|
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 02:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done.
|
On August 06 2024 01:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 01:12 Silvanel wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Nuclear Bunker Buster is A DOOMSDAY weapon. It is because the only scenario in which it is used is total nuclear war. It is a weapon designed solely to take out second strike ability of the opponent by destroying their underground missiles silos (which Iran doesn't have). For all other purposes, a conventional bunker buster is enough. Also, I doubt Israel even has those... even US got rid of most of them.
Also, the thought that Iran wouldn't second strike Israel after nuclear attack is just pure fantasy.
|
On August 06 2024 02:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:44 KwarK wrote: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. Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done.
The Supreme Court is obviously a corrupt institution and the US government is incapable of changing that because of the Hamster Wheel.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
That's basically the end of the discussion within the electoralism paradigm.
|
On August 06 2024 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:56 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 02:44 KwarK wrote: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. Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done. The Supreme Court is obviously a corrupt institution and the US government is incapable of changing that because of the Hamster Wheel. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. That's basically the end of the discussion within the electoralism paradigm.
Yes yes, you’ve turned the whole of US politics into an oversimple game of unchanging monoliths that all act according to the logic of a 16 year old who paid attention in social studies class. Thanks for the reminder.
|
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.
Every single argument in favor of the genocide accusation simply gets ignored. The counter-argument is "nu-uh." It's a necessary response because thinking about this genocide and the implication of Western support for genocide is too painful. It would imply that many "good" Western countries are not good but instead evil. People don't want to accept such a reality, as it would expose how little progress was made in the West. It would also justify the Russian point of view that nothing really matters except for power. The implication that everyone is evil is far too painful.
|
On August 06 2024 03:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 02:56 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 02:44 KwarK wrote: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. Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done. The Supreme Court is obviously a corrupt institution and the US government is incapable of changing that because of the Hamster Wheel. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. That's basically the end of the discussion within the electoralism paradigm. Yes yes, you’ve turned the whole of US politics into an oversimple game of unchanging monoliths that all act according to the logic of a 16 year old who paid attention in social studies class. Thanks for the reminder.
I didn't turn it into anything. That's just the reality of the situation. One you don't even actually dispute, just resent being confronted by it.
|
On August 06 2024 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 03:04 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 02:56 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 02:44 KwarK wrote: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. Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done. The Supreme Court is obviously a corrupt institution and the US government is incapable of changing that because of the Hamster Wheel. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. That's basically the end of the discussion within the electoralism paradigm. Yes yes, you’ve turned the whole of US politics into an oversimple game of unchanging monoliths that all act according to the logic of a 16 year old who paid attention in social studies class. Thanks for the reminder. I didn't turn it into anything. That's just the reality of the situation. One you don't even actually dispute, just resent being confronted by it.
You must not understand how what I said and what you said are different. Read the posts again and try again, this time with an eye for how juvenile notions of perceived self-interest and “rational actors” fail to explain why anything happens apart from the failure of the antiestablishment project you’ve signed up for.
|
On August 06 2024 03:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 03:04 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 02:56 farvacola wrote:On August 06 2024 02:44 KwarK wrote: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. Trust in the court and its reputation has tanked in part because this shit keeps getting reported, so shocking or not, this stuff should still be brought to light as much as possible. It may seem impossible at times, but if consensus does eventually cohere around the idea that SCOTUS reform is important, it can be done. The Supreme Court is obviously a corrupt institution and the US government is incapable of changing that because of the Hamster Wheel. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. That's basically the end of the discussion within the electoralism paradigm. Yes yes, you’ve turned the whole of US politics into an oversimple game of unchanging monoliths that all act according to the logic of a 16 year old who paid attention in social studies class. Thanks for the reminder. I didn't turn it into anything. That's just the reality of the situation. One you don't even actually dispute, just resent being confronted by it. You must not understand how what I said and what you said are different. Read the posts again and try again, this time with an eye for how juvenile notions of perceived self-interest and “rational actors” fail to explain why anything happens apart from the failure of the antiestablishment project you’ve signed up for.
I'd just add that it's not entirely dissimilar to Magic's explanation of why a minority of Democrats refuse to identify Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide and/or will vote for people supporting it regardless of whether they believe it is genocide or not.
They are both expressions of the same underlying problems of a system incapable of addressing what even its most strident advocates recognize as necessary for its own survival.
|
On August 06 2024 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:42 KwarK wrote: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.
In the US presidential election you have three options. Trump, Harris and other. With other seeming to be JFK Jr or not voting. Those are the options up for discussion. You think they all suck, so do a lot of other people. Then you end up with least bad voting, since not doing that means you could end up with worst from your point of view.
Edit, from my point of view least bad is easily Harris. It isn't an inspiring stance but you don't have any inspiring options in this or the last 2 elections. You have had a clearly bad option and a so-so option 3 times in a row. Which makes it easy to pick who to vote for.
Your system is clearly broken but unless there is enough will to change it mitigating the damage it does is the best thing for now.
|
On August 06 2024 03:22 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 02:42 KwarK wrote: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. In the US presidential election you have three options. Trump, Harris and other. With other seeming to be RFK Jr or not voting. Those are the options up for discussion. You think they all suck, so do a lot of other people. Then you end up with least bad voting, since not doing that means you could end up with worst from your point of view.
The leverage voters have is their vote (in an electoralism paradigm), the idea is that they use that leverage to extract concessions from the people that want their vote (like "stop supporting genocide pls"). Instead Democrats immediately pledged their undying support for people they believe are supporting genocide without a thought to the implications that has on their electoralism paradigm or the so-called "rules-based international order".
My coinciding point is that they can't actually use that leverage anyway because of the structure of US politics (and they readily acknowledge this, as you did, even if they do so resentfully like Farv), so electoralism is clearly a dead end that I'd argue is actually a cliff edge prefacing a fall into fascism that Democrats are hurtling the whole country into out of hubris, spite, and a zealot like rapture with electoralism.
|
United States43401 Posts
That is why we all joined the imaginary revolution. I honestly don’t know what more you expect from us.
|
On August 06 2024 03:44 KwarK wrote:
That is why we all joined the imaginary revolution. I honestly don’t know what more you expect from us.
You're a conservative and registered Republican, I only expect shit posts like this from you.
From Democrats that want to convince themselves they don't support genocide?
On August 06 2024 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 02:42 KwarK wrote: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.
|
United States43401 Posts
On August 06 2024 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 03:44 KwarK wrote:
That is why we all joined the imaginary revolution. I honestly don’t know what more you expect from us. You're a conservative and registered Republican, I only expect shit posts like this from you.
Was I not alongside you when we stormed the imaginary government buildings together? Did we not bleed imaginary blood side by side? I’m every bit the imaginary revolutionary you are and I’m tired of your exclusionary and factionalist approach to this revolution. But I’m not here questioning whether you’re even a committed revolutionary because unlike you I seek to elevate my comrades. These days when you assert your baseless belief that you, unlike the rest of us, are somehow a revolutionary I accept it at face value without resorting to bourgeois critical thinking. I see you and within you I recognize the same fire that I imagine is within me. Let us put aside our differences so that we can once more overthrow the capitalist state.
|
On August 06 2024 04:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 03:44 KwarK wrote:
That is why we all joined the imaginary revolution. I honestly don’t know what more you expect from us. You're a conservative and registered Republican, I only expect shit posts like this from you. Was I not alongside you when we stormed the imaginary government buildings together? Did we not bleed imaginary blood side by side? I’m every bit the imaginary revolutionary you are and I’m tired of your exclusionary and factionalist approach to this revolution. But I’m not here questioning whether you’re even a committed revolutionary because unlike you I seek to elevate my comrades. These days when you assert your baseless belief that you, unlike the rest of us, are somehow a revolutionary I accept it at face value without resorting to bourgeois critical thinking. I see you and within you I recognize the same fire that I imagine is within me. Let us put aside our differences so that we can once more overthrow the capitalist state.
While you obviously have free rein to bad-faith shitpost like this with impunity and to the detriment of us all, I don't find it compelling just fyi.
|
United States43401 Posts
On August 06 2024 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2024 04:16 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2024 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2024 03:44 KwarK wrote:
That is why we all joined the imaginary revolution. I honestly don’t know what more you expect from us. You're a conservative and registered Republican, I only expect shit posts like this from you. Was I not alongside you when we stormed the imaginary government buildings together? Did we not bleed imaginary blood side by side? I’m every bit the imaginary revolutionary you are and I’m tired of your exclusionary and factionalist approach to this revolution. But I’m not here questioning whether you’re even a committed revolutionary because unlike you I seek to elevate my comrades. These days when you assert your baseless belief that you, unlike the rest of us, are somehow a revolutionary I accept it at face value without resorting to bourgeois critical thinking. I see you and within you I recognize the same fire that I imagine is within me. Let us put aside our differences so that we can once more overthrow the capitalist state. While you obviously have free rein to bad-faith shitpost like this with impunity and to the detriment of us all, I don't find it compelling just fyi.
You’re free to break the cycle that prevents us from achieving real meaningful change in this space. But at present you’re too interested in putting down everyone else. Anyone says anything and you jump in with your exclusionary revolutionary mindset and call everyone but you a counterrevolutionary reactionary committed to electoralism. And each time you do I’ll once again remind you of the perils of factionalism.
Neither of us will escape this cycle until we both find a way to escape it together. Or to put it another way, none of us can be free until all of us are free. I think you should reflect on that.
|
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.
The issue with that is that Israel is being given and inch and taking a mile as everywhere seems to have Hamas in it. How many civilians it takes to kill 1 supposed Hamas fighter doesn't seem to matter. The fact that there's more civilian deaths in this conflict than the entirety of the war in Afghanistan alone is abhorrent enough to decide that Israel doesn't get carte blanche on this to me.
|
United States43401 Posts
On August 06 2024 05:17 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The issue with that is that Israel is being given and inch and taking a mile as everywhere seems to have Hamas in it. How many civilians it takes to kill 1 supposed Hamas fighter doesn't seem to matter. The fact that there's more civilian deaths in this conflict than the entirety of the war in Afghanistan alone is abhorrent enough to decide that Israel doesn't get carte blanche on this to me.
Afghanistan is rural and the Taliban retreated to the mountains. Hamas have an explicit policy of maximizing collateral damage. Their goal is to get a many dead Palestinian children on the western news as possible. As a religious death cult they don’t especially care what happens in this world, they believe they’re martyring them (and it certainly doesn’t hurt that none of their own families live in Gaza).
Let’s say Israel stops trying to root out Hamas. What then? Gaza will continue on its own path to ruin because Hamas have no interest in good governance. It will continue to be unable to feed itself, provide its people with power and clean water, medicine etc. Gazans will continue to suffer under their violent misrule and will continue to be executed for speaking out in opposition to their dictatorship. And in a month, a year, two years, whatever, they’ll achieve another successful attack. They’ll behead some children, rape some women, take some hostages, and broadcast it again because their leadership want Israel to respond.
Nobody has presented Israel with an alternative in which it doesn’t have to simply tolerate these attacks. I don’t like what Israel is doing and I think that tolerating them would probably work better, but it wasn’t my son getting beheaded. I think they’re playing into Hamas’s hands, but my son doesn’t ride to school on a bus that is targeted by bombs. We do not ask any other nation on Earth to tolerate this. We would not tolerate it in our own nation.
They have begged for Arab peacekeepers in Gaza, for UN transitional rule, for Qatar to cease funding Hamas etc. People are ready with condemnations but completely absent when asked to put their own citizens in harm’s way.
|
We're also comparing a conflict of 10 months to what, 20+ years? Maybe if Hamas' goal is to maximize collateral damage the correct response isn't "hold my beer". I don't believe Israeli troops are trying to root out Hamas, it's just a convenient excuse to be as cruel as they are. Even if we accept the premise that Israel isn't going to get rid of Gaza, they'd still be under Israel's stewardship and we've seen how well that's gone in the West Bank. Hell, Israel just had a riot because somebody had the audacity to try and charge someone for raping their Palestinian prisoners. They had a high level meeting to define what was okay to do to prisoners - and not a "this shit is all fucked, cut it out" kind of way, but a "you know, maybe shoving metal rods up their ass is okay" kind of way. It's funny how Hamas does, or supposedly does, some fucked up shit and Israel is just taken for their word on it until months later sometimes it comes out bullshit. However, when Israel does it maybe gets mentioned and then is moved on from. The moral outrage conveniently doesn't exist.
Why should only Israel get a say in what attacks it has to tolerate? Why should Palestinians not get a say in what happens to them? But I guess the bully should just beat the victim into a coma, because one day he could get brave enough to fight back.
|
On August 06 2024 10:23 Gahlo wrote:
We're also comparing a conflict of 10 months to what, 20+ years? Maybe if Hamas' goal is to maximize collateral damage the correct response isn't "hold my beer". I don't believe Israeli troops are trying to root out Hamas, it's just a convenient excuse to be as cruel as they are. Even if we accept the premise that Israel isn't going to get rid of Gaza, they'd still be under Israel's stewardship and we've seen how well that's gone in the West Bank. Hell, Israel just had a riot because somebody had the audacity to try and charge someone for raping their Palestinian prisoners. They had a high level meeting to define what was okay to do to prisoners - and not a "this shit is all fucked, cut it out" kind of way, but a "you know, maybe shoving metal rods up their ass is okay" kind of way. It's funny how Hamas does, or supposedly does, some fucked up shit and Israel is just taken for their word on it until months later sometimes it comes out bullshit. However, when Israel does it maybe gets mentioned and then is moved on from. The moral outrage conveniently doesn't exist.
Why should only Israel get a say in what attacks it has to tolerate? Why should Palestinians not get a say in what happens to them? But I guess the bully should just beat the victim into a coma, because one day he could get brave enough to fight back.
I agree with this a lot, particularly your first point. If we accept the notion that they're deliberately spreading themselves far and wide to maximize collateral damage, then Israel seems only too happy to oblige, and Israel bears responsibility for that decision. If the problem has become more nuanced and complicated, maybe the response isn't to carpet-bomb them?
Forget moral outrage, I just flat out don't see the morals from some people that I would expect. Why is the bar for genocide so conveniently high? Why is it okay to bomb women and children, without regard for whether your alleged targets are even being hit? Why is it okay to conflate every single person in Palestine with the very worst of them?
|
This whole conversation needs to be in the other thread. But as one last interjection: Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. - Israel, probably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
