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.
On August 13 2025 04:09 Jankisa wrote: Did Israel invade Gaza in the 18 years period that you said they didn't? Does the graph I posted absolutely and directly correlate to those incursions causing deaths? If it does, how does it make sense for you to say that graph "doesn't show what I think it does"?
Maybe we played different video games but tanking shoots usually doesn't mean the side that tanks them also causes 10 x casualty numbers when "not invading".
You can, as you often do go back to snark when caught lying, but that doesn't change the fact that you lied.
No. Hamas launched an attack with tunnels and there was a 2 week incursion, to use your word to describe it, in which the IDF entered Gaza, seized the area with the tunnels, blew them up, and withdrew. A limited scope mission that was completed, which I'm contrasting with the current occupation.
My meaning, which should have been perfectly clear to anyone but I'll remember who I'm dealing with here, was that for 18 years Gaza was run by a government at war with Israel and for 18 years Israel made no attempt to seize the territory of that government, occupy the territory of that government, nor depose that government. It tolerated the existence of Hamas and their war against Israel.
But in any case, I'm not here trying to defend the conduct of Israel. Based on the casualties the tunnel mission could still be critiqued, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm not saying it's justified or proportionate or defensible or any of the things you want me to be saying, I'm literally just saying that it happened.
What I am doing is explaining the change in attitude within Israel between the limited scope missions of the past and the current situation. That in the past Israel felt that tolerating the Hamas led government, despite things like the tunnel attack, was preferable to removing it. That has changed. I did not endorse any part of it, I was saying that Israel used to do X, but since Oct 7 they do Y.
The long post which you didn't read at all was describing the evolution and escalation of the conflict past a point of no return in which both sides grew to believe that there was no hope for any kind of resolution. It's an illustrative narrative, not an endorsement.
On August 13 2025 04:26 Jankisa wrote: I don't really engage with thease kind of discussions because I'm both unqualified and don't care enough about it,
The key detail here, in my opinion. Admitting that you don't even care about the issue. Just looking for an opportunity to feel morally superior to someone else.
Defending Gavin Newsom as a life-long ally of LGBT for hate he received coming out against transwomen in womens' sports does not equate to "defending attacks on Trans community" any more than Kwark's posts equate to defending Israel for any bomb dropped on children. You just hear what you want to use it as an opportunity to virtue signal.
On August 13 2025 04:09 Jankisa wrote: Did Israel invade Gaza in the 18 years period that you said they didn't? Does the graph I posted absolutely and directly correlate to those incursions causing deaths? If it does, how does it make sense for you to say that graph "doesn't show what I think it does"?
Maybe we played different video games but tanking shoots usually doesn't mean the side that tanks them also causes 10 x casualty numbers when "not invading".
You can, as you often do go back to snark when caught lying, but that doesn't change the fact that you lied.
No. Hamas launched an attack with tunnels and there was a 2 week incursion, to use your word to describe it, in which the IDF entered Gaza, seized the area with the tunnels, blew them up, and withdrew. A limited scope mission that was completed.
My meaning, which should have been perfectly clear to anyone but I'll remember who I'm dealing with here, was that for 18 years Gaza was run by a government at war with Israel and for 18 years Israel made no attempt to seize the territory of that government, occupy the territory of that government, nor depose that government. It tolerated the existence of Hamas and their war against Israel.
But in any case, I'm not here trying to defend the conduct of Israel. Based on the casualties the tunnel mission could still be critiqued, I'm not saying otherwise. That's never what my post was about, that's what you decided my post was about. What I was doing was explaining the change in attitude within Israel between the limited scope missions of the past and the current situation. That in the past Israel felt that tolerating the Hamas led government, despite things like the tunnel attack, was preferable to removing it. That has changed. I did not endorse any part of it, I was saying that Israel used to do X, but since Oct 7 they do Y.
The long post which you didn't read at all was describing the evolution and escalation of the conflict past a point of no return in which both sides grew to believe that there was no hope for any kind of resolution. It's an illustrative narrative, not an endorsement.
Let's start with a definition:
invasion noun noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
So, at 7 different points in those 18 years, IDF, Israels armed forces invaded Gaza in order to do what they did.
I didn't make you say a thing that was factually incorrect. You did that all on your own and now you are trippling down on it, for some reason.
I find it hilarious that you keep repeating another lie, that I didn't read your post, over and over again despite me quoting and criticizing at least 10 specific things you wrote in it, that kind of seems insane to me, but OK.
As I wrote in a post before that, if you are saying that there is no hope and you spend most of your time defending the actions of Israel on these forums, which is very hard to deny to anyone who has access to your post history, you are condemning Gazans to death.
I agree that there is not much hope, there is not much hope because we as the countries that by our trade, support, weapons and votes in UN enable Israel to do what it's doing and allow it to have the uncompromising stance they have are not doing anything.
We are not doing anything because the public in our countries is not sufficiently outraged with what is happening.
I firmly believe that one of the reasons why we aren't are people like you who are either defending Israels actions or saying how there is no hope, so, I guess, we shouldn't do anything.
On August 13 2025 04:46 Jankisa wrote: I firmly believe that one of the reasons why we aren't are people like you who are either defending Israels actions
Didn't do this
On August 13 2025 04:46 Jankisa wrote: or saying how there is no hope, so, I guess, we shouldn't do anything.
Didn't say this.
Go read the damn post. I’m saying the rubicon has been crossed. I’m not supporting it, not am I saying that I support Caesar’s actions in Gaul, nor whatever else you’re projecting into me. I’m saying it has been crossed. People could argue for years whether the censure by the senate was legitimate but it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to how this ends because the rubicon has still been crossed.
On August 13 2025 04:26 Jankisa wrote: I don't really engage with thease kind of discussions because I'm both unqualified and don't care enough about it,
The key detail here, in my opinion. Admitting that you don't even care about the issue. Just looking for an opportunity to feel morally superior to someone else.
Defending Gavin Newsom as a life-long ally of LGBT for hate he received coming out against transwomen in womens' sports does not equate to "defending attacks on Trans community" any more than Kwark's posts equate to defending Israel for any bomb dropped on children. You just hear what you want to use it as an opportunity to virtue signal.
I don't care about the Trans issue because it's an artificially propped up moral panic that affects an incredibly minuscule population. I will, however, defend their rights and shit on anyone who spends their time attacking them because I care about trans people as human being, even tho I don't agree with some of the tactics or goals that they have.
I don't care about virtue signaling, who do you think I'm trying to impress here?
Is there any part of your vocabulary that is not copy pasted from the right wing glossary? To me, you read like an AI trained exclusively on Joe Rogan Experience transcripts.
On August 13 2025 01:18 LightSpectra wrote: E.J. Antoni, child rapist Donald Trump's candidate to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggested during an interview with FOX Business to suspend the agency's monthly jobs report.
"If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any" but for unemployment.
Reminds me of how Trump initially "solved" the issue of increasing covid cases: just stop testing!
On August 13 2025 00:16 Legan wrote: The pace of progress is insufferably slow, and many times intentionally stalled in an effort not to make the opposition angry. At the same time, massive step-backs can happen quite frequently. Just look at the many controversial rulings by the Supreme Court in the past decade. These step-backs are accompanied by a severe lack of consequences. For example, health insurance denials are causing more and more suffering and victims by the day, but there is no hope of it being addressed. At best, one can hope that after the next elections, there will be a Democratic majority that will push for some minimal compromise. Simultaneously, the people benefiting from the suffering of others are not facing any consequences now or in the future. It is no surprise that people do not trust the system anymore.
The obvious lesson is that you should aim for immediate and maximal change regardless of how moral, ethical or legal your methods are, as there will not be sufficient consequences afterwards if you win big enough. If you look at the Project 2025, you can see one attempt at this kind of change and its current implementation attempt. It will take decades to undo your changes. This is, of course, very destructive to society when everyone tries to implement their own agenda one after another. However, at the same time, it is clear that incremental changes will let many suffer for a long time.
Looking back into history, plenty of things have required much more direct actions to achieve bigger changes. In many places, Women's suffrage, the 8-hour workday, and desegregation all required more than small incremental changes, and they were achieved with much more direct action than voting or writing letters.
The desire for change manifests itself in the more radical opinions on the internet. If these same people had more local grassroots organisations, then the frustration would be funnelled into them. These organisations would probably be much more effective in implementing the change. Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 prove how effective decades-long dedicated movement-building can be, and they do not even need to be popular or do big marches or general strikes for their agenda.
You get it.
Noone can sell me on incrementalism or electoralism as I see those systems fail aggressively in the face of Fascists and Republicans.
Yeah, Legan is providing the sort of analysis I expect from basically anyone not making stockholm syndromesque rationalizations for watching Dems lose to and enable fascists.
The only thing Id add is that the left half of the political spectrum is too fractured and stubborn to pull off a Project 2025. Ideological leftists cant agree to work with each other for shit, even someone like me, who is willing to compromise on lots of things if it means a better society, just doesnt feel like they have meaningful political allies.
The leftists who are willing to accept more radical action are also typically the leftists who have strong ideological beliefs and dont seem to work well with other leftists of different ideological bents.
The rest on the left half of the US political spectrum just seem like center-lefties who are content to watch the US drown in the fascist tide while telling themselves that all they need to do is vote and participate in all of the very conventional activities that have maintained democracy up til now. Maybe some light protesting here and there, but thats as far as they believe they should go/is necessary.
I just dont really know at this point, I don't see a particularly positive path forward on the left, just praying that the right implodes or become such a horrible global threat that some other world power comes in and puts them down.
Yeah...*heavy sigh*... having bounced around various orgs for various reasons over the last ~10 years (and being a pretty active Democrat for many years before that) you're not really wrong.
As such, I understand why people who have been organizing for decades would be a bit defensive/jaded about working with radlibs. I also understand the frustration with seemingly uncompromising radicals when trying to organize people that know more about some obscure anime's/book's/fantasy world's canon/sports rules & trivia/video game/etc than the political history/functionality of their democracy.
I'm not sure if I feel defeated, validated, or both about mentioning this realization ~12 years ago:
I think if we can learn anything from this clusterfuck of an attempt to 'negotiate' from Republicans is that we desperately need an informed electorate.
The only reason the ridiculous strategies and rhetoric work is a voting public that can't tell the shit from the shinola. The American Experiment of having a country ran by it's people has been shown to need an educated public, not just one that can be 'lead' in the 'right' direction.
We're not going to fix the inclinations of politicians any time soon, but we can change their motivations by holding them accountable. However, we can only hold them accountable if we as a people have a damn clue what it is they are doing and how it gets done.
EDIT: Oh, also billionaire sponsors make agendas a lot easier to get done beyond just the lubrication practically unlimited funding/bribes provides.
On August 13 2025 04:46 Jankisa wrote: I firmly believe that one of the reasons why we aren't are people like you who are either defending Israels actions
On August 13 2025 04:46 Jankisa wrote: or saying how there is no hope, so, I guess, we shouldn't do anything.
Didn't say this.
Go read the damn post.
Well, we can argue about reality until we are blue in our faces, as I said, anyone who wants to subject themselves to reading your post history in the Israel Palestine thread can see for themselves that you do do this.
Again, I read your post, your post contains 0 prescriptions on what is to be done. Your "point" is that assigning blame is counterproductive. I agreed with this and moved on to call out things in your post that were either false or misleading.
I say what is to be done is to condemn what Israel is doing and to stop them.
It's pretty simple, you can say that Israel should stop what they are doing and we can put this to bed.
I believe that Hamas should release all of its hostages, but given that we both know that is their only remaining leverage we can agree that they won't.
The only way to stop this war is for Israel to stop it. There were many off ramps for both sides, the last one and the one that gave the most hope was the peace agreement that Israel broke in March that got us the starvation and GHF. This happened because Nehtyanahu wanted to prolong the war.
This is the part that you never mention. This is where the problem is. If everyone focuses on the past and the endless history of violence the discussion gets muddled and dragged away from the solutions.
The solution was there, the phases were ongoing, until they weren't.
Was this the rubicon? Can there be more then one? Or is the rubicon only October 7th? Maybe it's the first intifada, maybe it's the assassination of Yitzak Rabin?
This is what is actually happening, I don't care about 1967, I care about 2025.
This is what you are completely unwilling to discuss, I and others have brought it up in the other thread but you don't care and you don't engage with that.
There was hope, recently, and Israel trampled it.
But that's all just virtue signaling and not reading posts.
@Jankisa if you ever bothered to read Palestine thread before it became trendy, you would be aware that you are mistaken about Kwark position, which he also pretty damn well explained, especially for you, few posts earlier. If you still confused read post number 10 in Palestine thread.
I wasn't around and reading TL threads in 2021, and there is far too much in that thread for me to read everything from the start.
The thing KwarK wrote in 2021 has absolutely nothing to do with what he's been saying in that thread in 2025.
I am primarily anti suffering, when October 7th 2023 happened I understood that Israel had to respond, even as I was baffled that something of that scale could have happened, I understand that Israel had to respond, take out as much of Hamas as possible and cripple them for the next 10 years. That was 50.000 dead, 80 % + of Gaza buildings destroyed, the most promising ceasefire broken and a starvation crisis ago.
What bothers me is that those things that happened don't bother guys like KwarK. There are many Rubicons, but since for him they happened at previous points there is no point in caring about the subsequent ones being crossed, there is no hope, it's an impossible situation, let's focus on shitting on people who have a problem with this instead of admitting that there is no line, there are a lot of them, and the people who have been trampling them over the last 1 year + have been the ones in charge in Israel.
On August 13 2025 07:46 Jankisa wrote: I wasn't around and reading TL threads in 2021, and there is far too much in that thread for me to read everything from the start.
The thing KwarK wrote in 2021 has absolutely nothing to do with what he's been saying in that thread in 2025.
I am primarily anti suffering, when October 7th 2023 happened I understood that Israel had to respond, even as I was baffled that something of that scale could have happened, I understand that Israel had to respond, take out as much of Hamas as possible and cripple them for the next 10 years. That was 50.000 dead, 80 % + of Gaza buildings destroyed, the most promising ceasefire broken and a starvation crisis ago.
What bothers me is that those things that happened don't bother guys like KwarK. There are many Rubicons, but since for him they happened at previous points there is no point in caring about the subsequent ones being crossed, there is no hope, it's an impossible situation, let's focus on shitting on people who have a problem with this instead of admitting that there is no line, there are a lot of them, and the people who have been trampling them over the last 1 year + have been the ones in charge in Israel.
I wasn't around and reading TL threads in 2021, and there is far too much in that thread for me to read everything from the start.
This basically say you are not interested enough. Sorry, but without backstory you dont know shit about the topic.
See my issue with Kwark position is that I think he is stuck in pre 2010 times, and yet I still I think his perspective is correct, although not applicable to Israel past 2010.
I am primarily anti suffering, when October 7th 2023 happened I understood that Israel had to respond, even as I was baffled that something of that scale could have happened, I understand that Israel had to respond, take out as much of Hamas as possible and cripple them for the next 10 years. That was 50.000 dead, 80 % + of Gaza buildings destroyed, the most promising ceasefire broken and a starvation crisis ago
Bolded italic means that you didnt undertood shit.
On August 13 2025 07:46 Jankisa wrote: What bothers me is that those things that happened don't bother guys like KwarK.
If you actually read Kwark posts, they clearly effing do?
I am primarily anti suffering, when October 7th 2023 happened I understood that Israel had to respond, even as I was baffled that something of that scale could have happened, I understand that Israel had to respond, take out as much of Hamas as possible and cripple them for the next 10 years. That was 50.000 dead, 80 % + of Gaza buildings destroyed, the most promising ceasefire broken and a starvation crisis ago
Bolded italic means that you didnt undertood shit.
"I wasn't around and reading TL threads in 2021, and there is far too much in that thread for me to read everything from the start." Oh no, so you cant be arsed to understand the issue, but have defined (and ignorant) position on it
"I wasn't around and reading TL threads in 2021, and there is far too much in that thread for me to read everything from the start."
This is also very much self own sentence, because you basically admit that you dont give a damn enough to read it.
EPT
.
