Are all the Pro-Palestine, anti Israel protests helping or hurting the Democrats?

[uncle bernard]

6 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

with that response, you're now fully exposed exposed as a f'in tribal clown.

i'm rather disgusted with your presence on this board tbh. 

i’m confused? i was agreeing with your post.

a major reason why shipping the palestinians off to other countries (which is ethnic cleansing btw) is that hamas would inevitably begin operating from those refugee camps, making those countries targets for Israeli airstrikes (see Syria and Lebanon). nobody wants to deal with that scenario. 

[JimmyBT]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

i don’t think it would end the horror. maybe the current war in Gaza, but not the horror. and it’s not realistic either. nice fantasy sure, but people are more concerned with not dying right now to make brave democratic stands against their authoritarian government.

hamas doesn’t control the West Bank and they are still under violent occupation and having their land seized by illegal settlers. How do you account for that if this is only about Hamas?

as for the protestors “shaming hamas” sure that would be nice but what’s the point? our gov isn’t supporting hamas. the public doesn’t support hamas. so what would they be protesting against? that’s the part you all keep missing. nobody in this country needs to be educated that an islamist terror group is bad.

also there are palestinians who criticized hamas for 10/7. they could all come out and do it and it’s not going to change that hamas has the weapons and is in the tunnels and Israel is is going to keep bombing Gaza in retribution. 

Those Palestinians had almost two decades to do something about Hamas. Now you’re using Oct 7 as an excuse for why they can’t.  That’s rich. 

[uncle bernard]

5 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Those Palestinians had almost two decades to do something about Hamas. Now you’re using Oct 7 as an excuse for why they can’t.  That’s rich. 

where did i say that?

btw, believing civilians are legit targets because of their gov actions is explicitly a war crime. 

[JimmyBT]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

where did i say that?

btw, believing civilians are legit targets because of their gov actions is explicitly a war crime. 

So why didn’t the Palestinians do anything about Hamas between the time they voted them in and Oct 7th?  

[JimmyBT]

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

where did i say that?

btw, believing civilians are legit targets because of their gov actions is explicitly a war crime. 

See Oct 7th 

[Dark Energy]

50 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

i don’t think it would end the horror. maybe the current war in Gaza, but not the horror. and it’s not realistic either. nice fantasy sure, but people are more concerned with not dying right now to make brave democratic stands against their authoritarian government.

hamas doesn’t control the West Bank and they are still under violent occupation and having their land seized by illegal settlers. How do you account for that if this is only about Hamas?

as for the protestors “shaming hamas” sure that would be nice but what’s the point? our gov isn’t supporting hamas. the public doesn’t support hamas. so what would they be protesting against? that’s the part you all keep missing. nobody in this country needs to be educated that an islamist terror group is bad.

also there are palestinians who criticized hamas for 10/7. they could all come out and do it and it’s not going to change that hamas has the weapons and is in the tunnels and Israel is is going to keep bombing Gaza in retribution. 

The point would be to highlight that they are protesting to protect innocents and not just Palestinian innocents.  They would have way more support if that was the cause.  But it is not.  It is clearly anti Israel.  
 

By showing Hamas that they are hated, even in pro Palestinian protests, it will help erode their support.  By telling Hamas to surrender, it would show that the protestors are actually peace loving.  Their silence here indicates support for Hamas.   They want the elimination of Israel, not saving lives.  It is clear as day.  And you know it.

Wiggle out of directly agreeing that Palestinians shouting for Hamas to surrender would SAVE lives.  Wiggle out of agreeing, and demanding in your protests, that Hamas should surrender and face the punishment of their crimes.  It shows your true stance.
 

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

The point would be to highlight that they are protesting to protect innocents and not just Palestinian innocents.  They would have way more support if that was the cause.  But it is not.  It is clearly anti Israel.  
 

By showing Hamas that they are hated, even in pro Palestinian protests, it will help erode their support.  By telling Hamas to surrender, it would show that the protestors are actually peace loving.  Their silence here indicates support for Hamas.   They want the elimination of Israel, not saving lives.  It is clear as day.  And you know it.

Wiggle out of directly agreeing that Palestinians shouting for Hamas to surrender would SAVE lives.  Wiggle out of agreeing, and demanding in your protests, that Hamas should surrender and face the punishment of their crimes.  It shows your true stance.
 

Disappointingly disingenuous from someone who seemed to be arguing in good faith.

1) The call for ceasefire goes both ways. That protects Israeli civilians too and that's a consistent demand of these protests.

2) You want to have this argument outside of a real world context where we can hold victims to an ideal that is impossible to realize. Would it be awesome if Palestinians were in the streets protesting Hamas? Of course! It would make my case much easier to make. However, I understand why they aren't. They may not love Hamas, but Hamas is clearly *on their side* in this conflict that's been going on for 75 years. There are human emotions involved in this. Most of the people who live in Gaza were already refugees before this war and Hamas wasn't the force that kicked them out of the homes they lived in for generations. So yes, I'm not surprised that they aren't sufficiently anti-Hamas for your liking (you still haven't addressed the West Bank btw which is not Hamas).

Your implication seems to be that because they are not sufficiently anti-Hamas, they are legitimate targets of the IDF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know why you would keep bringing this up otherwise. Well, I don't because that is *explicitly* a war crime. It's an extremely dangerous way of thinking that can be used to justify all sorts of horrors. It's the justification Hamas would give for 10/7. "Those civilians weren't sufficiently anti-Israel, so they're legit targets as occupiers."

It's wrong, full stop. I seem to be one of the few on here who actually condemns terroristic ideology like this. Will you join me?

(And yes, Hamas should surrender as part of a political process that establishes Palestinian sovereignty or integrates both states under one secular government. Ideally, war criminals from both sides would undergo trial and punishment, but the political reality would likely demand amnesty for both sides as part of the agreement. The rest of the world should be invested in maintaining the peace during this process.)

[Dark Energy]

31 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Disappointingly disingenuous from someone who seemed to be arguing in good faith.

1) The call for ceasefire goes both ways. That protects Israeli civilians too and that's a consistent demand of these protests.

2) You want to have this argument outside of a real world context where we can hold victims to an ideal that is impossible to realize. Would it be awesome if Palestinians were in the streets protesting Hamas? Of course! It would make my case much easier to make. However, I understand why they aren't. They may not love Hamas, but Hamas is clearly *on their side* in this conflict that's been going on for 75 years. There are human emotions involved in this. Most of the people who live in Gaza were already refugees before this war and Hamas wasn't the force that kicked them out of the homes they lived in for generations. So yes, I'm not surprised that they aren't sufficiently anti-Hamas for your liking (you still haven't addressed the West Bank btw which is not Hamas).

Your implication seems to be that because they are not sufficiently anti-Hamas, they are legitimate targets of the IDF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know why you would keep bringing this up otherwise. Well, I don't because that is *explicitly* a war crime. It's an extremely dangerous way of thinking that can be used to justify all sorts of horrors. It's the justification Hamas would give for 10/7. "Those civilians weren't sufficiently anti-Israel, so they're legit targets as occupiers."

It's wrong, full stop. I seem to be one of the few on here who actually condemns terroristic ideology like this. Will you join me?

(And yes, Hamas should surrender as part of a political process that establishes Palestinian sovereignty or integrates both states under one secular government. Ideally, war criminals from both sides would undergo trial and punishment, but the political reality would likely demand amnesty for both sides as part of the agreement. The rest of the world should be invested in maintaining the peace during this process.)

Hard to write out on a phone but will try to address.

1) call for a ceasefire?  That is all you want?  I thought you wanted an end to the bloodshed?  No?  A pause isn’t what is needed.  
 

Do you not agree that after the atrocities and purposeful, targeted mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocents by a Hamas that Israel has a right to defend itself, hunt down, and destroy the perpetrators and those that enable it?  I’m sure you do. 

Now, how to do that.  How about sitting on border and asking Hamas to come out of their holes and from behind innocents and fight in the open, and yes, there is open space, even in Gaza.  Ha!  Israel would have preferred that but Hamas decided to PURPOSEFULLY hide under and behind civilians.  They wanted Israel to have to kill innocents to get to them.  The anger should be with Hamas and their cowardly evil ways.

2) Real world context?  I’m expressly including that.  I’m asking protestors, yourself included, to protest Hamas as well.  Protest their expressly purposeful mass targeting of innocents, raping them, and kidnapping them.  Scream for Hamas to surrender to end this.  This will likely be as ineffective as the current goal of destroying Israel.  Agreed.  But at least it would show that they care about innocents and not simply eliminating Israel.  It’s willful blindness regarding the act that resulted in Israel’s rage.  
 

You do acknowledge that they are on Hamas’s side.  Hamas is on their side.  That is a good step.  Admitting it.  Fine.  To be honest with intentions is a good thing.  The protestors are on the side of Hamas and thus will not say anything bad about them.  Will not make demands of them.  They are good with Hamas continuing to fight and launching attacks from civilian areas.  They just don’t want Israel to try to get to them anymore.  
 

You recognize human emotions.  Do you recognize the human emotions of people in Israel?  People with their past?  The spectre of real genocide the looms over them.  The wars fought to eliminate Israel?  Surely, with a focus on human feelings, you can empathize with the horror their culture and people have dealt with as they try to protect themselves from aggressors, terrorists, and those that would seek to eliminate them from what they consider their homeland.  Yes, this is complicated.  Very.  There are two sides.  

Great people have tried to reach deals.  Two state solutions have been put on table.  Arafat came close but the politics are very complicated within the Palestinian / Arab camps.  As it is in Israel.  

That said, Oct 7 was the work of animals.  Those that say — well, we are going to shy away from it, and minimize it because they are on my side … well, that shows your colors.  
 

At the end you say Hamas should surrender but you have conditions.  No, no conditions. Unconditional surrender.  They do not deserve conditions.  By you needing conditions, you defend them … hold them out to be heros.  Make is so their evil is rewarded by the outcome you want.  Again, you show your colors.
 

No.  No conditions.  Surrender and face punishment so that innocents no longer need to shield your cowardice.

Regarding Israel, they do have blood on their hands.  Their allowance of settlements in the West Bank should be condemned, protested, and stopped.  I agree.  I do not sentence them to mass slaughter, rape and kidnapping.  

 

[Scouts Honor]

On 5/4/2024 at 1:56 PM, BuckyBadger said:

You can argue over details of whether this qualifies as a command center, but that misses the point. There is plenty of evidence of weapons stored in hospitals/schools, and fighters operating there.

Why you want to find an excuse for that is beyond me.

he always defends hamas

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

he always defends hamas

next time will be the first time

[Hammerlock3]

@uncle bernard

Ok I listened to both of the podcasts you recommended and I have some ideas about the difference in premises that make this conversation so unproductive.

Here are my problems:

1) The podcast itself seemed like it was designed for people who just wanted to agree with it. The host asked no challenging questions, never flirted with playing devils advocate in any real way.

2) It was racist. The only time difference between secular and religious jews was referenced was when emphasizing the thoughts of a religious jew who was anti-zionist. The whole conversation lacked coherence for someone who doesn't buy into the notion that people are irrevocably united by race as opposed to ideas. 

3)Again to coherence, they tended to discuss issues by working up the point at which there should have been an insight made, but then would brush up against a concept like "colonialism" or "whiteness" and then shift gears as if those concepts were so well substantiated that they didn't require being grounded in current pragmatic concerns. Once they even referenced someone who thought "racism is caused by capitalism" and after making that statement simply moved on without any attempt to nuance it or acknowledge some sort of other perspective.

4) At no point did they address any of the practical concerns which Israel as a country needs to address. It felt like 3 hours of being told "hey did you know not all jews even like israel?"

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

Hard to write out on a phone but will try to address.

1) call for a ceasefire?  That is all you want?  I thought you wanted an end to the bloodshed?  No?  A pause isn’t what is needed.  
 

Do you not agree that after the atrocities and purposeful, targeted mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocents by a Hamas that Israel has a right to defend itself, hunt down, and destroy the perpetrators and those that enable it?  I’m sure you do. 

Now, how to do that.  How about sitting on border and asking Hamas to come out of their holes and from behind innocents and fight in the open, and yes, there is open space, even in Gaza.  Ha!  Israel would have preferred that but Hamas decided to PURPOSEFULLY hide under and behind civilians.  They wanted Israel to have to kill innocents to get to them.  The anger should be with Hamas and their cowardly evil ways.

2) Real world context?  I’m expressly including that.  I’m asking protestors, yourself included, to protest Hamas as well.  Protest their expressly purposeful mass targeting of innocents, raping them, and kidnapping them.  Scream for Hamas to surrender to end this.  This will likely be as ineffective as the current goal of destroying Israel.  Agreed.  But at least it would show that they care about innocents and not simply eliminating Israel.  It’s willful blindness regarding the act that resulted in Israel’s rage.  
 

You do acknowledge that they are on Hamas’s side.  Hamas is on their side.  That is a good step.  Admitting it.  Fine.  To be honest with intentions is a good thing.  The protestors are on the side of Hamas and thus will not say anything bad about them.  Will not make demands of them.  They are good with Hamas continuing to fight and launching attacks from civilian areas.  They just don’t want Israel to try to get to them anymore.  
 

You recognize human emotions.  Do you recognize the human emotions of people in Israel?  People with their past?  The spectre of real genocide the looms over them.  The wars fought to eliminate Israel?  Surely, with a focus on human feelings, you can empathize with the horror their culture and people have dealt with as they try to protect themselves from aggressors, terrorists, and those that would seek to eliminate them from what they consider their homeland.  Yes, this is complicated.  Very.  There are two sides.  

Great people have tried to reach deals.  Two state solutions have been put on table.  Arafat came close but the politics are very complicated within the Palestinian / Arab camps.  As it is in Israel.  

That said, Oct 7 was the work of animals.  Those that say — well, we are going to shy away from it, and minimize it because they are on my side … well, that shows your colors.  
 

At the end you say Hamas should surrender but you have conditions.  No, no conditions. Unconditional surrender.  They do not deserve conditions.  By you needing conditions, you defend them … hold them out to be heros.  Make is so their evil is rewarded by the outcome you want.  Again, you show your colors.
 

No.  No conditions.  Surrender and face punishment so that innocents no longer need to shield your cowardice.

Regarding Israel, they do have blood on their hands.  Their allowance of settlements in the West Bank should be condemned, protested, and stopped.  I agree.  I do not sentence them to mass slaughter, rape and kidnapping.  

 

1) no, ceasefire would be the start of a longer peace process. you're too concerned with trying to poke holes in everything. use some common sense. why would you think i'd *only* want a temporary ceasefire?

2) no protestor in this country has any impact on hamas' behavior. I can't believe this is so hard to understand. One is a terror group, not recognized as a legit gov by international law, and the other is our ally who receives billions of our tax money every year. why haven't you been out protesting hamas all this time and before 10/7? because you correctly understand that we're not supporting hamas. there's nothing to protest!

3) Yes, I recognize the emotions from Israel's side. I don't fault them at all for having those emotions. They are scared and angry and have reason to be so. They mirror Palestinians in that way. Where we differ on this is you think that grants license to commit crimes and I don't. International Law (and law in general) is established to prevent cycles of violence. Yes, Israel has every right to be angry about 10/7. No, that doesn't mean they have the right to kill innocent civilians and ethnically cleanse Gaza.

4) You're arguing in a fantasy world. I'm trying to argue for what a real solution might actually look like. Sure, they don't deserve conditions. The world isn't fair, my friend. Concessions are made in the service of larger goals for greater benefit and a greater peace. 

Lastly, really annoying that you keep implying I defend Hamas' actions on 10/7. I've taken the time to respond to your novel length posts in detail. The least you can do is be honest and honorable in debate. You know I've done no such defending of Hamas. I know that's frustrating because it would be easier to argue with me if I had, but I haven't. I'm sorry for that.

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

@uncle bernard

Ok I listened to both of the podcasts you recommended and I have some ideas about the difference in premises that make this conversation so unproductive.

Here are my problems:

1) The podcast itself seemed like it was designed for people who just wanted to agree with it. The host asked no challenging questions, never flirted with playing devils advocate in any real way.

2) It was racist. The only time difference between secular and religious jews was referenced was when emphasizing the thoughts of a religious jew who was anti-zionist. The whole conversation lacked coherence for someone who doesn't buy into the notion that people are irrevocably united by race as opposed to ideas. 

3)Again to coherence, they tended to discuss issues by working up the point at which there should have been an insight made, but then would brush up against a concept like "colonialism" or "whiteness" and then shift gears as if those concepts were so well substantiated that they didn't require being grounded in current pragmatic concerns. Once they even referenced someone who thought "racism is caused by capitalism" and after making that statement simply moved on without any attempt to nuance it or acknowledge some sort of other perspective.

4) At no point did they address any of the practical concerns which Israel as a country needs to address. It felt like 3 hours of being told "hey did you know not all jews even like israel?"

I have to run to something, but could you explain what you mean here? 

[Bigbrog]

Wonder why every person on here besides TPTD believes UB supports hamas...or I should say he does so by proxy by bashing Israel in almost every post and then tries to hide behind idiotic rhetoric like he is doing something for the greater good and by participating in the stupid "protests".  Typical narcissistic behavior...never mind what caused a certain reaction to a certain action/behavior but attack the response/reaction to the action/behavior that caused it.

[Offthemat]

On June 22 1982, Joe Biden was a Senator from Delaware and confronted then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during his Senate Foreign Relations committee testimony, threatening to cut off aid to Israel. Begin forcefully responded, “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”
 

History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme. 

[braves121]

Israel just shut down operations of Al Jazeera. Shutting down free press isn’t totally something a country trying to cover things up and hide their actions do

Edited May 6 by braves121

[JimmyBT]

Al Jazeera isn’t biased at all.  

[braves121]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

Al Jazeera isn’t biased at all.  

So just because there might be a bias a government has the right to ban the press/news source? What’s the word people call governments like that? Authoritarian?

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, braves121 said:

So just because there might be a bias a government has the right to ban the press/news source? What’s the word people call governments like that? Authoritarian?

There were accusations of security risks.  

[Dark Energy]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

1) no, ceasefire would be the start of a longer peace process. you're too concerned with trying to poke holes in everything. use some common sense. why would you think i'd *only* want a temporary ceasefire?

2) no protestor in this country has any impact on hamas' behavior. I can't believe this is so hard to understand. One is a terror group, not recognized as a legit gov by international law, and the other is our ally who receives billions of our tax money every year. why haven't you been out protesting hamas all this time and before 10/7? because you correctly understand that we're not supporting hamas. there's nothing to protest!

3) Yes, I recognize the emotions from Israel's side. I don't fault them at all for having those emotions. They are scared and angry and have reason to be so. They mirror Palestinians in that way. Where we differ on this is you think that grants license to commit crimes and I don't. International Law (and law in general) is established to prevent cycles of violence. Yes, Israel has every right to be angry about 10/7. No, that doesn't mean they have the right to kill innocent civilians and ethnically cleanse Gaza.

4) You're arguing in a fantasy world. I'm trying to argue for what a real solution might actually look like. Sure, they don't deserve conditions. The world isn't fair, my friend. Concessions are made in the service of larger goals for greater benefit and a greater peace. 

Lastly, really annoying that you keep implying I defend Hamas' actions on 10/7. I've taken the time to respond to your novel length posts in detail. The least you can do is be honest and honorable in debate. You know I've done no such defending of Hamas. I know that's frustrating because it would be easier to argue with me if I had, but I haven't. I'm sorry for that.

Fundamentally we differ on some key points.

1) I believe Israel is not ethnically cleansing Gaza.  You do.  The facts are on my side.  There are not 800,000+ dead.  Israel is actually allowing aid in.  If they were ethnically cleansing this would not be the case.  To say otherwise is ignoring the facts on the ground.  There are many dead, but this is not cleansing. 
 

2) I believe Hamas knew that their actions on Oct 7 would draw Israeli fury and would result in innocent deaths because they knew they would be hiding beneath and behind innocents. For this, they should be called out for their offenses and tactics and no quarter should be given.  It is Hamas that deserves the scorn, more than Israel.  You won’t acknowledge that Hamas wanted this and made it happen.  

3)  I believe Israel is at war and war is ugly.  Particularly with Hamas using the tactics they are.  I believe Israel is trying not to kill innocents.  If they were not we would see fire bombing and carpet bombing, and no aid being admitted.   I believe they have done badly in some situations, as the U.S. has, as any invading army has over the centuries.  Pressure to do better is fine.  But calling out genocide or ethnic cleansing is ridiculous.   Oct 7 does give Israel the right to kill Hamas - and if that means innocents die, that is a bitter result that Hamas is causing through their actions.  To you, Hamas can fire mortars, invade Israel, inflict terrorist attacks, then run back under the cover of innocents and Israel would just have to take it.  Or send troops in small groups, go door to door, and go through tunnels.  No airpower to help, no heavy weapons.  Sure, that would go well.  I’d like to see you or any of your loved ones on the tip of that spear.  It is naive on its face.  
 

4) I believe world opinion can have impact on Hamas.  They did what they did with world optics in mind.  To think otherwise is naive.  And yes, I believe that protestors, making world news, while slamming Israel, also saying that Hamas is evil and should surrender, would make a difference in the grand scheme of things.  Would show them that their tactics are causing blow back and they are losing friends and supporters.  Q - when protestors in the Middle East protest Israel or the U.S. and burn effigies, why do they do it?  To get a message across.  Protestors here can do the same to Hamas.
 

I also believe that by being so plainly, and only anti Israel in their chants and their signs, they are missing an opportunity to win friends by getting across that violence as a whole is a bad approach.  That they don’t agree with Hamas either.  Hamas should surrender.  If they did this, they would gather more support.  You seem to disagree. 

5) I believe most leaders in this kind of situation would surrender.  Recall most wars.  Surrender is an option.  It would protect innocents.  The fact that Hamas is not surrendering is interesting.  They want more innocent blood spilled.  I believe that.  You don’t acknowledge this.  

6) Real solutions?  Hamas surrenders only if so much of what they (you) want is given to them?  What?  You call that real?  That is fantasy.  There is NO WAY this kind of action can be rewarded.  My thought on unconditional surrender is more realistic.  The dogs will be drastically reduced.  They must learn that their tactics don’t work.  And the people that support them must reconsider their support.  
 

7) I thought we were in some agreement on the following … You acknowledged that the protestors (of which you are one) feel that Hamas is on their side for the broader picture.  It makes it hard for them to criticize Hamas.  They may not like Oct 7, but still on the same side big picture.  Feel free to further clarify.  
 

 

[braves121]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There were accusations of security risks.  

Accusations of security risks the day Qatar is finalizing brokering a cease fire, real coincidence. The fact is they can’t even substantiate any security risks that AJ brings.  the patriot act pass due to “security risks” and it’s still a violation of our rights

[Dark Energy]

As I reflect - I don’t know that Hamas will surrender.  Probably won’t.  But they will get whittled down enough to all for major operations to end.  Not sure how Israel will unwrap themselves as an occupying force.  They tried to let Gaza self govern.  Terrorists were elected.  Didn’t go well.  I expect this whole thing will continue to suck for a long time.  

[uncle bernard]

22 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

There were accusations of security risks.  

that’s what stalin said too

[Threadkilla]

Most of the idiot protesters many of which are Ivy League's finest can't find Israel on a map. They are worried more about wars thousands of miles away that won't affect them nearly as much as the mass invasion on our Southern border, that will impact everybody's pocketbook.

[braves121]

7 minutes ago, Threadkilla said:

Most of the idiot protesters many of which are Ivy League's finest can't find Israel on a map. They are worried more about wars thousands of miles away that won't affect them nearly as much as the mass invasion on our Southern border, that will impact everybody's pocketbook.

So the protestors are too dumb to point out Israel on a map but supposedly they have been training and organizing for months? Is that the narrative for now?

Edited May 6 by braves121