|
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 January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually.
We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative. If you are just taking issue with phrasing, I am sure you understand what I mean. A fundamental quality of war is prioritization of one group of people over another. I am honestly not understanding why this feels like such a point of contention. I will just assume this is a semantics thing.
Whatever label someone feels like putting on Israel vs Palestine, October 7, IDF attacks, yadda yadda, the whole idea is that a decision was made to prioritize one group over another. Not interested in the semantics dance. It’s not remotely stimulating. I’ve already said what feels worth saying.
|
|
|
Hamas is not the same as the Palestinian people. Just as Nazi's aren't/weren't the same as the German people.
You can't say "we were ok with killing Nazi's so we should be ok with killing Palestinians". that's utter false equivalency.
If Israel was only killing Hamas fighters we wouldn't be having this conversation.
|
|
|
On January 18 2024 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative. If you are just taking issue with phrasing, I am sure you understand what I mean. A fundamental quality of war is prioritization of one group of people over another. I am honestly not understanding why this feels like such a point of contention. I will just assume this is a semantics thing. Whatever label someone feels like putting on Israel vs Palestine, October 7, IDF attacks, yadda yadda, the whole idea is that a decision was made to prioritize one group over another. Not interested in the semantics dance. It’s not remotely stimulating. I’ve already said what feels worth saying.
"We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative" is not evidence that we're not treating everyone as equal. It could be that we feel the same about all people who decide to become nazis, and then we would be treating everyone equally.
Of course in the real world the US didn't really do that with nazis, a bunch of them got to emigrate in the US and have important roles, and others were sent in South America to fight leftist uprisings, because leftism is by far more dangerous than nazism.
If we're only doing a mechanical argument and not a moral one, I suggest a better example than how we dealt with nazis, perhaps how we dealt with Cambodians? For example when Kissinger momentarily forgot that democracies have principles and values and decided that when planes had too many bombs to reach Vietnam, they could just randomly drop some on Cambodia, because we prioritize the capacity to reach Vietnam over not randomly bombing people in Cambodia. But then when we talk about this it doesn't create the same positive light on the choice of priorization that was made, which is maybe why you went for the nazis instead.
|
On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk? That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel.
Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this.
|
|
|
On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk? That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel. Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters?
It does yes, but not in the way that you want.
I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question.
That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it.
Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that?
|
On January 18 2024 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:
Hamas is not the same as the Palestinian people. Just as Nazi's aren't/weren't the same as the German people.
You can't say "we were ok with killing Nazi's so we should be ok with killing Palestinians". that's utter false equivalency.
If Israel was only killing Hamas fighters we wouldn't be having this conversation.
We’ve been through this before.
1: if Hamas engaged IDF head to head rather than hide in hospitals, less Palestinian civilians would die.
2: Hamas hides in hospitals because of course they would get turned to goop within minutes of an actual head to head fight
3: Either Hamas decides to just lose or they hide in hospitals. It’s dishonest to frame head to head traditional combat as an option if they actually want to win. Hamas openly admits they view martyrdom as altruistic. They also say all inhabitants of Gaza are martyrs. Civilians dying is not some tragedy to them so long as it aids their fight against Jews.
So this is the point where we end up talking about how hiding in hospitals is a war crime according to the Geneva convention for exactly this reason.
Then we do the usual dance around “yeah well colonialism and imperialism and the west and stuff like that, so they are oppressed and we can’t treat it like a normal war”
Then there’s the usual “who does the most war crimes? Hamas or IDF?”
Then we get back to “well Palestinians aren’t Hamas”
“Yeah but 75% of Palestinians support Hamas based on numerous recent polls”
Then we do the whole imperialism dance thing again. Then we talk about how “yeah well they wouldn’t be mad if it wasn’t for imperialism, so their anger is justified”
Once we agree Palestinians support Hamas and that the reason they do is their anger, we do the oppression dance again.
“Ok, so if they are indeed angry and they do indeed support Hamas, to what extent are the inhabitants of Gaza associated with Hamas?”
“Palestinians are not Hamas. IDF is bad for killing Palestinians.”
Then we start back from the beginning. The whole point is that there is a ton of very blurry dynamics surrounding Gaza’s acceptance of their role as martyrs and their support for Hamas as a whole. If the only way to win is to use hospitals and stuff to hide in, what do they do? If they either lose or they do the war crime thing, what should they do? Well Israel does war crime stuff and imperialism colonialism so yeah.
We can just skip it. It goes nowhere.
|
I think Nebuchad provided good evidence that there are plenty of people in power in Israel who are aiming for maximal damage in Gaza, and not minimal.
Thus I think we have good evidence showing that Hamas' human shield strategy - which is a war crime - likely isn't the only reason why there are so many civilian casualties in Gaza. The evidence points to evil existing on both sides. We also have evidence of the IDF not being well instructed to act in regard of their own soldiers either.
Armed with such knowledge I think the obvious question arises: should a military, that is led by a number of people who want to inflict more death and destruction rather than less, continue to receive support, both in military aid and in moral support abroad, yes or no?
|
On January 18 2024 02:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative. If you are just taking issue with phrasing, I am sure you understand what I mean. A fundamental quality of war is prioritization of one group of people over another. I am honestly not understanding why this feels like such a point of contention. I will just assume this is a semantics thing. Whatever label someone feels like putting on Israel vs Palestine, October 7, IDF attacks, yadda yadda, the whole idea is that a decision was made to prioritize one group over another. Not interested in the semantics dance. It’s not remotely stimulating. I’ve already said what feels worth saying. "We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative" is not evidence that we're not treating everyone as equal. It could be that we feel the same about all people who decide to become nazis, and then we would be treating everyone equally. Of course in the real world the US didn't really do that with nazis, a bunch of them got to emigrate in the US and have important roles, and others were sent in South America to fight leftist uprisings, because leftism is by far more dangerous than nazism. If we're only doing a mechanical argument and not a moral one, I suggest a better example than how we dealt with nazis, perhaps how we dealt with Cambodians? For example when Kissinger momentarily forgot that democracies have principles and values and decided that when planes had too many bombs to reach Vietnam, they could just randomly drop some on Cambodia, because we prioritize the capacity to reach Vietnam over not randomly bombing people in Cambodia. But then when we talk about this it doesn't create the same positive light on the choice of priorization that was made, which is maybe why you went for the nazis instead.
I think it’s possible you are misunderstanding me. So I will do my best to clarify. But this topic is so mind numbing I can’t bring myself to continue it anymore. I am happy to discuss non-semantics topics forever. But holy smokes this is so boring as a topic. You are great and I enjoy talking to you a lot. But I can’t bring myself to post another response to this specific topic after this.
The reason Hamas took the time to go into Israel to kill people rather than kill whoever was sitting next to them at that moment was that they viewed Israelis as different in some way. They looked over at the Hamas dude sitting next to them and thought “I could kill this dude. But he does not have the qualities I look for when deciding to kill someone. I will kill someone else instead”
When the US nuked Japan, they spent a lot of fuel to bring the plane with the nuke all the way over there. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if they just detonated the nuke right where they built it. People still would have died. But they decided it made more sense to kill other people instead. So they went through all the hassle of transporting the nuke to Japan before detonating it because they specifically wanted Japanese people to die instead. Did they care less about Japanese people? I don’t know. I don’t care about how we decide to label their thought process. But I know the reason for dropping the bomb on Japan rather than Oregon had a lot to do with being at war. War means killing certain people rather than other people. Hamas declared war on Israel. Israel declared war on Hamas. They are at war and so they kill each other.
|
|
|
On January 18 2024 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 02:17 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative. If you are just taking issue with phrasing, I am sure you understand what I mean. A fundamental quality of war is prioritization of one group of people over another. I am honestly not understanding why this feels like such a point of contention. I will just assume this is a semantics thing. Whatever label someone feels like putting on Israel vs Palestine, October 7, IDF attacks, yadda yadda, the whole idea is that a decision was made to prioritize one group over another. Not interested in the semantics dance. It’s not remotely stimulating. I’ve already said what feels worth saying. "We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative" is not evidence that we're not treating everyone as equal. It could be that we feel the same about all people who decide to become nazis, and then we would be treating everyone equally. Of course in the real world the US didn't really do that with nazis, a bunch of them got to emigrate in the US and have important roles, and others were sent in South America to fight leftist uprisings, because leftism is by far more dangerous than nazism. If we're only doing a mechanical argument and not a moral one, I suggest a better example than how we dealt with nazis, perhaps how we dealt with Cambodians? For example when Kissinger momentarily forgot that democracies have principles and values and decided that when planes had too many bombs to reach Vietnam, they could just randomly drop some on Cambodia, because we prioritize the capacity to reach Vietnam over not randomly bombing people in Cambodia. But then when we talk about this it doesn't create the same positive light on the choice of priorization that was made, which is maybe why you went for the nazis instead. I think it’s possible you are misunderstanding me. So I will do my best to clarify. But this topic is so mind numbing I can’t bring myself to continue it anymore. I am happy to discuss non-semantics topics forever. But holy smokes this is so boring as a topic. You are great and I enjoy talking to you a lot. But I can’t bring myself to post another response to this specific topic after this. The reason Hamas took the time to go into Israel to kill people rather than kill whoever was sitting next to them at that moment was that they viewed Israelis as different in some way. They looked over at the Hamas dude sitting next to them and thought “I could kill this dude. But he does not have the qualities I look for when deciding to kill someone. I will kill someone else instead” When the US nuked Japan, they spent a lot of fuel to bring the plane with the nuke all the way over there. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if they just detonated the nuke right where they built it. People still would have died. But they decided it made more sense to kill other people instead. So they went through all the hassle of transporting the nuke to Japan before detonating it because they specifically wanted Japanese people to die instead. Did they care less about Japanese people? I don’t know. I don’t care about how we decide to label their thought process. But I know the reason for dropping the bomb on Japan rather than Oregon had a lot to do with being at war. War means killing certain people rather than other people. Hamas declared war on Israel. Israel declared war on Hamas. They are at war and so they kill each other.
Okay so I can accept that this is semantics if that's really where you wanted to go with this, but with respect that's an absurd way of thinking about unequal treatment. Obviously you have to have similar circumstances in order to treat people in an equal way (or not). With the caveat that nuking Japan was absolutely a war crime anyway, if you are at war with Japan but you decide to nuke some random people that you are not at war with because they are closer, that's not treating everyone equally, that's treating those people way worse.
|
On January 18 2024 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 02:17 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative. If you are just taking issue with phrasing, I am sure you understand what I mean. A fundamental quality of war is prioritization of one group of people over another. I am honestly not understanding why this feels like such a point of contention. I will just assume this is a semantics thing. Whatever label someone feels like putting on Israel vs Palestine, October 7, IDF attacks, yadda yadda, the whole idea is that a decision was made to prioritize one group over another. Not interested in the semantics dance. It’s not remotely stimulating. I’ve already said what feels worth saying. "We killed people because we decided they would be a net-negative" is not evidence that we're not treating everyone as equal. It could be that we feel the same about all people who decide to become nazis, and then we would be treating everyone equally. Of course in the real world the US didn't really do that with nazis, a bunch of them got to emigrate in the US and have important roles, and others were sent in South America to fight leftist uprisings, because leftism is by far more dangerous than nazism. If we're only doing a mechanical argument and not a moral one, I suggest a better example than how we dealt with nazis, perhaps how we dealt with Cambodians? For example when Kissinger momentarily forgot that democracies have principles and values and decided that when planes had too many bombs to reach Vietnam, they could just randomly drop some on Cambodia, because we prioritize the capacity to reach Vietnam over not randomly bombing people in Cambodia. But then when we talk about this it doesn't create the same positive light on the choice of priorization that was made, which is maybe why you went for the nazis instead. I think it’s possible you are misunderstanding me. So I will do my best to clarify. But this topic is so mind numbing I can’t bring myself to continue it anymore. I am happy to discuss non-semantics topics forever. But holy smokes this is so boring as a topic. You are great and I enjoy talking to you a lot. But I can’t bring myself to post another response to this specific topic after this. The reason Hamas took the time to go into Israel to kill people rather than kill whoever was sitting next to them at that moment was that they viewed Israelis as different in some way. They looked over at the Hamas dude sitting next to them and thought “I could kill this dude. But he does not have the qualities I look for when deciding to kill someone. I will kill someone else instead” When the US nuked Japan, they spent a lot of fuel to bring the plane with the nuke all the way over there. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if they just detonated the nuke right where they built it. People still would have died. But they decided it made more sense to kill other people instead. So they went through all the hassle of transporting the nuke to Japan before detonating it because they specifically wanted Japanese people to die instead. Did they care less about Japanese people? I don’t know. I don’t care about how we decide to label their thought process. But I know the reason for dropping the bomb on Japan rather than Oregon had a lot to do with being at war. War means killing certain people rather than other people. Hamas declared war on Israel. Israel declared war on Hamas. They are at war and so they kill each other.
Let me sum up this comment: "Horrible atrocities are being committed by people who are at war. That's war, and that's what happens during war."
You're not explaining why with war come horrible atrocities, you're only observing that it's a matter of fact. I don't know what you expect us to say to that. Hurray? Horrible atrocities go! Is that what you want to hear? Should we discuss the pros and cons of being evil and doing evil things? Is that actually less boring to you?
|
On January 18 2024 03:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 03:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
No one cares about their enemies as much as their allies. That’s literally the point of allies and enemies. When we shot nazis during WW2, we decided Nazis being dead is better than Nazis being alive. That’s a pretty huge difference compare to how we treat our allies. You have not shown why we should agree all humans are strictly equal. We tossed a bunch of bombs at Nazis because we decided they were shit heads and it was good if they died. We decided they were not equal.
If you think all humans are always equal, you should work to convince us that is true. You can approach this issue respectfully and you choose not to. That’s clearly really unpleasant. Do you see how some people in this thread tend to be more respectful than others? There is nothing stopping you from just saying all the same things in a polite way.
Whether you are dishonest with your language or not, do you have a tendency to get way too personal and rude towards people. You’ve been very rude towards me in this thread many times. I think the problem is that you convince yourself someone deserves to be spoken to rudely if they say something you find deeply morally objectionable. Regardless of how or why, you are way more rude than you should be. I am sure you have noticed many times where you are rude to me and I just ignore it and continue to be polite. Please just be polite. There’s no reason to be rude. Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk? That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel. Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters? It does yes, but not in the way that you want.I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question. That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it. Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that? Paragraph 1 Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions... So what exactly is what I want? Feel free to actually take a stab Paragraph 2. Hamas is the external force, they are a proxy army of Iran, do you dispute it or just ignore it? And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back. Paragraph 3 Nothing says your not anti-Israel like calling them a bunch of far right people trying to ethnically cleanse. Is there people in Israel with those beliefs, of course. 25%-45% a significant part. What is the percentage of people in Gaza that want to commit genocide against Israel? What % supported and cheered for the sexual violence, torture and murder? And yet I do not see you making sweeping statements about the Palestinians? Why is that? Here is the rub, if someone actually used your extremely biased logic in the other direction they would support the exact thing that you say you are against. Paragraph 4. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant. Even then we have a few I'm not sure on, if they were actively killing babies and raping women in Israel, I think no one. If they were sheltered in a tunnel in Gaza, I think quiet a few would be against that. If they were donating money to Hamas, I think lots of people would be against that. If they were hosting tunnel entrances in their homes, I think a lot of people would be against it. That you are against the Hamas members that are actually out there killing babies and raping women is not that far from the "few bad apples" kind of thoughts you profess to hate in other threads.
"In the way that you want" was just a turn of phrase, I meant "in the way that you're envisioning when you're writing this paragraph". I didn't mean to imply that you want it, I apologize. To answer your question, I don't think you want many specific things regarding the Palestinian conflict, I think it's much more important to you to disagree with GH me or Drone (and now the other people that you're starting to dislike because of this thread) than any real world stuff.
Hamas is obviously not an external force, as it's composed of an absurdly large majority of Palestinians (if not a totality? I don't really know if there's a way to know that, but it doesn't matter). There is no significant percentage of Iranians flocking to Gaza to join Hamas. What a silly claim.
"And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back."
=> "This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question."
I can't say I'm surprised but come on.
Israel is currently run by a far right government, who is operating the war machine. The people who are not far right in Israel are not the people who are running this war, and as such my claim is justified. If you want to call me anti-Israel because I claimed some fascists are fascists, then you can, but I will not be impressed.
For a line of fun, notice that you started your post with "Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions" and then you ended it with a paragraph about how I'm not comfortable with killing Hamas militants (or members, I don't know what the difference is supposed to be lol) even though I say I am.
|
On January 18 2024 04:26 Magic Powers wrote:
Let me sum up this comment: "Horrible atrocities are being committed by people who are at war. That's war, and that's what happens during war."
Correct! If history has taught us anything, it is that managing a war to ensure it is ethically conducted is self-defined as impossible. War itself is such a grave moral failing that it isn't possible.
Furthermore, lizard brain dynamics will always pull humans closer to evil during a war. The psychology of war is corrosive and will always make people into worse versions of themselves.
Can you think of many wars that were fundamentally ethical in nature from beginning to end? From both participants? I literally can't think of a single one. Maybe you know of some.
On January 18 2024 04:26 Magic Powers wrote:
You're not explaining why with war come horrible atrocities, you're only observing that it's a matter of fact. I don't know what you expect us to say to that. Hurray? Horrible atrocities go! Is that what you want to hear? Should we discuss the pros and cons of being evil and doing evil things? Is that actually less boring to you?
I am saying so long as 2 factions are at war, managing the ethics within the war is fruitless. With no precedent for success, all we are doing is pearl clutching and fooling ourselves into thinking we are working towards an achievable goal.
The war itself is fundamentally wrong. The world has collectively failed reasonable Palestinians and reasonable Israelis by prioritizing their own selfish interests. I can vaguely point to "the west" as failing to manage the behavior of Israelis. And I can vaguely point to "Qatar and Iran" as failing to manage the behavior of Palestinians.
This war is preventable. This war can be castrated. But since both Israel and Palestine are weaponized by their overlords to achieve objectives of their overlords, there is no value in either side seeking peace. Both Palestinians and Israelis would be fools to put even the smallest effort into extending an olive branch. Even if we assumed both Israelis and Palestinians wanted peace (they don't at this point anyway lol), their overlords would prevent it. There is too much selfish interest to ever allow peace between Israel and Palestine. They are doomed to be the modern equivalent of gladiators until one of them defeats the other.
Peace requires significant effort from the overlords. The overlords don't want peace. And we've reached a point where even if the overlords wanted peace, Israelis and Palestinians have been forced into war for so many years that their collective psychology is so damaged and warped it would never be possible anyway. So we essentially have multiple layers of forced war.
I am not being hyperbolic or exaggerating or anything when I say I don't think peace is possible between Israel and Palestine. Can you imagine what an enormous shift in policy by Iran, Qatar, the US, and the UN would be required for all of them to truly do all they can to create lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians? We can argue that is the moral thing for them to do, but please remember it is all incredibly obvious. Unfortunately, it being obvious doesn't make it likely.
So now let's remember how unlikely that policy shift is from the overlords. Now keep in mind both Israelis and Palestinians have been at war for so long that a huge majority of their populations have only ever known this war. Now look back at my detailed posts regarding the history of Pan-Islamism and Zionism. I won't pretend I believe someone when they keep all of these factors in mind when they say peace is possible. It is not possible. I won't engage with any conversation that indicates peace is possible. It would be more productive for me to go in my backyard and jump until i jump high enough to reach the sun.
|
|
|
Norway28817 Posts
|
Jimmi, one thing I want to point out is that you can be a bit mean too. You are generally very polite, but you make it really easy for people to decide to be mean to you because you absolutely throw in a sprinkle of condescension and snide tone here and there. I am sorry for being a broken record here, but I truly see no reason for a group as old as all of us to be even a little bit mean to each other. It should just be tea and crumpets all day every day, regardless of what we are discussing.
And Drone, glad you posted that lol. Makes me proud to be Canadian.
|
On January 18 2024 05:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 03:32 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 02:20 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 18 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On January 18 2024 01:14 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Being in favor of violence against nazis is not evidence that someone doesn't think all humans are equal. Quite the opposite actually. So does that also apply to people in favour of violence against Hamas and their ilk? That's literally everyone, so yes. Everyone is in favour of violence against Hamas? I was under the impression based on the words they wrote that Hamas is as bad as they are because of Israel. Can you think of someone who said in the thread that it was wrong to kill Hamas militants? Cause if not, I'm a little confused with why you're getting stuck on this. If Hamas is in Israel currently killing Israelis than people seem to agree killing them is fine. If they are in Gaza and not currently killing Israelis is where the disagreements happen. Some people have stated that Israel should not attack outside of the borders no matter what because that can’t be defense. Others like me have suggested that shouldn’t because the cost of civilian life is too high with their human shield strategy. Then there are more complicated questions that anti Israeli posters avoid even talking about, like for example, is someone a civilian if they are hosting a tunnel entrance in their house? How much support of Hamas makes a person a legitimate target? I wonder if your passion for killing fascists and their supporters travels to Hamas supporters? It does yes, but not in the way that you want.I support violent resistance against authoritarianism the world over, by the people who are the victims of it. When an exterior force comes in and takes up that fight, that is something that I have more trouble with because mechanically what it creates is more support for the authoritarian group, as happened during the war in Afghanistan. People who otherwise wouldn't develop far right ideas see their countrymen being attacked by a foreign force, and naturally side with the group that is doing resistance not because they're very into far right ideas but because that's the group that is fighting back. These types of foreign interventions create more support for authoritarians, and therefore they're counterproductive, so I wouldn't be in support of that violence in principle and I am even less in support of it in practice because usually the foreign group is not just selflessly doing an antifascism, chances are they're self-interested and trying to fuck over the people of that country in some way as well. This is why, while I definitely support Afghani people violently resisting the Talibans, I have more trouble supporting the US doing it. This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question. That's the general rule for foreign intervention, but in the case of Israel, Israel is not only "not selflessly doing an antifascism", it's even worse, it's a bunch of far right people trying to reach a population that they want to ethnically cleanse, as we can clearly see from their methods, their words, the result of their actions, or from the fact that they're trying to expand as far as they can the definition of "Hamas supporter" so that they get to kill more Palestinians, as you alluded to in the post. This isn't antifascist violence, this is fascist violence, so clearly I'm not in support of it. Just so we're clear, that was a "no" on you being capable of finding someone who is uncomfortable with killing Hamas militants, so I was right when I said everyone is comfortable with that? Paragraph 1 Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions... So what exactly is what I want? Feel free to actually take a stab Paragraph 2. Hamas is the external force, they are a proxy army of Iran, do you dispute it or just ignore it? And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back. Paragraph 3 Nothing says your not anti-Israel like calling them a bunch of far right people trying to ethnically cleanse. Is there people in Israel with those beliefs, of course. 25%-45% a significant part. What is the percentage of people in Gaza that want to commit genocide against Israel? What % supported and cheered for the sexual violence, torture and murder? And yet I do not see you making sweeping statements about the Palestinians? Why is that? Here is the rub, if someone actually used your extremely biased logic in the other direction they would support the exact thing that you say you are against. Paragraph 4. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant. Even then we have a few I'm not sure on, if they were actively killing babies and raping women in Israel, I think no one. If they were sheltered in a tunnel in Gaza, I think quiet a few would be against that. If they were donating money to Hamas, I think lots of people would be against that. If they were hosting tunnel entrances in their homes, I think a lot of people would be against it. That you are against the Hamas members that are actually out there killing babies and raping women is not that far from the "few bad apples" kind of thoughts you profess to hate in other threads. "In the way that you want" was just a turn of phrase, I meant "in the way that you're envisioning when you're writing this paragraph". I didn't mean to imply that you want it, I apologize. To answer your question, I don't think you want many specific things regarding the Palestinian conflict, I think it's much more important to you to disagree with GH me or Drone (and now the other people that you're starting to dislike because of this thread) than any real world stuff. Hamas is obviously not an external force, as it's composed of an absurdly large majority of Palestinians (if not a totality? I don't really know if there's a way to know that, but it doesn't matter). There is no significant percentage of Iranians flocking to Gaza to join Hamas. What a silly claim. "And then it goes to that they are creating a situation where Israeli's who wouldn't normally be far right are being pushed in that direction. They are supporting the IDF not because they have those ideals but because they are the group fighting back." => "This logic also works the other way around when it comes to Palestine attacking Israel, which is why I also don't support the violence of events like Oct 7th, so you can delete the paragraph that you started to write asking me that question." I can't say I'm surprised but come on. Israel is currently run by a far right government, who is operating the war machine. The people who are not far right in Israel are not the people who are running this war, and as such my claim is justified. If you want to call me anti-Israel because I claimed some fascists are fascists, then you can, but I will not be impressed. For a line of fun, notice that you started your post with "Glad to see you're still incapable of not being a slave to your assumptions" and then you ended it with a paragraph about how I'm not comfortable with killing Hamas militants (or members, I don't know what the difference is supposed to be lol) even though I say I am. Appreciate the sorta apology. You got it completely wrong (other than that I don't like three arrogant self righteous pricks who are and continue to be assholes to me, I would be a moronic door mat to not dislike them). I'd say it again, but we both know you would just keep on believing your assumption. Hamas is a proxy army for Iran, their, weapons, ideology, financing is all Iran, TBH I'm shocked you believe the propaganda. Fatah well flawed is Palestinian and they lost to Hamas, brutally, because of the Iranian backing. Your bolded part does not counter what I said, I'm not saying you support the attack on Israel, I'm saying you are not applying your logic in both directions. I'm trying to point out the lack of consistency. And for your last paragraph, I really do not know if it is your reading comprehension (which I doubt but it becoming a more and more realistic option considering how incredibly wrong you get things). I literally explain what I mean, I said you are comfortable killing the people with the guns while they are doing the horrible acts. I'm NOT SURE on the other members of Hamas you are OK with killing of what level of support to Hamas they need to give to meet your level. I also think that you and the other people in this thread that appear in lock step would likely have different opinions on those thresholds. I also suspect your threshold to when you would enact violence on a "fascist" or supporter of fascism is much different than Hamas. I don't however think you are at GH levels where any communist can kill whoever in his revolution call them a capitalist and be OK. I also don't think you believe all the antisemitic tropes GH does (just with the word capitalist swapped for Jew, to make it more palatable for the lefty).
I am not aware of GH or Drone being "self righteous pricks" to you on a consistent basis. I believe GH never answers your posts (even though you keep insulting him over and over) and Drone rarely interacts with you. As for me, after months of not interacting with you in which you answered 75% of my posts with abuse while I wasn't responding, then admitted in public that you did so specifically because you wanted to be an asshole to me, I've decided that I would answer posts that are directed at me but not posts that aren't. Every interaction where you feel I'm a self-righteous prick toward you is self-inflicted.
Whether Hamas is a proxy army for Iran or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's composed mainly of Palestinians, and therefore it's not an external force. The IDF doesn't become an external force because the US gives a bunch of money to Israel, that's not how the word "external" works.
After a post in which I'm literally saying that I understand that the logic applies in both directions so you don't have to question me on that, then another post in which I point out that this happened, you double down and answer that I don't apply the logic in both directions. I couldn't make this up.
I don't think the issue is reading comprehension, I think the issue is that you get really mad and so you write things too quickly, and then because you're still mad you refuse to take responsibility for it so you blame others for strawmen and reading comprehension issues. You clearly wrote "I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with killing Hamas members, this is why you have now changed your initial statement and added the word militant." This isn't a request for more information about how I feel about stuff because you're NOT SURE, this is you making an inference on how I feel about the topic, even though you don't have to make inferences, I've already stated how I feel about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
