"Do you know the difference between Sharia and Sunni?" pretty much sums up that you have no clue what you're talking about.

It's an apples and oranges thing, like asking "Do you know the difference between a Cajun and the Napoleonic Code?"

I've been to Israel three times, once at 17 as a member of Hashomer H'atzair, but didn't work on the Kibbutz because I already had plans to enter the U.S. Coast Guard, instead spending time with family in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and twice since 2000 in a consulting capacity. I actually learned at least as much as I imparted, not bad for a few weeks' work.

I also worked in Pakistan and northern Iraq, each briefly, on "more than just consulting" jobs. I found Pakistan a shithole, and you can keep Iraq.

Back to Israel, the fact of the matter is that the "Palestinian" leadership is the only reason the "Palestinians" don't have the statehood they didn't even have to begin with. Every time it's been on the table, their corrupt leaders sabotaged negotiations via terrorism or other means. They want the whole enchilada (assuming, of course, that you can get a hallal enchilada someplace), which they're not going to get.

With all the money that flows to them via UNWRA (the UN Works & Relief Agency), a refugee fund that was created only to resettle "Palestinian" refugees, the number of "refugees" in the late 1940s has multiplied into the millions because most of the money "flows" into the numbered accounts of their fearless leaders (Remember when Arafat died and his wife inherited hundreds of millions in a Swiss account? Where do you suppose that came from?) or into weapons and explosives.

A large number of UNWRA personnel are members of Hamas and other militant organizations, and they have no ambitions toward a peaceful solution, only continued violence until they have entirely exterminated or otherwise emptied the region of Jews.

I linked an article in a former reply to you regarding the demonstrations in Gaza and the brutal crackdown by Hamas, who constitute the government there. There are no human rights in Gaza and Hamas presides over broken infrastructure and rampant unemployment, only because they want no peace with Israel and the Jews and are concerned only with making war.

The kerfuffle over "peaceful" "Palestinian" protesters being shot by Israeli soldiers during the hostilities over President Trump moving our embassy to Jerusalem was heavily misreported, again by biased media -- Hamas tangos were using people as human shields in an attempt to get over or through the wall carrying weapons and explosive devices, and later even Hamas admitted that most of those killed were their own "fighters."

As I posted previously, I know some "Palestinians" in San Francisco who told me years ago that they had only left their homes and come to America because of the oppressive existence over there caused by their leaders' corruption and violence -- they all said that they"d been treated just fine by the Jews, it was their own leadership they had problems with.

One primary reason their leaders, especially Hamas, prefer squalor and poverty for their people and strive to maintain those conditions is because it's those very environs that more easily enable terrorist recruitment; if everyone leads contented lives, candidates for jihad are somewhat thin on the ground.

Unfortunately, modern world media being what it is and the fact that the UN Human Rights Commission is stocked with members from countries whose governments wouldn't know a human right if it walked up and introduced itself, most of the "news" and "information" that comes out of the region is profoundly biased against Israel and much of it is based on "Palestinian" generated anti-Israel propaganda.

As for CAIR, a large part of their operations deals with blocking U.S. and local law enforcement efforts to protect our country and its citizens from terrorism -- they use legal action in many cases, intimidation in others. And, several of CAIR's members have in past been deported for various types of involvement with Hamas, including raising funds for their terrorist operations.

You think you recognize enemies better than I do.

Do you also think that you recognize friends better than I do?

The thinking in your reply post would be okay (maybe, I suppose) as long as you (individually or collectively) don't start any unnecessary wars, nor unnecessarily damage anyone on smaller scales.

I'm not familiar with the oats and ivy nursery rhyme or whatever it is, but I interpret it as an attempt to cast "us folks" as too naive. You also use "nice" to similar effect (though not applied directly to us folks, in that instance).

One thing I don't think I've seen yet: a violent person, or one who supports a lot of killing or violence, however obtuse or wrong s/he may be, depicted as a "naive" person. Wrong or arrogant, maybe, but not "naive". S/he may actually _be_ naive but will not be called naive.

As a boy growing up among boys, two of the things I learned were that, (1) among boys, "nice" applied to a boy is (often) derogatory, and (2) one must prepare for violence (either to support a future war or to stand up to other boys -- good arguments are sometimes not enough). Fortunately my last incident of violence, thus far, was before I turned 18, after which time one can get a bad record for it as an adult (except when directing the violence toward an authoritatively marked enemy). One must still always be ready for violence, anyway, until death, which itself is sort of violent also. But (incidentally) some men think a different way; I met one who said he had not learned to fight, and wasn't interested in learning how, because there would probably be no more than about 3 times he'd be faced with violence in his life, and he could just lose those and get on with the rest of his life, without wasting his time learning about violence.

You bet "we own it"....that is why this garbage of SOCIALISM and the hate that the Dem hopefuls are
spreading with their ignorance and their "we want all those people from the border" is just plain
ignorance and fine when we could keep track of them. The Lunatic Dems have destroyed any sense
of doing anything with the right restrictions. Their only goal is "get Trump" and make life miserable
for the REAL AMERICANS who have worked hard, gone by the rules and made this America where
people REALLY WANT to be. It isn't these "comics" running for President on the Liberal side that know
anything about what comes after all the idiotic promises of FREE THIS, FREE THAT. Somehow they
don't have a clue how it will be paid for, the x number they have LET SLIP THROUGH and into our
country that THEY ALONE ARE DESTROYING with their stupidity in not having legal restrictions to
let these people come in who aren't breaking the law. But....let them...by Nov., the people who have
listened to them will know as THEY ARE INTELLIGENT and not ignorant as the 20 some or more
by Nov. ....Doubt it, there isn't going to be money for those "clowns" to even BE IN THE RACE
TO THE WHITE HOUSE. It takes a lot of "THINKING" AND they are like rats running around in a circle and as the Top Dog...(it seems) Old Joe will be out by the middle of next summer. My prediction...his energy
is slowing dropping and will be interesting to see JUST WHO will be the nominee, won't it?

What are you, some kind of super-intellectual or something? You have it all figured out, do you? Ever served in the military? A combat unit?

Due to civil wars that began in 1991, by 1993, thousands of Somalis had been killed, Somalia's agriculture had been destroyed and 300,000 Somalis had died of starvation. The international community began to send food supplies to halt the starvation, but vast amounts of food were hijacked and brought to local clan leaders, who routinely exchanged it with other countries for weapons. An estimated 80 percent of the food was stolen.

The Rangers and Delta were sent there to arrest Mohammed Farrah Aidid, the warlord who was responsible for most of the deaths and starvation and who was about to install himself as the president of Somalia. It was called Operation Restore Hope.

It was entirely a humanitarian effort. What was on the Rangers' minds was they had orders to do a job, they knew the purpose of their mission. That was all that mattered. The troops weren't there to "visit", or to "understand", or to conduct some kind of cultural study or undergo diversity training.

And, yeah, Rangers are trained to kill when necessary. In October 1993, it was necessary. Aidid's militia made gave them no choice. They lost 18 men doing so.

And, you're one of those fools who thinks that a woman who spent the most formative years of her life in an environment of such strife was able to undergo some sort of metamorphosis and purge all of that. Ilhan Omar has not by any stretch assimilated into our American way of life, she brought all that shit with her. She is undoubtedly a pro-Sharia, anti-Semitic Muslim. She has no freaking business bringing that influence into our government.

It is true that I work at making my posts good (even to the point of correcting my own errors sometimes when I notice them after posting). However, I made no claim to perfection; that was just something that others try to saddle me with, as though I had claimed it for myself.

I notice how you used the words "intellectual" and "care". This next thing is not about you particularly, nor about me particularly; but it sometimes happens that when people have the better argument and are able to express it, then those with worse arguments, rather than meet intellect and care with intellect and care, instead disparage intellect and care.

That partially explains why we get a charming actor (Reagan), or a homey inarticulate person (GWBush), or a bully, as President, rather than the better qualified candidates. About half, or maybe more than half, of the people in the U.S. prefer a president who doesn't act intellectual nor too thoughtful. (Thoughtfulness is scary to roughly the same group of U.S. people, because it might uncover truths they'd rather not know.) The U.S. has an anti-intellectual streak.