Violent mob storms Russian airport 'looking for Jews'

No. I do not.

It’s the same over here in Europe. People hating Jews are now breaking into their homes to harass them and worse.

The problem is that not only is it a lot of Muslims coming here, but also that many of the European countries have a long history of persecuting Jews. In this country, the Constitution, up until 1856, banned Jews from entering. One can only imagine the influence that has had on the general view on Jews in the population.

Alright, one point at a time: lets go back to your defense of the pro Hamas Students at Harvard.


Here's the opening of the letter:
"We the undersigned student organization, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."


1.) There's a glaring omission: at no point in the letter, nowhere, are the terrorists condemned for slaughtering innocent people.
- This shows the students are clearly siding with the terrorists, and their atrocities.

2.) Israel is disallowed from defending itself, and Israel is culpable for anything further done by Hamas:
- How? By clear implication of the text:
a.) What would be "unfolding violence?"
b.) Anything subsequent to the initial attack, any action of future tense, after the initial attack, would constitute "unfolding violence".
c.) Therefore, if Israel takes any action AFTER the initial attack, any military or policing action of any kind, that results in any violence, then Israel, by implication, is morally culpable, and in the wrong.
d.) Even if Israel were merely to harm the direct perpetrators of the attack, just them and no one else, that would still constitute "unfolding violence", future tense, and Israel would be considered morally culpable and morally wrong.
e.) Furthermore, if any "unfolding violence" is perpetrated by Hamas, then because "unfolding violence" is not specified by party, and is left vague on purpose, then THAT TOO is Israel's fault.
f). The way this statement is written, any violence of any kind, for any reason, by either party, AFTER THE ORIGINAL ATTACK, is 100% ISRAEL'S FAULT, and PUTS ISRAEL ALONE IN THE MORAL WRONG.
g.) These are the clear and simple implications of the text, which was intentionally and specifically written in just this way, by some of the brightest minds, who knew exactly what they were saying.


Conclusion:
A.) This all seems simple and clear enough to me.
B.) And it was simple and clear enough to so many others, even the liberal media, that the students came under such pressure they had to renounce their signatures and backpeddle from their position.
C.) The students knew exactly what all the implications were, and so did the entirety of the press.

.

Alright, one point at a time: lets go back to your defense of the pro Hamas Students at Harvard.


Here's the opening of the letter:
"We the undersigned student organization, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."


1.) There's a glaring omission: at no point in the letter, nowhere, are the terrorists condemned for slaughtering innocent people.
- This shows the students are clearly siding with the terrorists, and their atrocities.

2.) Israel is disallowed from defending itself, and Israel is culpable for anything further done by Hamas:
- How? By clear implication of the text:
a.) What would be "unfolding violence?"
b.) Anything subsequent to the initial attack, any action of future tense, after the initial attack, would constitute "unfolding violence".
c.) Therefore, if Israel takes any action AFTER the initial attack, any military or policing action of any kind, that results in any violence, then Israel, by implication, is morally culpable, and in the wrong.
d.) Even if Israel were merely to harm the direct perpetrators of the attack, just them and no one else, that would still constitute "unfolding violence", future tense, and Israel would be considered morally culpable and morally wrong.
e.) Furthermore, if any "unfolding violence" is perpetrated by Hamas, then because "unfolding violence" is not specified by party, and is left vague on purpose, then THAT TOO is Israel's fault.
f). The way this statement is written, any violence of any kind, for any reason, by either party, AFTER THE ORIGINAL ATTACK, is 100% ISRAEL'S FAULT, and PUTS ISRAEL ALONE IN THE MORAL WRONG.
g.) These are the clear and simple implications of the text, which was intentionally and specifically written in just this way, by some of the brightest minds, who knew exactly what they were saying.


Conclusion:
A.) This all seems simple and clear enough to me.
B.) And it was simple and clear enough to so many others, even the liberal media, that the students came under such pressure they had to renounce their signatures and backpeddle from their position.
C.) The students knew exactly what all the implications were, and so did the entirety of the press.

.

To those of y’all wondering. I’m currently living in Norway. Regarding gun legislation people can own as many firearms they want to in this country. Same goes for Finland and Sweden. The strict gun control laws in other European countries don’t apply here.

Unfortunately, in the South, where I’m originally from, the hatred of Jews is as bad as here. It’s getting better, but it’s not gone.

So its not a fair statement to say that something that a clear minority of students said and did represents the whole of the body of Harvard.

That is horrifying to hear. I know many of them don't have the right to own and use weapon for self-defense


Those students are insane.

You can't commit crimes and acts of violence and then blame it on "Israel's regime" no more than Israel can blame anyone else for their apartheid, occupation, and illegal displacement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Each party is responsible for their own crimes/crimes against humanity.

Also, very rarely is something ENTIRELY one party's fault. The conflict has been going on for centuries. Even in relative recent history (1948), neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was all one side's fault. The media loves to paint it this way. Satan loves to paint it this way too. It's how they attract and recruit people to join their side or cheer for their team if you will.

The best thing we can hope for is to all be on the same page in terms of what actually happen historically and apply it to what's going on today. However, there is a war of information and an effort to suppress information (such as "Nakba" in 1948) so that we are blinded by what's ACTUALLY going on.

I never claimed it was all of Harvard... that's a straw man argument.
You are misrepresenting what I said, and trying to obfuscate and redirect the conversation.


WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN OUR CONVERSATION:
1.) I made a satirical joke about Jews not being safe in America.
2.) You asked why I would say such a thing, as if you wanted to debate it.
3.) I then gave a listed of REAL INCIDENTS in AMERICA that would MAKE JEWS CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY.
4.) Then you claimed it was all exaggerated, with the implication it was so exaggerated it could just be dismissed.
5.) I picked one incident, and rebutted your position - and because you could not rebut my argument, you immediately tried obfuscation by changing the subject... you obfuscated by misrepresenting something I said previously and trying to redirect the conversation.

CONCLUSION:
A.) Innocent Jews are becoming increasingly unsafe.
B. Your position that this is exaggerated or imaginary, is NOT A TENABLE POSITION, and there is evidence.
C.) When I gave evidence, you tried to CHANGE THE SUBJECT by obfuscating and redirecting the conversation, because you couldn't rebut the evidence.
D.) It is VERY STRANGE that instead of being concerned that INNOCENT JEWS IN AMERICA are suddenly being PERSECUTED, that you want to ignore Jewish persecution and dismiss it, as if it Jewish people don't matter.
E.) Your position (that Jews have no safetly concerns, and it's all exaggerated) is an untenable position. If you're determined to argue such an untenable position, I will not acquiesce to you changing the subject whenever you're incapable of rebuttal.
In the face of clear evidence, you should simply concede the point.

.
If you were merely to concede that Jews in America are starting to go through persecution in some places, and you can see how some of them might feel unsafe, then we would be done.


...

A hand full of students that wrote a letter does not equal persecusion. Persecusion implys power and authority. Those students have found themselves in hot water by the school governing authority and by other students.

what is persecusion, is that related to concussion, "confusion caused by a blow to the head"?

or is it related to percussion, the striking of one solid object against another?

Or have you created a new word, the ill treatment of others by banging their heads together?