. It is true that we can't vet every potential refugee reliably. But that does not mean that we can't vet any of them reliably. In the case of Syrian refugees, those coming to the US have been in camps for years. What does the existence of terrorism or lack thereof in Syria have to do with them?

I congratulate you on finding a way to put pretty wrapping paper on your religious bias. But, we only have to tear that paper away to see what is underneath.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:We were "mugged" during 9-11. What change came of that?

We invaded the wrong country, leading to the creation of ISIS, and near permanent war. But, hey, muggings are educational!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How come my posts with youtube links on the massacre on Sabra and Shitila got deleted?

This was an Israeli government sponsored war crime where over 3,000 civilians were slaughtered. Maybe seeing the awful truth would help the OP understand that what happened in 1982 is like 9/11 for the people of Lebanon.

I didn't want to look at that picture every time I read this thread.

Fair enough, this is just the link then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axg3pqNrJe4

I truly hope the OP gets it, but I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How come my posts with youtube links on the massacre on Sabra and Shitila got deleted?

This was an Israeli government sponsored war crime where over 3,000 civilians were slaughtered. Maybe seeing the awful truth would help the OP understand that what happened in 1982 is like 9/11 for the people of Lebanon.

I didn't want to look at that picture every time I read this thread.

Fair enough, this is just the link then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axg3pqNrJe4

I truly hope the OP gets it, but I doubt it.

Tis happened over 30 years ago-did the Israeli Olympians on that bus have anything to do with it? Is blaming ALL Israeli's ok due to the actions of some? Perhaps we should refuse to let all Muslims ride our busses, or live in our country-because of the actions of some?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Jews were in Israel 3300 years ago, way before Islam was born. The Jews got kicked out, just like they've been persecuted and expelled (and gassed!) for their entire existence. Yet all the sympathy, all the time, goes to the Arabs.

The value of claims diminishes, relative to conflicting claims, as the centuries pass. A 3,000-year-old claim without continuity is not worth the paper it is not written on. Whom did the ancient Jews take it from, or was it their God who gave it to them?

You need to ask why Jews have been "persecuted and expelled (and gassed!)" for their entire existence.

And the argument it's because they are "God's chosen people" is a non-starter.

Please enlighten us, why have the Jews been gassed and persecuted and expelled? I am waiting with baited breath for your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Jews were in Israel 3300 years ago, way before Islam was born. The Jews got kicked out, just like they've been persecuted and expelled (and gassed!) for their entire existence. Yet all the sympathy, all the time, goes to the Arabs.

The value of claims diminishes, relative to conflicting claims, as the centuries pass. A 3,000-year-old claim without continuity is not worth the paper it is not written on. Whom did the ancient Jews take it from, or was it their God who gave it to them?

You need to ask why Jews have been "persecuted and expelled (and gassed!)" for their entire existence.

And the argument it's because they are "God's chosen people" is a non-starter.

Please enlighten us, why have the Jews been gassed and persecuted and expelled? I am waiting with baited breath for your answer.

lol @ "for their entire existence"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that PP but I agree with this. Sometimes people need to get 'mugged' in order to get it. I would not like to see anyone become victims of terrorism, and I'm sure neither to you. We are simply asking that those who don't believe terror is a threat understand they don't get to decide for me or you - or anyone else in the US - what is best for OUR families. When a 5 year old special needs girl can get horribly abused by three migrant child refugees and the only thing liberals are concerned about is whether or not the migrants were Syrian and whether or not they had a weapon? Preposterous!

I would never want a disaster -- either natural or man-made -- to befall you and your family. If it did, I certainly hope that you don't see help from people like you. But, maybe that experience would help you get it.

I understand you don't want a disaster. What we feel is folks like you won't make the effort to do what we feel is necessary to prevent it either. The left seems to be more interested in being - and associating with - the cool kids rather than being practical. Grasshopper vs. Ant.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps when Jeff, and/or his wife and kids are victims of Muslim Terrorism, his tune will change. It is one thing to be compassionate and care about human rights, it is another to be blindly ignorant of the fact that many of the Muslim refugees and Muslims in general hate America and want to destroy us. They even hate liberals and would blow your Muslim loving backside up in a heartbeat if they had the chance.

Wow, such bigotry. What evidence do you have that many of the Muslim refugees hate America? Really all of you supporting bans on Muslims are cut from the same cloth. You are unable to see Muslims as individuals. To you, each and every one of them is a potential -- if not actual -- terrorist. You literally can't perceive a Muslim being anything other than a terrorist.

I've never understood why allegedly loving someone is supposed to be an insult. Do you take pride in hating instead? Not many years ago you probably would have called me a "n-word" lover.

OMG. Because at least one of us has suggested a compromise - with humanitarian aid delievered to refugees - until we can vet them more reliably, now we're accused of calling you a n------- lover? And remember.... we're talking about a TEMPORARY ban from countries where terrorism is rampant, not a ban on all Muslims. And you're talking about hate? Are you unable to see the hatred and disgust you're demonstrating for someone who doesn't agree with your approach to the Syrian refugee situation but still demonstrates support for their plight through a different - and temporary - solution?

Unless you have called me a "Muslim lover" then you probably would have also called me an "n-word lover'. I understand your need to respond to every post whether it was directed to you or not -- frequently multiple times -- but at least try to follow the conversation.

Temporary prejudice is no better than permanent prejudice. If there is a refugee from a country in which terrorism is rampant and that refugee can be vetted reliably, why would you block him? Based on what you have said, you would block him because of his religion. Yet, you deny having religious prejudice. It is true that we can't vet every potential refugee reliably. But that does not mean that we can't vet any of them reliably. In the case of Syrian refugees, those coming to the US have been in camps for years. What does the existence of terrorism or lack thereof in Syria have to do with them?

I congratulate you on finding a way to put pretty wrapping paper on your religious bias. But, we only have to tear that paper away to see what is underneath.

I get it. You weren't talking to me with that n-lover remark. It's hard to tell, given how quickly and vehemently you attack people who disagree with you.

There's no temporary religious prejudice on my part. You're just irrational on this topic and therefore revert to hateful insults and accusations when someone suggests a compromise solution that would provide some relief to the refugees. It's that same liberal rant I keep hearing when someone disagrees - "you're a racist!" The typical smackdown to silence dissent.

My position: Despite your beliefs to the contrary, I am a decent and compassionate person who would like to see the Syrian refugees provided some help without creating more risk of terrorists killing Americans. I am certainly happy to see my tax dollars provide humanitarian aid while we figure out a way to vet the refugees reliably, given Comey's remarks that we currently cannot.

Your position as you've stated it: You have acknowledged there is a risk to Americans (how small or large is debatable), but you said - amidst your accusations that I am an Islamaphobe and fear-monger who should be ashamed of herself - that it is BETTER for the refugees if they come here. We get it. Obviously. But it is not better for Americans, who run a small risk (which you admitted) of terrorist attacks as a result. You want what is best for the refugees - no compromises - even at a risk to Americans. I want to find a compromise solution, and I'm accused again of religious prejudice.

in summary, I am incredulous that you come out with hateful, virulent attacks against anyone who even hints that maybe all Muslims are not loving toward us and that a minority of them do wish us harm - while at the same time making excuses for the terrorists themselves. Your hatred is misplaced.

I know you like the last word - I notice a lot of topics end wih your post - so I won't be surprised with another bigoted rant against me. I won't be replying. I'm done.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Unless you have called me a "Muslim lover" then you probably would have also called me an "n-word lover'. I understand your need to respond to every post whether it was directed to you or not -- frequently multiple times -- but at least try to follow the conversation.

Temporary prejudice is no better than permanent prejudice. If there is a refugee from a country in which terrorism is rampant and that refugee can be vetted reliably, why would you block him? Based on what you have said, you would block him because of his religion. Yet, you deny having religious prejudice. It is true that we can't vet every potential refugee reliably. But that does not mean that we can't vet any of them reliably. In the case of Syrian refugees, those coming to the US have been in camps for years. What does the existence of terrorism or lack thereof in Syria have to do with them?

I congratulate you on finding a way to put pretty wrapping paper on your religious bias. But, we only have to tear that paper away to see what is underneath.

I get it. You weren't talking to me with that n-lover remark. It's hard to tell, given how quickly and vehemently you attack people who disagree with you.

There's no temporary religious prejudice on my part. You're just irrational on this topic and therefore revert to hateful insults and accusations when someone suggests a compromise solution that would provide some relief to the refugees. It's that same liberal rant I keep hearing when someone disagrees - "you're a racist!" The typical smackdown to silence dissent.

My position: Despite your beliefs to the contrary, I am a decent and compassionate person who would like to see the Syrian refugees provided some help without creating more risk of terrorists killing Americans. I am certainly happy to see my tax dollars provide humanitarian aid while we figure out a way to vet the refugees reliably, given Comey's remarks that we currently cannot.

Your position as you've stated it: You have acknowledged there is a risk to Americans (how small or large is debatable), but you said - amidst your accusations that I am an Islamaphobe and fear-monger who should be ashamed of herself - that it is BETTER for the refugees if they come here. We get it. Obviously. But it is not better for Americans, who run a small risk (which you admitted) of terrorist attacks as a result. You want what is best for the refugees - no compromises - even at a risk to Americans. I want to find a compromise solution, and I'm accused again of religious prejudice.

in summary, I am incredulous that you come out with hateful, virulent attacks against anyone who even hints that maybe all Muslims are not loving toward us and that a minority of them do wish us harm - while at the same time making excuses for the terrorists themselves. Your hatred is misplaced.

I know you like the last word - I notice a lot of topics end wih your post - so I won't be surprised with another bigoted rant against me. I won't be replying. I'm done.

This is an interesting post. In your first paragraph you accuse me of "vehemently" attacking people. In your second, you say I am "irrational" and make "hateful insults". In your third paragraph you stress your compassion while standing by your position of discriminating on the basis of religion and you misstate Comey's remarks. But, then having supported discrimination against Muslims and exaggerating the thread described by Comey, you object to being called an Islamophobe and fear-monger. Maybe you have better words to describe someone who supports anti-Muslim discrimination and who exaggerates threats, but those seem pretty good, if not perfect, choices to me. Finally, you summarize things by attacking a straw man.

My position is that blanket policies based on religious discrimination are wrong. While it is not possible to vet every potential refugee, it is possible to vet some refugees. Those who can be vetted and otherwise meet the criteria to enter the US as a refugee should not be prevented simply due to their religion.

BTW, the same claim you repeatedly make about Comey was made by Ted Cruz and found to be "Mostly False":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-claim-head-fbi-told-congress-they-cannot/