>>20246255 (lb)
>Did Q say it's not?
You're the one taking it literal, not me.
>Ever occur to you he wasn't?
See above.
>Not possible.
So you admit you're in a cult?
>You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Kekity. Deflection. Muh "Biblical." You fucking Biblefags are as bad as Jews. This is why we need to cull the Abrahamic Triumvirate ideologies from our species.
>No not deflection
No, it's deflection. I asked you if you were taking the "Biblical" reference literally, which clearly you are. I then asked if you considered if he was speaking metaphorically, which you completely admonished with a pilpul by saying, "did you ever think he wasn't?" You didn't answer my question. You deflected it. Kek, but it's "not a deflection." Then, I politely asked you to keep the "Jesus shit" out of the equation, just to test the water, but in typical Biblefag fashion, you flat out refused to.
Deflection.
>You didn't notice I was a different anon and didn't even understand what I said.
>So again, I DID NOT deflect, you're just incredibly stupid.
Not really. I wasn't the one who jumped in the middle of a conversation. For all I know, you IP hopped and are trying to deflect yet again. Answering a question with a question is a deflection. If you jumped into a conversation you weren't a part of, without clarifying that you weren't the (OP) and were confused as such, that's not on me. I was expecting to hear from the (OP), not you. Enjoy your opine.
> Israel?
Yeah, they're not particularly in a good light right now. Not that they ever were, being an apartheid state and all, but their whole narrative is looking really bad.
>None need specify they're not the other anon.
No, but typically they do.
>When you don't notice another anon ID with multiple posts BEFORE the post you claim they IP jumped from, it's on you.
Right. 'Cos you could have been phonefagging and not received the original (you). It's happened to me as well.
>You just showed AGAIN how incredibly stupid you are.
Kek. I'm not the one that started (OUR) conversation with ad hominem attacks, but you keep on doing you, Anon. Just admit you got your panties in a twist over something I said, probably relating to Christianity being a cult, which it is.
>Here is your first reply to me
Actually, my reply was to >>20246255 from the (pb) which was ID:98187 and not ID:1e0682, the ID you're currently using.
Kek. Now which one of us is "stupid" again?
Even if the Hague finds Israel committed genocide, they have no way of enforcing it and BiBi has all but said he won't acknowledge it. This is one of the problems with these "World Courts."
The hubris of the Israeli government is insane.
>She tries so hard but nope.
She also attacks anyone who is critical of Israel, no matter how minute. I lost the vid link, but I remember when she said that Americans who were part of the "BDS movement" should be stripped of their citizenship and incarcerated. She's not very bright, when it comes to hiding who she really is.
>That's me in the last bread. Jesus Christ are you new here?
Kek. Ah, so you admit it WAS you, huh? So why did you answer my question with a question and then try and say it wasn't you? Some sweet examples of your deflection:
"When you don't notice another anon ID with multiple posts BEFORE the post you claim they IP jumped from, it's on you. "
"No, it's not deflection. You didn't ask me anything, you're confusing me with another anon. I simply replied to"
I thought it "wasn't you," Anon?