gambler

I thought there would be no resistance to say God is genderless, but recently I got pushback on this with the counter claim that God is actually a woman/female. And that's because the universe gave us life and is an expression of love or something of that sort was said. But this to me seems anachronistic to anthropomorphize a higher source entity, it's like putting the cart before the horse. The universe doesn't have a vagina/penis or breasts/muscles, why does it need to be anthropomorphized? What do you think when it comes to God's gender? Is it more accurate to say God is genderless or a female?

really appreciate the insights, thank you

I never assumed you were Israeli/Jewish. And I never made any notion that I thought Israel would be replaced or can be replaced. You wrote all that, but my point still stands.

It doesn't matter what you prefer in the middle east. This is as silly as a north African preferring an Islamic-Moroccan project for Spain because of historicity and to push the Islamic agenda. This is silly because North Africans have no business preferring any such thing about Europe. It's insulting to think you can subjugate and have dominion and push a project on others. Keep your values to yourselves and stop pushing it on others. Jewish supremacy too. Wow. This is why no one can get behind your side.

"The New York Times was the first to report that the U.S. had collected multiple pieces of intelligence showing that key Iranian leaders did not know the attack was coming and were caught by surprise.Oct 11, 2023" https://www.reuters.com/world/initial-us-intelligence-shows-hamas-attack-surprised-iranian-leaders-ny-times-2023-10-11/ The scope and manner of the attack may not have been known. Who knows.

+1.

Yea America has a population of over 330 million. Jews have a population of 15 million. Because of this, Americans are multi-cultural, from many ethnic backgrounds, without any collective aspiration to a foreign policy goal (liberals and conservatives are always split on nearly everything). However, Jews are one tribe, with a majority being Zionists--the historical right to establish a Jewish state on a southern levantine land because Holocaust and our ancestors over 2000 years ago. You are simply not going to get the same response to a government that represents a variety of diverse people vs a government that represents a homogeneous people who all have Zionism uniting them.

Regardless of whether it's true that there's a case to be made that it's about caring more about your closest in-group vs other in-groups, or in-group vs an alien out-group (which would then be a human thing rather than a "Muslim" thing), one thing remains certain: the response is appropriate. It will always remain true that showing solidarity to innocent Palestinians when they are faced with a possible catastrophe is appropriate. Next, if we assume that the disproportionate response is not because Israel was made by an international community and therefore it owes its' obedience to international laws and norms (unlike a 3rd world dictator); Israel is allied with western governments and can be pressured (unlike a China); there's no end in sight for this nearly century-old conflict and we can guess it could end with the displacement of a people (unlike in Syria where we know the war will end and that there will still be Syrians there); then the right way to approach the lack of equality of responses would be how can we get humans to feel this strongly about x, y, and z. Rather than this unspoken implication that their response lacks authenticity. That Arabs don't care about Arabs. Muslims don't care about Muslims. Because this is absolutely untrue.

What you're saying is the same rhetoric and hysteria that followed after 9/11. We all know the consequences of your rhetoric. Cooler heads will prevail in the end.

Nothing.

And then there's your desire to debauch their women sexually for your twisted sexual arousal:

None of these examples include economic sanctions and forced isolationism. The more appropriate comparison would be North Korea before any of these.

They've been under sanctions this entire time.

When I was 14 years old I used to play an online shooting game and befriended an IDF soldier. He would go on to befriend these American conservatives. We formed a clique. At one point they asked him if he ever committed atrocities as a soldier, and it was a joke between all of them that he purposely killed a random Palestinian civilian during his time. And you hear this type of stuff from time to time from others as well. Like in the Jubilee video where the Palestinian had an IDF soldier kill his little sister, and still walks free. I think even the Palestinian Christian girl on that panel also described something similar happening to one of her own. It never gets out there like that when Israelis abuse innocents. But I'm sure Hamas remembers and never forgets.

The irony that you used the term rotten soul is lost on you.

Go for it.

So genocide us all. Go on with your no man's land. Pick off Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. And then go enjoy a 20 year war with Iran.

This is what Arabs can smell off of anyone from the opposing side. We understand you play the game well but what is actually in your bosoms is racism and suppressed genocidal desires. All of this from what, 1300 Israeli deaths since 2008? Clown world.

It was definitely not to go to war with Iraq, a then secular nation, predominately Shia, who's Sunni population includes secular Kurds. None of these groups had anything to do with Al-Qaeda yet had to suffer for their sins.

Yup it's because they are Jews. Not because this is a nation that is supposed to be a symbol of international law and norms but subjugates a people and has had the free reign to do so for 3/4th of a century.

Yea because one greedy fat cat out-of-touch politician represent us all.

Yea, they weren't given refugee status, from your own article, "In part, the low numbers are due to a technicality, as the Gulf states are non-signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the governing international convention defining refugees and their rights. To be sure, there are hundreds of thousands of Syrians in the Gulf, just not as "refugees." The Saudis refer them as "Arab brothers and sisters in distress."" As yes, I conceded that there is no way for Syrians to be granted citizenship, just like my family back in Kuwait who are native to that region but are stateless because they missed out on applying for citizenship when it was open.

And this is what is concealed in their hearts. A smart and operating-through-perniciousness collective. Hidden behind political correct rhetoric and narratives that Israelis feed us and attempt to play by, there is the undeniable savagery and blood-lust that is within them too.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, USA, all did come to your aid through proxy. They had proxy groups fighting Assad. What are you talking about? Government officials in Saudi Arabia even unleashed ISIS into the war, even though that idea of helping is irrational, it was nevertheless their idea of coming to your aid. Thing is you had Iran and Russia getting themselves involved in the war. It wasn't so easy for the USA/Gulf-backed rebels to win and therefore, they lost. And without normalization with Assad, the Syrian people would continue to suffer under sanctions. As for refugees in gulf countries, Saudi Arabia took 2.5 million going from 2016 to prior, and the UAE more than 100,000 (https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2016/12/05/Saudi-sets-pace-globally-in-humanitarian-aid-says-envoy https://web.archive.org/web/20210513093502/https://www.uae-embassy.org/syrian-refugee-crisis-–-uae-contribution). But yes, I will concede those refugees will leave if they haven't already since there is no citizenship process over there. I myself come from stateless Kuwaiti families. Even though we are tribal Bedouin Arabs, our grandparents never applied for citizenship when it was open to obtain one, and after that there was no way to apply.