I do know that nearly everyone here does not believe the official version's blame assignment, or Al Qaeda's admission for that matter.
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
...if you're doing it, they're not really enemies. After all, Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the US is on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Not enemies.) But let's call them enemies.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
If you take stock of how much funding goes to friends as opposed to enemies, the latter is absolutely dwarfed. It's not the normal course of events.
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
If all you knew of my neighbor is that he's trying to burn my house down, you wouldn't suspect him of being Antonio's agent, right?
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
But these are exceptional circumstances, which would need to be demonstrated and not asserted.
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
You wouldn't call Hamas a Jewish or Israeli agent, right? It's just that Hamas served Israeli interests by creating division, so they allowed Qatari money to come in to Gaza.
I kind of would. Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
Imagine if all you knew about someone is that he incited deadly anti-Jewish riots...answer if this makes it more likely, less likely, or no difference...
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
They'll just call you a retarded, brainwashed, Jew puppet. I think. I do have that experience, not even arguing stridently for it, just mentioning it in passing.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
If you're an agent, then by definition, no. An agent is not an enemy. You can fund actual enemies, but if they remain enmies, they're not agents.
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
If nearly all funding goes to allies, then the fact that "X is funded by Y" inherently makes it likely that Y is an ally of X.
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
Ah, crap, they're onto me. Yes, in that case, it would be very reasonable to make that assumption. If the supposed Jews funding Sharpton have a long history of paying people to incite anti-Jewish riots, then I'd agree with that very informed observer, OP.
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
It changes everything.
Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
It's that and the fact that Hamas's mere existence creates divisions that makes a deal impossible. Any deal acceptable to the Palestinian Authority will be unacceptable to Hamas, they can always outflank the PA.
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
Much less likely. Of all such groups, very few are funded by America. Of course, we know of one that it's the case, so it's not entirely impossible. Even them I wouldn't call agents of America. A strategic alliance is not the same as being an agent - the latter of which is when you are advancing someone else's interests at the expense of your own alleged goals. There have been many cases where enemies team up because they share goals, in this case the defeat of Assad and weakening far more consequential actors (Russia, China, Iran) than mere Islamic terrorists.
Of course they can be. I would have had no disagreement with that. I do have a problem with the claim that being funded by X does not count as a presumption against being an enemy of X, even if it's sometimes false.
I just meant I don't think people get angry if you blame Al Qaeda.
So, if Jews/Israel/whatever were funding Sharpton, he wouldn't be the enemy of Jews/Israel/whatever. Right?
This is the exact same argument you made earlier, but flipped. Just because more funding goes one way, doesn't mean it doesn't go the other.
What if Antonio had a history of insurance fraud? What if he'd paid other people to burn down his previous houses?
Again, though, if there's a history of such behavior doesn't that change things?
I kind of would. Hamas wouldn't even exist in its current form or at its level of influence if not for Israel. And they didn't just allow, they encouraged and funded Qatar. Israel wanted Hamas in place, and made it happen. "No partner for peace" is the rallying cry when it comes to Palestine/Gaza/whatever. You can't have a two state solution, you can't give up land, when Hamas is in charge. 'Aww, shucks, we wanted to give you land, but you went and elected Hamas. Dang it all. Frick.'
Imagine if all you knew about a group was that they were a militant Islamic faction in the Middle East that had declared themselves the enemies of America. Would that make them more likely, less likely, or no difference, to them being funded by America?
They'll just call you a retarded, brainwashed, Jew puppet. I think. I do have that experience, not even arguing stridently for it, just mentioning it in passing.
If you're an agent, then by definition, no. An agent is not an enemy. You can fund actual enemies, but if they remain enmies, they're not agents.
If nearly all funding goes to allies, then the fact that "X is funded by Y" inherently makes it likely that Y is an ally of X.
Ah, crap, they're onto me. Yes, in that case, it would be very reasonable to make that assumption. If the supposed Jews funding Sharpton have a long history of paying people to incite anti-Jewish riots, then I'd agree with that very informed observer, OP.
It changes everything.
It's that and the fact that Hamas's mere existence creates divisions that makes a deal impossible. Any deal acceptable to the Palestinian Authority will be unacceptable to Hamas, they can always outflank the PA.
Much less likely. Of all such groups, very few are funded by America. Of course, we know of one that it's the case, so it's not entirely impossible. Even them I wouldn't call agents of America. A strategic alliance is not the same as being an agent - the latter of which is when you are advancing someone else's interests at the expense of your own alleged goals. There have been many cases where enemies team up because they share goals, in this case the defeat of Assad and weakening far more consequential actors (Russia, China, Iran) than mere Islamic terrorists.
You're just quibbling over terms.
Agent, ally, asset, enemy, whatever.
"Enemies" or whatever can still be utilized as useful tools. That's pretty much my main point.
Of course they can be. I would have had no disagreement with that. I do have a problem with the claim that being funded by X does not count as a presumption against being an enemy of X, even if it's sometimes false.