[philipallstar]

I don't think it's everyone's job to do that, though. If an ideology is innately, for the last 1300 years, expansive, by military might or by population demographic change, you can't blame past grievances for that. It's just innate.

[soulofmischief]

When you say expansive ideologies within the last 1300 years, did you mean religiously-motivated American colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under manifest destiny? Or did you mean religiously-motivated Israeli colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under Zionist doctrine?

I just want to make sure I understand which expansive ideology we're calling innate, because again I know you are not claiming that a sovereign nation's desire to rid itself of foreign colonial oppression and apartheid is "expansive".

[philipallstar]

I didn't say "within the last 1300 years".

[soulofmischief]

Your only response is that I said "within" instead of "for"?

You initiated discussion on a very serious subject. If you don't have the spine or ability to back up what you're saying and critically engage with responses, do yourself a favor and keep the cookie-cutter zealotry to yourself.

[philipallstar]

Neither of your examples were for the last 1300 years, so all your paragraphs are irrelevant.

[soulofmischief]

I directly asked you to stop being evasive and to specifically name the ideologies you're speaking about.

We can't even trace "death to the west" or "from the river to the sea" as ideologies or even phrases beyond 100 years ago. so I'm flabbergasted you would try to claim such ideologies have been occurring for 1300 years, and then turn around and try to get pedantic about whether the word is "for" or "within".

Either way, you're just displaying your deep cultural ignorance. There's no more reason to spend time on this conversation.