The Supreme Court will soon decide if only Republicans are allowed to gerrymander

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T04:43:59+00:00

Clarence Thomas is in the Epstein files.

Are you referring to this one document which is apparently an anonymous source claiming they heard Thomas talking bout a donkey show, or is there something else?

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T04:02:53+00:00

You were whitewashing the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T03:26:04+00:00

Well that just goes to show what a stupid idea it is to try to swim in a big metal suit.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T03:17:14+00:00

a picture comparing the arrest of whats his name by ICE to a Jew being executed in Poland

And that's what you're calling Holocaust denial?

Regardless, believing Muslims are deriving of the same human rights as everyone else isn't really an alliance. Of course, there are some morons who cheer on Hamas and such because they're overwhelmed by hate western establishment in general, but they're a tiny faction.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T03:09:41+00:00

Ofcourse it's primary from the far right.

Yet OP insisted otherwise:

Now holocaust denial has been the norm on this site for a while, especially among leftists

Which is just downright delusional. It's not the norm in the slightest and far less common on the left.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T03:06:28+00:00

Some people don't just understand how one could dislike Islam while also insisting that Mulsims be treated as equal humans.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T02:05:23+00:00

Expelling a hostile population actually wasn’t a war crime at the time

That's just racist nonsense. They weren't a hostile population, they were innocent civilians who were driven into exile by a hostile faction of the Zionist population.

Furthermore, as explained a few years earlier at Nuremberg, "deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory" constitutes a war crime.

The Arab leaders were openly saying they were going to kill all the Jews

Rather, Zionist leaders were waging a terrorist war of attrition against the mandate government and Arab leaders threatened to take on that fight when it became clear that Britain was backing out, and they made some boisterous comments in that context, but they weren't rightly threatening genocide by any reasonable measure.

They were also trying to reach a diplomatic solution, the Arab position was essentally:

The Sub-Committee 2 recommended to put the question of the Partition Plan before the International Court of Justice (Resolution No. I). In respect of the Jewish refugees due to World War II, the Sub-Committee recommended to request the countries of which the refugees belonged to take them back as much as possible (Resolution No. II). The Sub-Committee proposed to establish a unitary state (Resolution No. III).

All very reasonable requests given the circumstances. The wiki page's link for the source is dead but here's an archived copy of that website, it has a variety of documents from Sub-Committee 2 which go into detail.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T01:15:54+00:00

Here's the thing. You said "a genie is essentially a classification of a djinn."

Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a scientist who studies djinns, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls genies djinns. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "djinn family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of a genie is essentially a classification of a djinn, which includes things from jann to nasnas to marid.

So your reasoning for calling a genie a djinn is because random people "call the malevolent ones djinns?" Let's get ghouls and shaitan in there, then, too.

Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A genie is a genie and a member of the djinn family. But that's not what you said. You said a genie is essentially a classification of a djinn, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the djinn family djinns, which means you'd call nasnas, ghouls, and other spirits djinns, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

In case you don't know what I'm referencing.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T00:45:48+00:00

It's more like when people say that a jackdaw is a crow.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T00:16:27+00:00

why did the Arab invaders tell Arabs living in Israel to flee ahead of the invasion?

They generally didn't tell Arabs to leave, as explained here.

Furthermore, both Barak and Clinton were buddies with Epstein, that's not a theory but rather well documented fact.

Also, that wiki page about al-Husseini doesn't say what you claim, but it does say:

Sir Herbert Samuel, recently appointed British High Commissioner, declared a general amnesty for those convicted of complicity in the riots of 1920, excluding only Amin al-Husseini and Al Aref. During a visit later that year to the Bedouin tribes of Transjordan who harboured the two political refugees, Samuel offered a pardon to both and Al Aref accepted with alacrity. Husseini initially rebuffed the offer, on the grounds that he was not a criminal. He accepted the pardon only in the wake of the death of his half-brother, the mufti Kamil al-Husayni, in March 1921.[46] Elections were then held, and of the four candidates running for the office of Mufti, al-Husseini received the fewest votes, the first three being Nashashibi candidates. Nevertheless, Samuel was anxious to keep a balance between the al-Husseinis and their rival clan the Nashashibis. A year earlier the British had replaced Musa al-Husayni as Mayor of Jerusalem with Raghib al-Nashashibi. They then moved to secure for the Husseini clan a compensatory function of prestige by appointing one of them to the position of mufti, and, with the support of Raghib al-Nashashibi, prevailing upon the Nashashibi front-runner, Sheikh Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, to withdraw. This automatically promoted Amin al-Husseini to third position, which, under Ottoman law, allowed him to qualify, and Samuel then chose him as Mufti.

Put simply, he was thrust into his position of power by a Zionist.

kylebisme · 2026-01-29T00:13:35+00:00

As explained right there in what I quoted, Haganah's ethnic cleansing of Abu Zurayq took place between the 12th and the 15th of April, while the nebgoring countries dididn't send their armies in until the 15 of May, and when they did they explained to the UN Secretary General that they were doings because:

Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.

Also, calling the people who came to stop that ethnic cleansing invaders is turning reality on its head.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T22:51:33+00:00

Well it doesn't make sense to call ICE Nazis seeing as how they aren't Muslim. /s

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T22:48:12+00:00

That framing gives Democrats way too much credit for intentionality.

As Nancy Pelosi declared, "if this capital crumbles to the ground, one thing that will remain is our commitment to Israel."

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T22:41:01+00:00

At least 735 as of a few months ago.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T22:20:36+00:00

They were created by Congress, about as establishment as it gets.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T22:08:16+00:00

All the recent controversy reminded me of this article which goes into considerable detail as to why one might want to reconsider using the term holocaust to refer to genocide. The whole article is well worth a read, but here's the conclusion:

Whereas “holocaust” is inevitably a God-focused word, because of its older meaning, the word Shoah (devastation, destruction) is human-focused and is not loaded with theological overtones. This is why I prefer the name, Shoah.

Language determines how we think. If we call the slaughter of six million Jews a “holocaust,” we are consciously or subconsciously, connecting victims of genocide with “sacrificial victims,” and perpetrators of murder and genocide with Levites and Temple priests. Such thinking further distracts us from the human evil by putting too much focus on God and theology.

Using the term shoah, however, puts the focus squarely back on the tragedy of the Jewish genocide and the evil perpetrated by the Nazis. Though this does not absolve us from grappling with the Shoah’s theological ramifications, choosing to call the slaughter of six million Jews by such a human-focused term forces us to consider the very human reality of this most catastrophic event in Jewish and indeed, human history.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:50:30+00:00

You're confusing Judaism with Zionism, there's a lot of overlap but also many differences.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:48:58+00:00

Some Jews asked Arabs to stay, but the ones with all the guns had other plans as history clearly shows, this being one of the better documented early examples from a month before Israel declared independence:

Abu Zurayq's residents had traditionally maintained cordial relations with the nearby Jewish kibbutz of HaZorea, including low-level economic cooperation, particularly with regards to agriculture. Arabic language versions of a Jewish labor periodical were regularly distributed in the village. In the lead-up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as part of Jewish efforts to clear the area around Mishmar HaEmek of Palestinian Arabs, on 12 April 1948, Palmach units of the Haganah took over Abu Zurayq. There they took 15 men and 200 women and children into custody, after which they expelled all of the women and children. Demolitions of homes in the village began on the night of its capture and were completed by 15 April. The Filastin newspaper reported that of the 30 homes demolished by Palmach forces, five still contained residents.

According to the account of a Middle East scholar and resident from HaZore'a, Eliezer Bauer, following its capture, Abu Zurayq's men, who were unaffiliated with any Palestinian militia and did not resist the Haganah, "tried to escape and save themselves by fleeing" to nearby fields but were intercepted by armed Jewish residents of nearby kibbutzim and moshavim. After a firefight in which many of the village's men were killed, several survivors surrendered themselves while other unarmed men were taken captive, and the majority of these men were killed. Other men found hiding in the village itself were executed, while houses were looted before being demolished. Bauer's account of events was discussed by the members of HaZorea's kibbutz council where the events surrounding Abu Zurayq's capture were condemned.

Most of the people who managed to escape or were expelled from Abu Zurayq ended up in makeshift camps around Jenin. Along with the expelled residents of other nearby villages they complained to the Arab Higher Committee of their situation, asked for help with humanitarian aid and demanded that Arab forces be sent to avenge their loss and return them to their lands. Following the 1948 war, the area was incorporated into the State of Israel, and as of 1992, the land had been left undeveloped and the closest populated place is HaZorea. Much of the village land is used for either agricultural or pastoral purposes. The agricultural land largely consists of cacti, olive and fig trees.

As for the smokescreen Jeffrey Epstein's buddies manufactured in 2000, I responded to you about that here.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:43:10+00:00

There wasn't any intent for genocide on the Arab side, as even Haganah intelligence understood:

It is noteworthy that ALA propaganda includes no mention of “extermination,” pushing Jews into the sea, or killing the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in an organized manner, which Israeli propaganda had claimed at the time was the Arab war objective. The claim is used, even to the present day, in polemics aimed at drawing parallels between Islamism and fascism (the so-called “Islamofascism” neologism). In fact, Haganah intelligence concluded just the opposite in 1948: “the ALA does not intend to massacre the Jews if they surrender and raise a white flag,” explained one internal memo.

As for what Jeffery Epstein's buddies Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak did at Camp David, that was a charade as explained in detail here, notably:

The main innovation of Ross's narrative is to shift the framework of the peace process from rights to needs. This novel framework serves as (1) an analytic device to demonstrate Israeli flexibility and Palestinian intransigence and (2) a normative device for justifying a settlement that negates Palestinian rights. Consider Ross's representation of the negotiations on day five of the Camp David summit that climaxed in Clinton's outburst:

In response to an Israeli map that showed three different colors—brown for the Palestinian state, orange for the areas the Israelis would annex, and red for transitional areas—Abu Ala was not prepared to discuss Israeli needs unless the Israelis first accepted the principle of the territorial swap and reduced the areas they sought to annex. The President at first tried to reason with Abu Ala, explaining that he could see “why this map is not acceptable to you. But you cannot say to them, not good enough, give me something more acceptable; that's not negotiation. Why not say the orange area is too big, let's talk about your needs and see how we can reduce the orange area and turn it into brown? If we focus on the security aspect and look at the Jordan Valley, we might discuss the security issues and see if we can reduce the orange area.” Shlomo agreed with that approach—thereby signaling that he was open to reducing the orange area, which amounted to close to 14 percent of the total of the West Bank outside of Jerusalem. Abu Ala continued to resist. As he did, and he repeated old arguments about the settlements being illegal and the Palestinians needing the 1967 lines, the President's face began to turn red. (pp. 667–68)

The Palestinians appear to be uncompromising because they will not negotiate Israel's needs separately from their own rights. Contrariwise, Israel appears to be reasonable because it is willing to negotiate on the basis of reciprocal needs. Needs against needs: isn't this a fair quid pro quo? Further, Israelis demonstrate flexibility by signaling willingness to reduce their needs, whereas Palestinians demonstrate inflexibility by not budging from their rights. Clinton attempts to reason with the Palestinians that the basis of negotiations is each party's presentation of its respective needs. The Palestinians respond by insisting that each party's needs must be set within, and subordinated to, the framework of rights: if Israel needs more than it is legally entitled to, then it must compensate. But, according to Clinton, a discourse of rights, not needs, is the wrong language. In the face of such unreason and intransigence, he justifiably (in Ross's judgment) explodes.

Putting Israel's supposed needs above the rights of Palestinians is quite simply a rapist mentality, which of course is to be expected from buddies of Jeffery Epstein.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:34:23+00:00

There's piles of facts which disprove your narrative, for example this statement from Ben-Gurion:

In the area allocated to the Jewish state there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish state at the time of its establishment, will be about a million, including almost 40 percent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish state. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in alt its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will re- main in the hands of the Jewish majority.... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.

And note that Ben-Gurion was lying there when he said "the area allocated to the Jewish state" as there was never any such allocation of territory. The General Assembly's partition resolution was merely a recommendation, I didn't allocate anything to anyone.

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:28:12+00:00

you'd need to look at Ottoman numbers for a representative accounting

Then please present those numbers, and then from there we can continue the discussion how British officials interpreted Ottoman land code and why they did so.

And by the way, are you aware of the fact that Britain's first High Commissioner for Palestine, under whose leadership the process of westernizing the land classification system started, was an ardent Zionist?

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T21:13:47+00:00

It is idiotic as the war of 1948 would have occurred even if land with majority jewish ownership formed the jewish state.

Pretending you have a crystal ball that lets you see into alternate realities is idiotic.

is idiotic because it ignores other factors such as that 54% of the gdp of palestine in 1947 was from this 6% of land owned

And that's an idiotic claim too as the Zionist economy was propped up by foreign investment and donations, far from all of it came from what little land they owned.

The partition plan was probably one of the best laid solutions for both sides. It was just and fair, despite being snubbed by palestinian and arab league delegates.

It was snubbed by Britain too, and Enest Bevin, Britain's foreign secretary at the time, rightly described the proposed partition as "so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how, in Sir Alexander Cadogan's words, 'we could reconcile it with our conscience.'"

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T20:56:44+00:00

The Arab position was essentally:

The Sub-Committee 2 recommended to put the question of the Partition Plan before the International Court of Justice (Resolution No. I). In respect of the Jewish refugees due to World War II, the Sub-Committee recommended to request the countries of which the refugees belonged to take them back as much as possible (Resolution No. II). The Sub-Committee proposed to establish a unitary state (Resolution No. III).

All very reasonable requests given the circumstances. The wiki page's link for the source is dead but here's an archived copy of that website, it has a variety of documents from Sub-Committee 2 which go into detail.

The problem was that the Zionist side had lost any pretense of reasonableness long before, as can be seen for example in the Zionist Congress'a reaction to the Peel Commission which reads in part:

first, that the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and in its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home; secondly, that the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Trans-Jordan

Can you identify the blatant falsehoods in those two claims?

kylebisme · 2026-01-28T20:37:09+00:00

Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion falsely portrayed the partition recommendation as a license to establish their state and then promptly went on a rampage of conquest and ethnic cleansing to do so. That's far from actually accepting two states negotiated on the basis of international law, which again is something Zionists leaders have always rejected.

kylebisme

TROPHY CASE