|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 17 2018 00:53 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Is this really the official Twitter of the IDF...? That's one of the most pathetic excuse for a massacre. They cannot defend against this "weapons of terror" especially children and elderly without murdering them? The protest should be dealt with the least casualties, are there no non-lethal technology that could break apart this protests or is it just easier to kill the protesters? Israeli army needs a new reform, a doctrine for when to use live ammunition in this kind of situations.
there are less-lethal ways to break up these kinds of things, they generally involve putting officers/soldiers more into harms way, possibly much more. The preferred term is less-lethal (or maybe low-lethal) rather than non-lethal since all of the stuff still poses some real risk of death.
is it clear that this was standard and explicit israeli doctrine? rather than people on the scene going too far? certainly i'd expect israel to claim the onsite commanders/soldiers failed to follow proper procedure.
|
On May 17 2018 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 00:53 raga4ka wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Is this really the official Twitter of the IDF...? That's one of the most pathetic excuse for a massacre. They cannot defend against this "weapons of terror" especially children and elderly without murdering them? The protest should be dealt with the least casualties, are there no non-lethal technology that could break apart this protests or is it just easier to kill the protesters? Israeli army needs a new reform, a doctrine for when to use live ammunition in this kind of situations. Yeah I honestly can't tell if that account is satire or not. Utterly fucked up if not.
It's an official account, and it's really the way those people think.
Now, for satire and some dark humor (click on it, it doesn't appear right)...
|
It is verified, so I have to assume it is legit. That is the one thing twitter gives a shit about.
And its not like the folks in Gaza have a lot of options of places to go. Its Israel or Egypt. And Egypt isn't opening up their very small board. They were providing aid to Gaza when the services were cut off in 2009, but stopped it when Egyptian security services found weapons among the relief supplies. I don't know if they ever resumed or the status of the services.
People should look at a map of Israel just to see how small Gaza is and that it has 1.86 million people. From quick internet research, 60% of people didn't have access to continuous running water in 2009. There doesn't seem to be much information about the state of the water services since then.
|
On May 17 2018 02:37 Nebuchad wrote:
There is no way the person who made that tweet thinks they're working for the good guys. I can only read this to mean "We can do whatever we want, ahah, let me rub your face in it."
If only it was pure cynicism. But they do think like that. They're fanatics, for them every Palestinian is a "Hamas terrorist". This is also what some Israeli ambassador in Belgium said: "all the people who died were terrorists" (source in French). Neoconservatives and far-right Zionists in France use the same kind of "argumentation" and you can tell that they 100% think they are the good guys, gatekeepers vs the "Islamist barbarism" etc.
|
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that.
|
On May 17 2018 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that.
If I am feeling particularly generous, you could argue this is intended to show that no matter how innocent or victim'ish someone may appear, Hamas has a long history of using children and other types of people who naturally rally sympathy.
Hiding weapons in schools and hospitals...etc. I by no means side with Israel on this issue, but Hamas has done heinous shit like that many times. Women and children being used as bombs is not new to them. A kid being shot doesn't necessarily mean there was no risk.
|
On May 17 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that. If I am feeling particularly generous, you could argue this is intended to show that no matter how innocent or victim'ish someone may appear, Hamas has a long history of using children and other types of people who naturally rally sympathy. Hiding weapons in schools and hospitals...etc. I by no means side with Israel on this issue, but Hamas has done heinous shit like that many times. Women and children being used as bombs is not new to them. A kid being shot doesn't necessarily mean there was no risk.
I've thought of that but it doesn't really work in the context of this image, there are too many directions. There are actual weapons (puny as most of them are), there are people, there is "rope"... The people are there because you don't expect them to be threatening, but the explosive and molotovs are there to be the very real threats.
The generic goal of the image is to convey to a friendly audience the idea that the enemy is scary, and the addition of those people doesn't help that goal. The only reason why you would add disabled people and children in the middle of that is to justify after the fact the action of killing children and disabled people that you already know your army has committed.
|
|
|
On May 17 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that. If I am feeling particularly generous, you could argue this is intended to show that no matter how innocent or victim'ish someone may appear, Hamas has a long history of using children and other types of people who naturally rally sympathy. Hiding weapons in schools and hospitals...etc. I by no means side with Israel on this issue, but Hamas has done heinous shit like that many times. Women and children being used as bombs is not new to them. A kid being shot doesn't necessarily mean there was no risk.
It's just the nature of asymmetric conflict. The weaker side uses terrorism, civilian casualties and extremism to compensate for lack of raw military strength. If the Hamas had access to state of the art aircrafts they'd probably use those. The Boxer rebellion used to turn their fighters into fanatics by convincing them that they're immune to bullets. This isn't really an issue of morality as much as it is strategic. Israel fights cleanly because they can afford it. It's disingenuous to turn that into a moral issue.
|
On May 17 2018 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2018 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that. If I am feeling particularly generous, you could argue this is intended to show that no matter how innocent or victim'ish someone may appear, Hamas has a long history of using children and other types of people who naturally rally sympathy. Hiding weapons in schools and hospitals...etc. I by no means side with Israel on this issue, but Hamas has done heinous shit like that many times. Women and children being used as bombs is not new to them. A kid being shot doesn't necessarily mean there was no risk. It's just the nature of asymmetric conflict. The weaker side uses terrorism, civilian casualties and extremism to compensate for lack of raw military strength. If the Hamas had access to state of the art aircrafts they'd probably use those. The Boxer rebellion used to turn their fighters into fanatics by convincing them that they're immune to bullets. This isn't really an issue of morality as much as it is strategic. Israel fights cleanly because they can afford it. It's disingenuous to turn that into a moral issue.
Today I learned that slaughtering civilians is "fighting cleanly"
|
So the master plan is to catch families of illegal immigrants, House their children separately and then go through the endless deportation process and hope no one fucks up during that time.
These deportation tactics get more draconian the longer Sessions and others run the show.
|
|
|
On May 17 2018 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2018 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that racism and the belief that Palestinians aren't human play a part in this, but it only goes so far to explain this garbage. You don't list disabled people as a weapon of terror because of your deep racism, you do it because you know you can get away with it and you want to display that. If I am feeling particularly generous, you could argue this is intended to show that no matter how innocent or victim'ish someone may appear, Hamas has a long history of using children and other types of people who naturally rally sympathy. Hiding weapons in schools and hospitals...etc. I by no means side with Israel on this issue, but Hamas has done heinous shit like that many times. Women and children being used as bombs is not new to them. A kid being shot doesn't necessarily mean there was no risk. It's just the nature of asymmetric conflict. The weaker side uses terrorism, civilian casualties and extremism to compensate for lack of raw military strength. If the Hamas had access to state of the art aircrafts they'd probably use those. The Boxer rebellion used to turn their fighters into fanatics by convincing them that they're immune to bullets. This isn't really an issue of morality as much as it is strategic. Israel fights cleanly because they can afford it. It's disingenuous to turn that into a moral issue.
Wasn't too long ago Americans were the 'savages' using 'immoral' tactics in our own Revolutionary War against the British. Asymmetrical combat with 'everything on the line' leads to extreme behavior today, back then and probably forever.
On May 17 2018 05:41 PhoenixVoid wrote:Some interesting non-Palestine/Israel news came up today. The Senate turned over the FCC's net neutrality repeal at a 52-47 vote. All Dems voted for it and were joined with Republicans Murkowski, Collins, and Kennedy. Reminds me a bit of the ACA vote a while back with the same two senators and a substitute for McCain. The real struggle is getting this past the House and Trump who has to sign it, so if you are for it, don't celebrate early. https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/16/17357592/net-neutrality-senate-vote-cra-reinstate-fcc-rules
Nice moral victory I suppose, shame it has 0% chance to go anywhere in the house, or be signed by the President.
|
The House isn’t even going to vote on it, so it is dead in the water. And service providers are not dumb enough to start throttling our internet in a lead up to this election. They will hold out and see how things go in November.
|
There are multiple polls out there of 70+% of Republicans supporting net neutrality. It stinks to high heaven that the GOP gets away with such one sided voting on the issue.
|
There are a few races with progressives in November but I like the one that we just got yesterday, Eastman vs Bacon. The results will be quite interesting cause it's already framed as a gift for the GOP, no surprise there (for example here and by Kyle Kondik).
Now in any other place in the world, places that are poorer / more working class will generally vote for a leftist or for the far right, and really rarely for a center right / liberal candidate. I don't know the specifics of that district, perhaps it's this super rich place, but obviously red states are typically poorer so progressives in red states make a ton of sense as a strategy. And the notion that this primary win is a blow for the democratic party makes very little sense empirically.
I'd advise you take a look at that race in November. Time to figure out if Americans behave similarly to other nations, or if they are truly exceptional.
|
On May 17 2018 06:21 Plansix wrote:
The House isn’t even going to vote on it, so it is dead in the water. And service providers are not dumb enough to start throttling our internet in a lead up to this election. They will hold out and see how things go in November.
It's kinda cool Manchin voted for it, I guess lol. The party may not be unified on issues like healthcare and inequality (but those are just small issues, right? @_@), but at least we've got net neutrality..!
|
On May 17 2018 06:50 Tachion wrote:
There are multiple polls out there of 70+% of Republicans supporting net neutrality. It stinks to high heaven that the GOP gets away with such one sided voting on the issue.
yeah; but they're just responding to the voting incentives so no surprise. just another classic case of special interest groups.
|
On May 17 2018 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:There are a few races with progressives in November but I like the one that we just got yesterday, Eastman vs Bacon. The results will be quite interesting cause it's already framed as a gift for the GOP, no surprise there (for example here and by Kyle Kondik). Now in any other place in the world, places that are poorer / more working class will generally vote for a leftist or for the far right, and really rarely for a center right / liberal candidate. I don't know the specifics of that district, perhaps it's this super rich place, but obviously red states are typically poorer so progressives in red states make a ton of sense as a strategy. And the notion that this primary win is a blow for the democratic party makes very little sense empirically. I'd advise you take a look at that race in November. Time to figure out if Americans behave similarly to other nations, or if they are truly exceptional.
We need Bernie to choose like 3 or 4 elections like these and just hold millions of rallies. We are very clearly in the beginning stages of getting our own version of the tea party and we need to give it some teeth. I think it is possible we would end up with a bunch of duds, but with proper strategy, we could have a few progressive waves in certain districts.
The various Chelsea Manning'esque candidates can fuck off, but I'd like to see the reasonable progressives doing well. I think there is a really good sweet spot somewhere between Bernie and Clinton where a lot of democrats can agree. Medicare and legalizing pot both seem like really good rallying points.
|
On May 17 2018 06:50 Tachion wrote:
There are multiple polls out there of 70+% of Republicans supporting net neutrality. It stinks to high heaven that the GOP gets away with such one sided voting on the issue.
On one hand, you have the majority of people who vote for you who don't like something.
On the other hand, you have a large donor to you saying they want it the other way.
Therefore, don't bite the hand that feeds, appease the donor.
If they could get the money out of politics, this wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
