OldFlame
Diamond Member
- Aug 5, 2020
- 6,789
- 5,555
- 1,938
You don’t understand the difference between death to American and death to Americans.
What's the difference that makes ones less evil than the other?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You don’t understand the difference between death to American and death to Americans.
Cultism would be requiring her to say what the cult leader wants said. Kind of like how you just acted.All fine points.
BUT, all she had to do was publicly recognize Israel's right to exist and condemn the idea that Israel should be destroyed. Since SHE is the one who was spreading the idea that Israe should be destroyed.
Israel gets falsely accused of genocide, while it is their enemies who would immediately prosecute the genocide of israel, if they were capable.
But she just couldn't do it. That's cultism for ya!
The girl is hamas. When her speech was reviewed it was so incendiary she was pulled.
But since nobody required her to do that, that is irrelevant. So we can ignore this and move on. I will chalk up your misunderstanding To an error made out of haste.Cultism would be requiring her to say what the cult leader wants sa
well at least we agree you are a nobodyBut since nobody required her to do that, that is irrelevant. So we can ignore this and move on. I will chalk up your misunderstanding To an error made out of haste.
No need to start whining. Your shitty tu quoque attempt failed. Better luck next time.well at least we agree you are a nobody
Are you denying what you saidNo need to start whining. Your shitty tu quoque attempt failed. Better luck next time.
Are you having trouble understanding simple English sentences? I think so.Are you denying what you said
I ask again, who was giving the pro-Israel speech?People support all types of organizations I disagree with.
You didn’t require anything except for the requirements you imposed of course. It’s not my fault you can’t remember what you said.Are you having trouble understanding simple English sentences? I think so.
I didn't require anything. Nobody did. I pointed out simple fact:
If she had condemned that idea, she would probably be giving her speech.
Also, since you decided to pop off, I am curious to hear your criticism of the "cult" that does NOT think the muslim death cult should wipe Israel off the map.
Let's hear it.
You haven’t proven she was going to give a Pro-Palestine speech yet.I ask again, who was giving the pro-Israel speech?
She has been here all along. She is hamas the same way Rashida Talib is hamas, true beliievers.I thought hamas was imprisoned and unable to break free of their geographical and economical slavery? How on earth is she here and graduating from a so called prestigious American university?
Because the speech has not been made public. This is really an internal matter to the school.You haven’t proven she was going to give a Pro-Palestine speech yet.
Ohhh you have it backwards. No threats were made against her. Her speech was threats against Jewish students and faculty. Her speech was too incendiary to allow.I am upset she is unable to speak because of threats against her and the university creating safety concerns. You don’t have to support what someone says to support their ability to say it.
Haha, if I hadn’t looked, which is a lie because I have, it would not be proof that I agree with her. What a silly notion.Yes, I have. The fact that you won't even look is proof that both I'm right, and that you agree with her.
I must have missed that. What did she say that you think was a threat to Jewish students and faculty? Can you be specific?Oh
Ohhh you have it backwards. No threats were made against her. Her speech was threats against Jewish students and faculty. Her speech was too incendiary to allow.
A claim you can not back up. Yet the claim I made is backed up by the university showing concern for safety.Oh
Ohhh you have it backwards. No threats were made against her. Her speech was threats against Jewish students and faculty. Her speech was too incendiary to allow.
A claim you can not back up. Yet the claim I made is backed up by the university showing concern for safety.
Yes. The safety of Jewish students and Jewish faculty.A claim you can not back up. Yet the claim I made is backed up by the university showing concern for safety.
That was the reason given by the university. Her speech was too incendiary. The university should back that up. Publish the speech.I must have missed that. What did she say that you think was a threat to Jewish students and faculty? Can you be specific?