I’m not sure that “murder” is accurate; near as I can tell, a bunch of ‘em showed up looking to commit the equivalent of suicide-by-cop, and some of ‘em succeeded.
I think they, and many others, voted for political expediency for something that they thought no responsible President would do. Little did they think that an irresponsible President would be elected!
Let’s also note that more than a dozen generally liberal senators voted for the Iraq war. I think they did so because they were looking at reelection, not merits of policy.
Seems like something of a pattern with these liberal senators.
The Bible says the Kingdom of Israel will be restored before the end of the world. Some people believe that having Jerusalem as the capital is a necessary part of this restoration.
Now obviously, Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1980 so you’d think this has been accomplished without us getting involved. The Bible certainly doesn’t mention American diplomatic recognition being a necessary step towards the end-times. I’m speculating that American evangelicals feel it’s an important symbolic point for their country to be in accordance with what they see as God’s plan, even if it’s not necessary for that plan to go forward.
From the Wiki noted above…
On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of reunification of Jerusalem by 90-0. The resolution reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act and called upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions.[6]
…that was less than a year ago.
Little Nemo:
Actually, WEST Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1949, 1980 just added “complete and united” Jerusalem as such. The new US embassy is in that western part.
Nope, that would be farther from the truth. I said “Muslims” and I meant “Muslims”.
You realize that this is pretty much how US foreign policy works these days, right?
The pattern is that they trusted Republicans to be honest people making life-and-death decisions based on actual intelligence and proper consideration of the consequences of their actions. Clearly these liberal senators must be fucking morons for doing so.
Quick test of your knowledge, Ditka. Which of the following caused riots leading to 100+ Palestinian deaths and 10,000+ injuries?
(a) passing the Jerusalem Embassy Act,
(b) actually moving the Embassy to Jerusalem.
Take your time. You’re free to use Google if you need it.
Related question. Do the pro-Trump (pro-Armegeddon ? :eek: ) Dopers see those Palestinian casualties as a pro or a con?
What do Trumpists think of the religious figures chosen to appear on stage at this key step in the peace process? :—
But that’s not how causation works, is it?
It’s wrong — morally and factually — to say a woman’s short skirt caused a sexual assault; it’s right to instead say the choice made by the attacker broke the chain of causation and earned him a bullet, just like it’s right to gun down a rioter who made his decision and thereby caused the legitimacy of that response.
Nobody caused them to riot. Somebody caused them to stop.
There’s also a pervasive pattern of voting based on politicial expediency with conservative members of Congress. Exhibit number one is “repeal and replace,” which was voted on probably dozens of times by Republican congressmen, while conveniently not having any plan for what “replace” meant, even in the most vague, foggy idea.
I’m not following the point you are trying to make.
You’re right: if someone’s ‘rioting’ without being an imminent threat to anyone, someone should just mow them all down. :mad:
I’m with The Other Waldo Pepper on this: neither Israel nor the US “caused riots”. That was a decision made by the Palestinians. As for their deaths, I obviously can’t speak for others, but personally I’d call it a con, but in the same vein as any justifiable self-defense homicide. I wish they wouldn’t attack the Israelis.
I don’t know enough about the religious guy or care enough to even verify the quotes you provided, so … Not much.
This is as much a faith-based statement as anything in The Late Great Planet Earth.
“Literally” is not synonymous with “in my opinion”. See the title of this forum.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s the “without being an imminent threat to anyone” that’s in question. This tweeter said:
“the occasional Molotov or grenade”?!? That sounds like a pretty imminent threat to me.
Elsewhere I’ve read reports of Palestinian rioters charging Israeli soldiers with axes and other crude weapons. Just how close should the Israelis let someone with an axe get to them?
In a few weeks this will be all gone from the news. All gone.
It probably will be.
There will still be people rioting and getting killed but it will go back to not being newsworthy.
Just that there is more to the story than a 1995 vote with the hope that we would always have a “responsible” President. The June 2017 reaffirming it was 90-0.
Everything has exactly one cause. If you identify A as a cause of C, you need no longer worry your head about B also being a cause. Got it.
The religious persona your government presents to the world has no interest for you. Plus, educating yourself would mean you can no longer pretend to believe I misquoted the religious jerks that Trump chose for this ceremony. Got it.
Reread the sentence (“Imagine the desperation …”) you quoted before this response by you. Is your response, even remotely, a relevant sequitur to the point RTFirefly makes? Would you be willing to paraphrase RTFirefly’s point for those of us who wonder if you grasped it?
Yes, his post was based on the flawed premise that the rioters were not “being an imminent threat to anyone”. They’ve got FUCKING GRENADES! They’re an imminent threat, and the IDF is justified in shooting them.
All 2000+ of them? That’s a lot of grenades.
Or is this one of those “Kill them all and let God sort them out” scenarios?