hmcq6

The witness protection thing was a joke to make it clear how absurd what you're proposing is. Clearly some people got the joke.

Y'all read "CCP Police stations" and your imaginations started going wild. There is no evidence nor is there even an accusation that these "police" stations are used to kidnap US citizens.

> You added the part about exfiltration

.... bro how are they going to coerce someone to leave the country "willingly" if the FBI is looking for that person? His passport is obviously going to get flagged.

And if your answer is "get him a fake passport" then congratulations, you just described exfiltration.

Hold up, let’s not pretend these ideas are all equally feasible.

Spies do flee countries. People do get disappeared. The idea that China has a presence on US soil helping criminals evade the FBI is a *conspiracy theory*.

Thanks for your patience, I clearly misunderstood your previous comments

How does one provide evidence/sources for a disappearance?

I can show you sources that say DB Cooper existed but there’s no evidence of his disappearance by definition so… what do you think you are looking for exactly?

> But nobody agreed to allow illegal immigrants to come and stay here.

In 90% of cases somebody did. Somebody at the border talked to them. Somebody checked their passport or their documentation (at the border). So many "undocumented immigrants" are people who overstayed their visas, like Elon did.

They literally were documented but then they didn't keep up with the paperwork and thus became undocumented.

"Doccumented" status *is* literally just a case of keeping up with the paperwork.

Some people do sneak in but the *vast majority* come through legal ports of entry

You clearly didn't read this Wiki (Wiki is not a source BTW) because it says basically the opposite of what you're implying. Same goes for everyone in this thread talking about Chinese police on foreign soil.

The "CCP Police on foreign soil" aren't extracting people from the West so they can avoid persecution from the West. They're pressuring Chinese citizens to go back to China to face punishment for crimes China thinks they committed.

So what's the end game? They're being hunted by the FBI I don't think Trading Spaces™ is going to get this guy out of trouble

Wait... so you effectively said "there's no holocaust going on" and I pointed out one and you accidentally brought up another... and I'm wrong still? What? No.

All the saber rattling doesn't mean you were correct in implying there is no holocaust going on

You guys are taking my previous comment out of context but that's less interesting than the fact that you have a strange definition of "disappeared".

> Even in Guantanamo, people lived, and people were known to be there, and I think that is how people are using "disappeared" i.e. extrajudicial and illegal, but alive and known to be somewhere.

So you're arguing that no one was disappeared to Gitmo because some information eventually came out about a few people? Or do you really believe everyone at Gitmo was publicly identified?

A quick google reveals that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch don't agree with you.

For one, Bush admitted we were doing enforced disappearances

> In early September 2006, US authorities transferred to Guantánamo 14 men who had been held in secret CIA custody. President George W. Bush finally admitted that, in the “war on terror”, the USA has been resorting to secret detentions and enforced disappearance, which is a crime under international law.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/amr511...

Some of those men had been held incommunicado for 4 years at that point.

Or, here is a list of people who, at the time, were believed to be disappeared at Gitmo https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/ct0607/4.htm#_To...

So yes, people were absolutely disappeared at/to Guantanamo Bay and you using Gitmo as your example makes me really question your definition.

I was referring to the holocaust the US is currently aiding in

I'm sorry, are you arguing that he's in Chinese witness protection inside the US?

> unidentifiable people in unmarked vans.

This literally happened 4 days ago to Rümeysa Öztürk

Or the "cops" who refuesed to identify themselves to Mahmood Khalil's wife?

Wrong.

> For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.

Arresting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk is a violation of their first amendment rights, no one in the government has acknowledged this. In addition, moving people to another state in opposition to a judges orders because the judge in Louisiana is favorable to your cause is an attempt to place someone outside of the protection of the law.

Khalil was also denied his right to a phone call or legal council for (as far as I can tell) 4 days.

But also, the government is unambiguously disappearing people

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-or...

And can I add, trusting the government to tell you where the person they just kidnapped is, is a pretty naive way of looking at things. They're violating our first amendment rights and kidnapping people off the street while disguising their identities and refusing to identify themselves when asked directly. What happens if they also refused to tell you where they disappeared people to?

> There'd be a fair bit of noise if the Holocaust was happening today.

Why are we talking in hypotheticals when it literally is happening today?

> How do we know that the Chinese government didn't do this (which is known to happen)

Source?

> How do we know it was the US government

We don't but its 100000x easier for the US government to disappear someone on US soil than it is for China to disappear someone on US soil.

What does the title mean? Being on social media is the opposite of "grinding" unless you run an direct to consumer business or an mlm. And if you run a direct to consumer business then this site is only helpful if your target audience is developers.

This isn't AI it's 3+ technologies in a trench coat

You implied that 1/3 of muslims would be willing to kill someone over a drawing of Muhammad.

The study doesn't say 1/3 of muslims say "it's ok to kill someone who draws images of Muhammad". It says "acts of violence". A vague and immeasurable term. Does that mean a punch? does it mean a stab? Jihad? The poll doesn't care.

> Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ar/customary-ihl/v2/rule96

It very clearly fits the definition.

> Is violence an appropriate response to hate speech? The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolernace Survey finds most Americans say no. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans say it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi in the face. About a third (32%), however, say it is morally acceptable.

https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally...

Your implication that Muslims are more accepting of political violence doesn't seem to bear out in the facts.

> Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.

Thats not what I said.

> Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.

This is clearly the least charitable take one could take in response to my comment. "It's ok to punch Nazis" is not a take that usually gets this much pushback.

Edit: Actually, technically, I guess it does usually get this much push back (68%) but still the slippery slope argument is trash

You're splitting hairs. There wasn't peace on Oct 6th.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-killed...

And the Occupation was still increasing.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/palestine-occupied-pa...

Why else would Israel prop up Hamas over the secular PA?

Let me break this down in terms you can understand.

The DEIsraelis are doing a genocide.

Do you see the problem now?

> only if you're straight. if you're gay, the Palestinians will throw you off a building.

This is such a gross statement.

First of all, Palestinians are not all religious fundamentalists. Hamas is not Daesh. There is no sharia law in Palestine. Your statement is textbook islamophobia.

Second, are you really invoking gay rights in the context of a genocide? I'm sorry can you please send me the news article you must have read stating Israel is using LGBTQ-avoiding bombs? Because to argue that the LGBT community would have it worse under Palestinian statehood than the current genocide is truely mind-boggling.

Would you make the same claim about gay Jews in Germany? In the concentration camps?

> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.

> But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.

> Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.

24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

But the better argument is that 24% of people saying "it could be justified" is that it actually could be justified.

Should I punch everyone who includes Nazi symbology in their art? No.

Should I punch a Nazi who repeatedly promotes his ideology through his art? Yes.

> undermining democratic structures and civil rights even inside the state

Who killed Rabin?

Israelis killed their own PM to prevent the Oslo Accords, the goal of the Oslo Accords was to provide a 2 state solution.

Don't rewrite history.

> All true, very true. Of course the other bunch will slaughter you for drawing a cartoon.

You're confusing Al-Qaeda with Muslims.

Race is a social construct. It is not a component of ethnicity.

> It’s religious nationalist.

So ethonoationalist. Just like the Vatican. Pope Francis was from South America but that doesn't make the Vatican not an ethnostate.

> The apartheid sucks but the Palestinians have repeatedly shown they can’t be trusted to remain peaceful, leaving Israel with no choice.

That's race essentialism.

Also, who killed Rabin to prevent the Oslo accords? Big hint, it wasn't the Palestinians.

> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel? The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.

Lets break this down.

> How is the right of return has anything to do with Arabs IN Israel?

The original claim was that "arabs are more free under Israeli rule". Denying 750,000 people the right to return to the house they were forced out of under threat of death doesn't sound like "freedom" to me.

> The right of return is only for immigration rights, which is relevant only for non citizens.

Yeah the people kicked out in the Nakba are not citizens of Israel, so what is your point? I'm talking about the freedom of people terrorized out of their houses who are not recognized as citizens of the state of Israel. You nailed it bud. What are you misunderstanding?

The dynamics of how they unfold is that I am dropping links from well respected (and frequently Jewish Israeli) institutions and getting bombarded by whataboutisim, misinformation and semantic arguments that interest no one but the commenter.

The dynamics is that one side cares about history and the truth and the other side is a whitewashing campaign for genocide.

"Hamas surely deserves some credit for the deaths" This is literally equivalent to saying the Jews deserved [some credit for causing] the holocaust.

There are people in this thread breaking down the history from literally 139 BC to the current day (although hardly anything before 1920 is actually relevant to the current conflict).

To handwave all the complexity away when it's presented to you in a form that would take only a few hours to fully digest and say "both sides"... it's definitely a choice.

Is Hamas technically at fault for giving Israel an excuse for committing genocide?

I guess, if you think such a thing is even possible.