Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained this, in detail, in the past.  But I will do so again for the purposes of clarification.  Why do I think Dill supports Hamas?  Because he consistently excuses and mitigates their behavior.  He parrots their exact talking points on a frequent basis.  His posts are entirely on sided in attacking Israel.  He has flat out said that Israel should not exist in any way it has since it's reformation post WW2.  He blames Israel, and the West, for the action of Hamas (and other Islamic terrorists), instead of the actual actors.  Now, replace Hamas with the KKK, or neo-Nazis.  What would you call someone who did all those things for either of those groups?  I also don't think it's even a  remote stretch to label Hamas as bad, if not worse, than either of those groups.

I don't think GM is a Hamas supporter, I wouldn't apply that label to literally anyone else on this board.  But I apply it to him for solid, logical reasons.

When examined in light of my actual statements, though, these do not turn out to be "solid, logical reasons," but unsupported accusations. 
They are the very model of that reduction of issues to black and white with no grey area that you claim to be against, because they make one look
dogmatic, and just imputed to me.

E.g., you define "Hamas talking points," de facto, as commonly agreed on claims about international law and human rights violations, 
which I do indeed "parrot on a frequent basis."  Fine with me if you "replace Hamas with the KKK" on that score.

The upshot is that ANY legitimate acknowledgement of Israeli war crimes becomes eo ipso "supporting terrorism" and "mitigating Hamas."  

And when I ask you to get specific--e.g., show me an "anti-semitic" statement which isn't simply a criticism of human rights violations recognized by many respected Israeli historians and legitimate international bodies, I don't get "solid reasons"; I get crickets.

I recently reminded you that I have said Hamas must be destroyed in order for a two-state solution to become possible, and asked you if that 
constituted support for Hamas. First you answered a different question about two-date viability; then when I re-asked, silence. Still silence. Dodgery.

In engaging with you on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I've added to forum discussions rather a lot of information about the conflict which is mostly absent from the U.S. press and certainly from IDF statements. Especially about the illegal occupation. That's what triggers the "Dill=Hamas supporter" claims. That's what you reduce to "blaming the West and Israel." It's just an attempt to stop any backstory which DOESN'T reduce the conflict to black and white. Howz that make ME "dogmatic"?