|
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 August 06 2024 00:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 00:34 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:22 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:14 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:06 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2024 23:15 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:10 NewSunshine wrote:On August 05 2024 19:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
The only analogy I can find is the allied bombardment of german cities in WW2.
Only Nazis accuse the allies of "Genocide" .. and so is my view on Hamas. Hamas needs to be purged from gaza, as Nazis needed to be purged from germany.
Jerusalem and other cities can be completely flattened I don't give a crap. The best ways to use all the "holy" places there would be to store radioactive waste.
Both to deter people from fighting over it, and as an analogy to what "Religion" can be at it's worst... a load of crap that's dangerous forever.
Hamas was not an especially popular political faction within Palestine, so saying that everyone in Palestine is synonymous with Hamas is problematic on several levels. There's also other issues, would I have Trump voters thrown in jail just because the person they vote for is a known criminal? It's very conveniently dehumanizing to say every single political operative and civilian alike all deserve to be destroyed because some of them did something awful. Many Palestinians are not on board with what Hamas did in the first place, but it doesn't matter because now they're dying in the thousands. But if Israel just kills them a little harder, that'll definitely show them how misguided Hamas' hate of Jews is and turn things around..! But if Israel turns the other cheek a little harder that’ll definitely not lead to escalation from Hamas again this time, just because it did all the other times. If there’s one thing that genocidal death cults are good at it’s civility and compromise. It’s almost like there aren’t any good options here and that pointing out the negatives of one option without discussing the broader context is intellectually dishonest. When has Israel ever 'turned the other cheek'? Iran launched a missile salvo at them last month. Israel declined to launch one back. Iran retaliated with a pointless fireworks show to Israel's deadly hit on a consulate, and Israel not escalating further on Iran is your best example of 'turning the other cheek' in their conflict with Hamas after decades of conflict? Sure, that definitely proves that not slaughtering Palestinians left and right would never serve to reduce radicalism or help pave the way to peace in Palestine. You asked for an example, I gave one. Characterizing 120 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 170 Shaheds as a fireworks show is absurd to the point of deranged. If someone fired those at your city you’d not call it a fireworks show. It failed to do more damage because of the exertions of Israel and her allies, not out of any benevolent intent on behalf of the attackers. Israel could have sent its own salvo back. It would have been entirely within its rights to do so. However after the success of the air defence mission it chose to turn the other cheek in the name of deescalation. You’re clearly not capable of being rational on this subject. I offer a simple example in response to your demand for one and you start gibbering about slaughtering Palestinians left and right. I guess Western analysts are deranged and analysis pieces on the subject are absurd, then, since the general consensus on that strike was that it was a show of force meant to send a message rather than cause any significant damage to targets on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/20/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news#iran-israel-strike-tensionshttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/irans-attack-israel-was-not-failure-many-claim-it-has-ended-israels-isolationSo good to have your rationality here weighing in with logic and reason. I mean it wouldn’t be advisable but I couldn’t just walk up and try to punch Mike Tyson with the rationale ‘well it’s not a threat because he’s used to dodging punches’ That said I don’t think it’s a great look if you can be restrained and de-escalate with a power vaguely in your ballpark and instead beat up the defenceless kid in the playground every day.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for a century, yet KwarK's best example of 'turning the other cheek' and proof that Israel totally tried to de-escalate but Hamas just wasn't having it is, well, this?
Like yeah, they totally could have dropped a nuke on Tehran, but they didn't! See, restraint and patience and yet Hamas still won't lay down their arms! No choice but to exterminate all the baddies!
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 01:12 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:04 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2024 00:34 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:22 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:14 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:06 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2024 23:15 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
But if Israel just kills them a little harder, that'll definitely show them how misguided Hamas' hate of Jews is and turn things around..! But if Israel turns the other cheek a little harder that’ll definitely not lead to escalation from Hamas again this time, just because it did all the other times. If there’s one thing that genocidal death cults are good at it’s civility and compromise. It’s almost like there aren’t any good options here and that pointing out the negatives of one option without discussing the broader context is intellectually dishonest. When has Israel ever 'turned the other cheek'? Iran launched a missile salvo at them last month. Israel declined to launch one back. Iran retaliated with a pointless fireworks show to Israel's deadly hit on a consulate, and Israel not escalating further on Iran is your best example of 'turning the other cheek' in their conflict with Hamas after decades of conflict? Sure, that definitely proves that not slaughtering Palestinians left and right would never serve to reduce radicalism or help pave the way to peace in Palestine. You asked for an example, I gave one. Characterizing 120 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 170 Shaheds as a fireworks show is absurd to the point of deranged. If someone fired those at your city you’d not call it a fireworks show. It failed to do more damage because of the exertions of Israel and her allies, not out of any benevolent intent on behalf of the attackers. Israel could have sent its own salvo back. It would have been entirely within its rights to do so. However after the success of the air defence mission it chose to turn the other cheek in the name of deescalation. You’re clearly not capable of being rational on this subject. I offer a simple example in response to your demand for one and you start gibbering about slaughtering Palestinians left and right. I guess Western analysts are deranged and analysis pieces on the subject are absurd, then, since the general consensus on that strike was that it was a show of force meant to send a message rather than cause any significant damage to targets on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/20/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news#iran-israel-strike-tensionshttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/irans-attack-israel-was-not-failure-many-claim-it-has-ended-israels-isolationSo good to have your rationality here weighing in with logic and reason. I mean it wouldn’t be advisable but I couldn’t just walk up and try to punch Mike Tyson with the rationale ‘well it’s not a threat because he’s used to dodging punches’ That said I don’t think it’s a great look if you can be restrained and de-escalate with a power vaguely in your ballpark and instead beat up the defenceless kid in the playground every day. Iran is not in Israel’s ballpark. Israel could, at will, break the nuclear taboo. One could reasonably argue that they should do it for the purpose of hitting Iran’s nuclear program bunkers with tactical nukes. If Israel nukes Iran they will respond with cruise/ballistic missiles loaded with nuclear waste and enriched uranium. Not to mention that radioactive dust from Israels strike might very well end up in bordering countries. One of which has more nukes than Isreal. Now they might dont like Iran very much, but they sure as hell won't be thrilled by nuclear fallout. That really isn't a can of worms ANYONE wants to open.
Tactical bunker busting nukes aren’t the nuclear winter airburst apocalyptic type. They’re intended to hit hardened underground concrete facilities with a very localized underground earthquake, not destroy cities with a pressure wave. And if Israel were to pull the trigger then Iran wouldn’t be responding with dirty missiles because they wouldn’t be responding at all.
But I agree, it’s not a can of worms anyone wants to open. I’m not pro nuking.
What I’m saying is that Israel could win, but doesn’t think the victory is worth the means. It isn’t afraid of Iran’s strength, it’s aware of its own.
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 01:17 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2024 00:34 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:22 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:14 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:06 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2024 23:15 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:10 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Hamas was not an especially popular political faction within Palestine, so saying that everyone in Palestine is synonymous with Hamas is problematic on several levels. There's also other issues, would I have Trump voters thrown in jail just because the person they vote for is a known criminal? It's very conveniently dehumanizing to say every single political operative and civilian alike all deserve to be destroyed because some of them did something awful. Many Palestinians are not on board with what Hamas did in the first place, but it doesn't matter because now they're dying in the thousands. But if Israel just kills them a little harder, that'll definitely show them how misguided Hamas' hate of Jews is and turn things around..! But if Israel turns the other cheek a little harder that’ll definitely not lead to escalation from Hamas again this time, just because it did all the other times. If there’s one thing that genocidal death cults are good at it’s civility and compromise. It’s almost like there aren’t any good options here and that pointing out the negatives of one option without discussing the broader context is intellectually dishonest. When has Israel ever 'turned the other cheek'? Iran launched a missile salvo at them last month. Israel declined to launch one back. Iran retaliated with a pointless fireworks show to Israel's deadly hit on a consulate, and Israel not escalating further on Iran is your best example of 'turning the other cheek' in their conflict with Hamas after decades of conflict? Sure, that definitely proves that not slaughtering Palestinians left and right would never serve to reduce radicalism or help pave the way to peace in Palestine. You asked for an example, I gave one. Characterizing 120 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 170 Shaheds as a fireworks show is absurd to the point of deranged. If someone fired those at your city you’d not call it a fireworks show. It failed to do more damage because of the exertions of Israel and her allies, not out of any benevolent intent on behalf of the attackers. Israel could have sent its own salvo back. It would have been entirely within its rights to do so. However after the success of the air defence mission it chose to turn the other cheek in the name of deescalation. You’re clearly not capable of being rational on this subject. I offer a simple example in response to your demand for one and you start gibbering about slaughtering Palestinians left and right. I guess Western analysts are deranged and analysis pieces on the subject are absurd, then, since the general consensus on that strike was that it was a show of force meant to send a message rather than cause any significant damage to targets on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/20/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news#iran-israel-strike-tensionshttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/irans-attack-israel-was-not-failure-many-claim-it-has-ended-israels-isolationSo good to have your rationality here weighing in with logic and reason. I mean it wouldn’t be advisable but I couldn’t just walk up and try to punch Mike Tyson with the rationale ‘well it’s not a threat because he’s used to dodging punches’ That said I don’t think it’s a great look if you can be restrained and de-escalate with a power vaguely in your ballpark and instead beat up the defenceless kid in the playground every day. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for a century, yet KwarK's best example of 'turning the other cheek' and proof that Israel totally tried to de-escalate but Hamas just wasn't having it is, well, this? Like yeah, they totally could have dropped a nuke on Tehran, but they didn't! See, restraint and patience and yet Hamas still won't lay down their arms! No choice but to exterminate all the baddies!
You need to calm down. You’re hysterical and making things up. You asked for an example and I gave a recent one. You didn’t specify Hamas. You didn’t ask for the best possible example. I didn’t say Israel should nuke Iran (that was a wholly separate discussion about whether Israel would prevail in that hypothetical scenario of escalation). Now you’re suddenly ranting about nukes.
Take a break. Touch grass.
|
On August 06 2024 01:17 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2024 00:34 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:22 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:14 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:06 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2024 23:15 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:10 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Hamas was not an especially popular political faction within Palestine, so saying that everyone in Palestine is synonymous with Hamas is problematic on several levels. There's also other issues, would I have Trump voters thrown in jail just because the person they vote for is a known criminal? It's very conveniently dehumanizing to say every single political operative and civilian alike all deserve to be destroyed because some of them did something awful. Many Palestinians are not on board with what Hamas did in the first place, but it doesn't matter because now they're dying in the thousands. But if Israel just kills them a little harder, that'll definitely show them how misguided Hamas' hate of Jews is and turn things around..! But if Israel turns the other cheek a little harder that’ll definitely not lead to escalation from Hamas again this time, just because it did all the other times. If there’s one thing that genocidal death cults are good at it’s civility and compromise. It’s almost like there aren’t any good options here and that pointing out the negatives of one option without discussing the broader context is intellectually dishonest. When has Israel ever 'turned the other cheek'? Iran launched a missile salvo at them last month. Israel declined to launch one back. Iran retaliated with a pointless fireworks show to Israel's deadly hit on a consulate, and Israel not escalating further on Iran is your best example of 'turning the other cheek' in their conflict with Hamas after decades of conflict? Sure, that definitely proves that not slaughtering Palestinians left and right would never serve to reduce radicalism or help pave the way to peace in Palestine. You asked for an example, I gave one. Characterizing 120 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 170 Shaheds as a fireworks show is absurd to the point of deranged. If someone fired those at your city you’d not call it a fireworks show. It failed to do more damage because of the exertions of Israel and her allies, not out of any benevolent intent on behalf of the attackers. Israel could have sent its own salvo back. It would have been entirely within its rights to do so. However after the success of the air defence mission it chose to turn the other cheek in the name of deescalation. You’re clearly not capable of being rational on this subject. I offer a simple example in response to your demand for one and you start gibbering about slaughtering Palestinians left and right. I guess Western analysts are deranged and analysis pieces on the subject are absurd, then, since the general consensus on that strike was that it was a show of force meant to send a message rather than cause any significant damage to targets on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/20/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news#iran-israel-strike-tensionshttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/irans-attack-israel-was-not-failure-many-claim-it-has-ended-israels-isolationSo good to have your rationality here weighing in with logic and reason. I mean it wouldn’t be advisable but I couldn’t just walk up and try to punch Mike Tyson with the rationale ‘well it’s not a threat because he’s used to dodging punches’ That said I don’t think it’s a great look if you can be restrained and de-escalate with a power vaguely in your ballpark and instead beat up the defenceless kid in the playground every day. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for a century, yet KwarK's best example of 'turning the other cheek' and proof that Israel totally tried to de-escalate but Hamas just wasn't having it is, well, this? Like yeah, they totally could have dropped a nuke on Tehran, but they didn't! See, restraint and patience and yet Hamas still won't lay down their arms! No choice but to exterminate all the baddies!
Some people might say that Israel assassinating the lead negotiator is indicative that they have been negotiating for a ceasefire/the hostages in bad faith, contrary to US rhetoric.
|
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject.
|
"let them send deadly missles when they are angry with isreal, it won't kill anybody because of their multi billion dollar missle defense system"
The whole conflict comes down to the question if you believe Israel has a right to exist - or not.
If you believe Israel has a right to exist, you have to follow up with it's right to defend itself, which includes moving into Gaza and root out every military installation as well.
If the Netherlands constantly would send a stream of DIY-Missles to france, they could at some point say "fuck it" and invade the country to remove whoever is in charge from power to stop it.
|
On August 06 2024 01:37 KT_Elwood wrote:
"let them send deadly missles when they are angry with isreal, it won't kill anybody because of their multi billion dollar missle defense system"
The whole conflict comes down to the question if you believe Israel has a right to exist - or not.
If you believe Israel has a right to exist, you have to follow up with it's right to defend itself, which includes moving into Gaza and root out every military installation as well.
If the Netherlands constantly would send a stream of DIY-Missles to france, they could at some point say "fuck it" and invade the country to remove whoever is in charge from power to stop it.
Does Palestine have a right to exist?
And if yes, what should they do about the fact that Israel keeps killing them and taking over more and more of their land?
If France decided that Eindhoven is now part of France, I assume Netherlands would try to retaliate in some way, at which point would you say France is justified in their 'self-defense' or would you at least entertain the notion that Dutch people might not agree with the French settling in Eindhoven?
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject.
War is an atrocity. This isn’t news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Hamas surrender or Hamas is destroyed because Hamas, when allowed to exist, go on child murder sprees across the border. My preference is that they surrender at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue living as billionaire exiles in Qatar.
|
On August 06 2024 01:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:17 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 06 2024 00:34 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:22 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:14 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 00:11 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 00:06 Salazarz wrote:On August 05 2024 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2024 23:15 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
But if Israel just kills them a little harder, that'll definitely show them how misguided Hamas' hate of Jews is and turn things around..! But if Israel turns the other cheek a little harder that’ll definitely not lead to escalation from Hamas again this time, just because it did all the other times. If there’s one thing that genocidal death cults are good at it’s civility and compromise. It’s almost like there aren’t any good options here and that pointing out the negatives of one option without discussing the broader context is intellectually dishonest. When has Israel ever 'turned the other cheek'? Iran launched a missile salvo at them last month. Israel declined to launch one back. Iran retaliated with a pointless fireworks show to Israel's deadly hit on a consulate, and Israel not escalating further on Iran is your best example of 'turning the other cheek' in their conflict with Hamas after decades of conflict? Sure, that definitely proves that not slaughtering Palestinians left and right would never serve to reduce radicalism or help pave the way to peace in Palestine. You asked for an example, I gave one. Characterizing 120 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 170 Shaheds as a fireworks show is absurd to the point of deranged. If someone fired those at your city you’d not call it a fireworks show. It failed to do more damage because of the exertions of Israel and her allies, not out of any benevolent intent on behalf of the attackers. Israel could have sent its own salvo back. It would have been entirely within its rights to do so. However after the success of the air defence mission it chose to turn the other cheek in the name of deescalation. You’re clearly not capable of being rational on this subject. I offer a simple example in response to your demand for one and you start gibbering about slaughtering Palestinians left and right. I guess Western analysts are deranged and analysis pieces on the subject are absurd, then, since the general consensus on that strike was that it was a show of force meant to send a message rather than cause any significant damage to targets on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/20/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news#iran-israel-strike-tensionshttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/irans-attack-israel-was-not-failure-many-claim-it-has-ended-israels-isolationSo good to have your rationality here weighing in with logic and reason. I mean it wouldn’t be advisable but I couldn’t just walk up and try to punch Mike Tyson with the rationale ‘well it’s not a threat because he’s used to dodging punches’ That said I don’t think it’s a great look if you can be restrained and de-escalate with a power vaguely in your ballpark and instead beat up the defenceless kid in the playground every day. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for a century, yet KwarK's best example of 'turning the other cheek' and proof that Israel totally tried to de-escalate but Hamas just wasn't having it is, well, this? Like yeah, they totally could have dropped a nuke on Tehran, but they didn't! See, restraint and patience and yet Hamas still won't lay down their arms! No choice but to exterminate all the baddies! You need to calm down. You’re hysterical and making things up. You asked for an example and I gave a recent one. You didn’t specify Hamas. You didn’t ask for the best possible example. I didn’t say Israel should nuke Iran (that was a wholly separate discussion about whether Israel would prevail in that hypothetical scenario of escalation). Now you’re suddenly ranting about nukes. Take a break. Touch grass.
Let's try this again. You made the claim that Israel has tried to 'turn the other cheek' in response to Hamas attacks multiple times in the past, that they tried to de-escalate but it just didn't work. What are your examples of Israel attempting de-escalation after a Hamas attack, ideally something that's more than a single incident but an actual attempt at a shift in policy? Has that ever happened? How did you conclude that de-escalation and reconciliation will never lead to anything?
|
On August 06 2024 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject. War is an atrocity. This isn’t news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Hamas surrender or Hamas is destroyed because Hamas, when allowed to exist, go on child murder sprees across the border. My preference is that they surrender at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue living as billionaire exiles in Qatar.
As long as people continue asserting that Hamas = Palestine, you can't have a nuanced conversation on the subject. So I'm not interested.
|
On August 06 2024 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject. War is an atrocity. This isn’t news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Hamas surrender or Hamas is destroyed because Hamas, when allowed to exist, go on child murder sprees across the border. My preference is that they surrender at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue living as billionaire exiles in Qatar.
War is an atrocity. This isn't news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Israel stops genocide of Palestinians or Israel is destroyed because Israel, when allowed to genocide Palestinians, shoots people, bombs people, and drives people out of their homes. My preference is that they stop genociding Palestinians at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue occupying Palestinian land and killing Palestinians.
|
Northern Ireland26758 Posts
On August 06 2024 01:37 KT_Elwood wrote:
"let them send deadly missles when they are angry with isreal, it won't kill anybody because of their multi billion dollar missle defense system"
The whole conflict comes down to the question if you believe Israel has a right to exist - or not.
If you believe Israel has a right to exist, you have to follow up with it's right to defend itself, which includes moving into Gaza and root out every military installation as well.
If the Netherlands constantly would send a stream of DIY-Missles to france, they could at some point say "fuck it" and invade the country to remove whoever is in charge from power to stop it.
It doesn’t come down solely to that question, you can throw at least another 4 or 5 into the chute. And those are just the big ones
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 01:50 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:41 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject. War is an atrocity. This isn’t news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Hamas surrender or Hamas is destroyed because Hamas, when allowed to exist, go on child murder sprees across the border. My preference is that they surrender at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue living as billionaire exiles in Qatar. War is an atrocity. This isn't news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Israel stops genocide of Palestinians or Israel is destroyed because Israel, when allowed to genocide Palestinians, shoots people, bombs people, and drives people out of their homes. My preference is that they stop genociding Palestinians at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue occupying Palestinian land and killing Palestinians.
There are a lot of Palestinians living peacefully within Israel. They live much better lives than the Palestinians living under Hamas’s dictatorship.
But in any case, Israel has nukes. If you want to try to solo Israel then be my guest but I don’t think I can successfully do it.
It’s not that the Palestinian cause is intrinsically unjust, it’s that their victory is entirely impossible by military means. Settling disagreements by killing each other is a very stupid way to settle disagreements but choosing that method of dispute resolution when your opponent has nukes and you do not is suicidal. They’re the side that needs to abandon the strategy of violence because they’re the side that cannot prevail.
Consider the inverse. In October Hamas raped hundreds of Israeli women and yet Israeli was not destroyed. Was it because they didn’t rape enough women? Would thousands have been more effective? Tens of thousands? I would argue that no amount of raping Israeli women will lead to the destruction of a nuclear armed state and therefore the entire raping strategy should be abandoned. Hamas presumably disagree or else they wouldn’t pursue it as a strategy.
|
Let’s get back to US Politics news, like Senator Wyden revealing that Clarence Thomas took yet another undisclosed vacation, this one to New Zealand, courtesy of his completely selfless, amazing friend not looking to influence judicial decisions Harlan Crowe
|
On August 06 2024 02:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 06 2024 01:41 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in. Someone should be able to assert that tens of thousands of needless deaths is an atrocity without getting blasted back out the door by this absolutist bullshit. Schools were bombed. People attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza were bombed and killed. As far as I know, Israel has not yet prioritized getting their hostages back, and seem more interested in the hostages' existence as a reason to justify what they're doing. The vast majority of all the people killed are women, children, civilians. With all the arguing back and forth over the decades about whether a 2-state solution is even possible, you have to have your head in the fucking sand if you think this is just about Hamas. It's bullshit. But I'm being antisemitic or something for saying I have a problem with it.
Touch grass, my ass. Do whatever you want, but right now this is shitting up the US thread, and I'd rather it not continue to do so. I won't be saying any more on the subject. War is an atrocity. This isn’t news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Hamas surrender or Hamas is destroyed because Hamas, when allowed to exist, go on child murder sprees across the border. My preference is that they surrender at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue living as billionaire exiles in Qatar. War is an atrocity. This isn't news to anyone. Nobody thinks war is good. Unfortunately the state of active war will continue until either Israel stops genocide of Palestinians or Israel is destroyed because Israel, when allowed to genocide Palestinians, shoots people, bombs people, and drives people out of their homes. My preference is that they stop genociding Palestinians at the earliest possible opportunity and face justice for their crimes. But their preference is to continue occupying Palestinian land and killing Palestinians. There are a lot of Palestinians living peacefully within Israel. They live much better lives than the Palestinians living under Hamas’s dictatorship. But in any case, Israel has nukes. If you want to try to solo Israel then be my guest but I don’t think I can successfully do it. It’s not that the Palestinian cause is intrinsically unjust, it’s that their victory is entirely impossible by military means. Settling disagreements by killing each other is a very stupid way to settle disagreements but choosing that method of dispute resolution when your opponent has nukes and you do not is suicidal. They’re the side that needs to abandon the strategy of violence because they’re the side that cannot prevail. Consider the inverse. In October Hamas raped hundreds of Israeli women and yet Israeli was not destroyed. Was it because they didn’t rape enough women? Would thousands have been more effective? Tens of thousands? I would argue that no amount of raping Israeli women will lead to the destruction of a nuclear armed state and therefore the entire raping strategy should be abandoned. Hamas presumably disagree or else they wouldn’t pursue it as a strategy.
Russia has nukes. If you want to try to solo Russia then be my guest, but I don't think I can successfully do it; so the Western countries should stop trying to pressure Russia into ending their invasion of Ukraine....? How idiotic would that sound, but that's basically what you are saying here.
Like, a single call from Joe Biden would be enough to get Israel to pack their shit and leave West Bank. The only reason Israel is able to continue their colonization and genocide is because the international community -- led by the US -- continues to allow them to do so.
We don't have any real ways to pressure Hamas, with them being a terrorist organization sponsored by authoritarian regimes that aren't exactly on good terms with our governments. But we do have means to pressure Israel; and while a one-sided easing off from Israel wouldn't solve the conflict for good, it would absolutely significantly reduce civilian suffering and might even lead to reducing tensions in the long run. The idea that this is some sort of an unsolvable situation where civilians must continue to die in droves no matter what anyone does is asinine. We're not even trying to solve it.
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 02:37 Salazarz wrote:
The idea that this is some sort of an unsolvable situation where civilians must continue to die in droves no matter what anyone does is asinine. We're not even trying to solve it.
Speak for yourself. Personally speaking I haven’t solved it, not for lack of trying, but because it’s outside my ability to solve. Nobody is stopping you from solving it. If you think there is a solution to hand but you’re not trying then that’s morally abhorrent. You need to get off your ass and solve it before people die. Your inaction here makes you culpable and I have no desire to continue to engage with someone who has so much blood on his hands.
|
United States43966 Posts
On August 06 2024 02:06 farvacola wrote:
Let’s get back to US Politics news, like Senator Wyden revealing that Clarence Thomas took yet another undisclosed vacation, this one to New Zealand, courtesy of his completely selfless, amazing friend not looking to influence judicial decisions Harlan Crowe
Nothing bad happened after all the other times, I’m surprised he hasn’t upped the ante and just started taking direct payments. We set a precedent that they can do what they like, I don’t see why anyone is shocked that they would do what they like.
|
On August 06 2024 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:37 Salazarz wrote:
The idea that this is some sort of an unsolvable situation where civilians must continue to die in droves no matter what anyone does is asinine. We're not even trying to solve it. Speak for yourself. Personally speaking I haven’t solved it, not for lack of trying, but because it’s outside my ability to solve. Nobody is stopping you from solving it. If you think there is a solution to hand but you’re not trying then that’s morally abhorrent. You need to get off your ass and solve it before people die. Your inaction here makes you culpable and I have no desire to continue to engage with someone who has so much blood on his hands.
How about not denying the ongoing genocide, as a first baby step? We can maybe graduate to asking your elected government not to support the ongoing genocide from there, but let's start small.
By the way, the whole 'you should be solving the world's problems individually' shtick you've started with GH and are now trying with me is pretty tedious. It wasn't particularly funny the first time around, it certainly isn't after you've repeated it however many times it's been by now.
|
On August 06 2024 01:31 NewSunshine wrote:
This is why the conversation is such a pain in the ass. I almost regret chiming in.
The only way to win is not to play 
|
On August 06 2024 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:37 Salazarz wrote:
The idea that this is some sort of an unsolvable situation where civilians must continue to die in droves no matter what anyone does is asinine. We're not even trying to solve it. Speak for yourself. Personally speaking I haven’t solved it, not for lack of trying, but because it’s outside my ability to solve. Nobody is stopping you from solving it. If you think there is a solution to hand but you’re not trying then that’s morally abhorrent. You need to get off your ass and solve it before people die. Your inaction here makes you culpable and I have no desire to continue to engage with someone who has so much blood on his hands.
I know you're posting flippant and asinine stuff on purpose, but the simple ask is for Democrats to at least pretend they wouldn't vote for people actively supporting what those same Democrats identify as genocide, even if they ultimately choose to when they step in the voting booth because they are zealots for electoralism.
Instead Democrats can't find enough ways to say they'd let Harris support the genocide of Palestinians while also promising to murder one out of every 10,000 of her own voters in cold blood and still get their enthusiastic votes.
As bad and unhinged as that is, it's not those particulars, but the macro implications I'm attempting to highlight as a catastrophic cliff Democrats are hurtling toward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
