|
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 February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up.
Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something.
When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit.
|
On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit.
I perhaps didn't do well enough to convey that the house has been burning since before we were born. People really need to revisit their understanding of the US from 1900 (1700's really) until today (multiple times really). If Democrats didn't side with the fascists in the 60's we could be living under President Fred Hampton right now. The general point is that Democrats inability to recognize their issues was destined to give us a Trump figure. We're probably lucky it turned out they already blew it to such a vacuous narcissist.
Besides that, I didn't tell people not to vote, and the only thing I want Democrats to do is stfu and get in line behind the socialists (or at least Bernie and AOC/the squad) for once instead of siding with the fascists like they usually do.
|
On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit.
I agree with both you and GH. I'm with you because it is in fact better to act on lesser evilism when strictly given no third option. However, GH is right in his constant blame of the Democrats, and there are people who constantly try to deflect from his criticism and argue "he always finds a way to turn his back on Democrats" and I'm like... yeah, duh? Because he's right!
That is a fair bit more of a nuanced argument than what GH's critics like to resort to when they try to dunk on him all the time. He has a nuanced argument that his critics hate to hear. And I think he should receive more support because the criticism of his views is strictly unjustified. His critics, in my opinion, simply don't understand how evil even the Democrats truly are. If they knew, or accepted the truth, they might not be so much on board anymore with their strict lesser-evilism policy in perpetuity. At some point it has to end, and GH seems to be the only one who understands that it has to end sooner rather than later. Hence the additional "revolutionary" qualifier in his socialism. It must not come too late, and too late is much sooner than people seem to realize.
So I think it's ok to be on board with lesser-evilism in the short term, but it's not ok to tolerate lesser-evilism in the long term. And the key issue I'm seeing is that the short term IS the long term because the cycle keeps repeating. I hope you see my angle.
Furthermore, GH has fully appreciated that Trump/Republicans is worse than the Democrats as far as I'm aware. He just doesn't think that the difference is meaningful - and I think this is because he looks much further than the next six to twelve months. He's thinking about the likelihood that this cycle will simply last forever, not in spite of lesser-evilism, but precisely because of it.
His critics have absolutely no argument against that, because realistically speaking someone like Trump is always going to disrupt - and even revert, such as Roe v Wade - much of the progress that Democrats could dream of accomplishing.
This is GH's angle. I think his argument is far more nuanced than people seem to appreciate.
Small tangent, you can ignore this: note that I'm not myself advocating for full socialism (I have no specific percentage in mind, I just think right now in the US and even in my country there's far too little support for workers). But that I think is a separate, future argument - which could certainly also lead to infighting, I'm aware, but I'm willing to deal with that because at least a general agreement on radical change must exist first before infighting over socialism can even happen. Those nuances will be interesting to discuss.
|
On February 07 2025 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit. I perhaps didn't do well enough to convey that the house has been burning since before we were born. People really need to revisit their understanding of the US from 1900 (1700's really) until today (multiple times really). If Democrats didn't side with the fascists in the 60's we could be living under President Fred Hampton right now. The general point is that Democrats inability to recognize their issues was destined to give us a Trump figure. We're probably lucky it turned out they already blew it to such a vacuous narcissist. Besides that, I didn't tell people not to vote, and the only thing I want Democrats to do is stfu and get in line behind the socialists (or at least Bernie and AOC/the squad) for once instead of siding with the fascists like they usually do.
While I would include you in the group of people that preached the insignificance of the difference between the two parties despite their actions and reactions showing otherwise, my post wasn't specifically tailored for you.
I don't know if the group of supposedly left wing Americans whose conscience couldn't let them vote for Harris was large enough to have made the difference, but I am certain they were taken advantage of through online campaigns by right wingers. And it will only get easier to do that now that all owners of major social media platforms have either enthusiastically joined the techno-feudalism movement or at least bent the knee to it.
On February 07 2025 22:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit. I agree with both you and GH. I'm with you because it is in fact better to act on lesser evilism when strictly given no third option. However, GH is right in his constant blame of the Democrats, and there are people who constantly try to deflect from his criticism and argue "he always finds a way to turn his back on Democrats" and I'm like... yeah, duh? Because he's right! + Show Spoiler +That is a fair bit more of a nuanced argument than what GH's critics like to resort to when they try to dunk on him all the time. He has a nuanced argument that his critics hate to hear. And I think he should receive more support because the criticism of his views is strictly unjustified. His critics, in my opinion, simply don't understand how evil even the Democrats truly are. If they knew, or accepted the truth, they might not be so much on board anymore with their strict lesser-evilism policy in perpetuity. At some point it has to end, and GH seems to be the only one who understands that it has to end sooner rather than later. Hence the additional "revolutionary" qualifier in his socialism. It must not come too late, and too late is much sooner than people seem to realize.
So I think it's ok to be on board with lesser-evilism in the short term, but it's not ok to tolerate lesser-evilism in the long term. And the key issue I'm seeing is that the short term IS the long term because the cycle keeps repeating. I hope you see my angle.
Furthermore, GH has fully appreciated that Trump/Republicans is worse than the Democrats as far as I'm aware. He just doesn't think that the difference is meaningful - and I think this is because he looks much further than the next six to twelve months. He's thinking about the likelihood that this cycle will simply last forever, not in spite of lesser-evilism, but precisely because of it.
His critics have absolutely no argument against that, because realistically speaking someone like Trump is always going to disrupt - and even revert, such as Roe v Wade - much of the progress that Democrats could dream of accomplishing.
This is GH's angle. I think his argument is far more nuanced than people seem to appreciate.
Small tangent, you can ignore this: note that I'm not myself advocating for full socialism (I have no specific percentage in mind, I just think right now in the US and even in my country there's far too little support for workers). But that I think is a separate, future argument - which could certainly also lead to infighting, I'm aware, but I'm willing to deal with that because at least a general agreement on radical change must exist first before infighting over socialism can even happen. Those nuances will be interesting to discuss.
The fundamental issue is their fellow citizens are far more right wing than they would like and that they are willing to accept. It's the same in my country, but I've accepted it.
If the baby-gate that the DNC put in front of Bernie was seen as an insurmountable obstacle, there's a lava moat they'll have to swim through to get to socialism. I genuinely wish them good luck with it but I won't hold my breath.
|
My point has always been that they were both unacceptable based on their respective actions Engaging in genocide used to be a pretty ubiquitously accepted reason to categorically not support people, especially for progressives. People are unironically mad at me for drawing a line at genocide...It's nauseating.
|
On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit.
The reason why voting doesn't matter isn't because democrats and republicans are the same, the reason why it doesn't matter is because Democrats represent a continuation of the system. That system is a two party system, and the fundamental mechanism of a two party system is that the power changes from one to the other. So when the Democrats win, the Republicans get power a little later. You haven't changed anything.
Where you might disagree is on the priorities that the Democratic party has. What they would want to elect is a Democrat, for sure. In situations when they can't have that, I firmly believe that they would much rather elect a Republican than a leftist. This one is more of an opinion than the others.
I get the impression that GH pushes it to "not voting matters" sometimes, and I disagree with that. Overall I'm not a fan of GH's strategy these last few weeks where he's doing a bunch of attacks at individuals and a bunch of moralization, two things that I find very cringe. I'll take him doing that over Democrats though, and in this thread we had a bunch of people straight up defending genocide so, you know, that's worse.
|
On February 08 2025 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit. The reason why voting doesn't matter isn't because democrats and republicans are the same, the reason why it doesn't matter is because Democrats represent a continuation of the system. That system is a two party system, and the fundamental mechanism of a two party system is that the power changes from one to the other. So when the Democrats win, the Republicans get power a little later. You haven't changed anything. Where you might disagree is on the priorities that the Democratic party has. What they would want to elect is a Democrat, for sure. In situations when they can't have that, I firmly believe that they would much rather elect a Republican than a leftist. This one is more of an opinion than the others. I get the impression that GH pushes it to "not voting matters" sometimes, and I disagree with that. Overall I'm not a fan of GH's strategy these last few weeks where he's doing a bunch of attacks at individuals and a bunch of moralization, two things that I find very cringe. I'll take him doing that over Democrats though, and in this thread we had a bunch of people straight up defending genocide so, you know, that's worse. Meh, to the degree electoralism has any positive benefit, it comes out of demanding more from politicians in exchange for voting for them. As far as "not voting matters" it is just that Democrats have already effectively taken demanding more off the table, making the belief that you can actually make meaningful and sustained progress through Democrats delusional by their own metrics/history.
"Democrats have to be more immoral because the voters are more immoral!"
So much of the lib/Dem worldview and personality that comes with it is built on their moral superiority to people on their right. I'm not really trying to moralize, so much as point out how ridiculous/"cringe" they look moralizing over Republicans while supporting genocide themselves.
|
Northern Ireland25235 Posts
On February 07 2025 22:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. Absolutely. But as I keep saying, one can both engage in direct action and do a minimal effort at the voting booth to prevent deranged fascists from taking over. The entire argument against doing that relies on a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. Democrats are not at the wheel anymore just like they wanted and surprise surprise, all they do is keep talking about Democrats and begging them to do something. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit. I agree with both you and GH. I'm with you because it is in fact better to act on lesser evilism when strictly given no third option. However, GH is right in his constant blame of the Democrats, and there are people who constantly try to deflect from his criticism and argue "he always finds a way to turn his back on Democrats" and I'm like... yeah, duh? Because he's right! That is a fair bit more of a nuanced argument than what GH's critics like to resort to when they try to dunk on him all the time. He has a nuanced argument that his critics hate to hear. And I think he should receive more support because the criticism of his views is strictly unjustified. His critics, in my opinion, simply don't understand how evil even the Democrats truly are. If they knew, or accepted the truth, they might not be so much on board anymore with their strict lesser-evilism policy in perpetuity. At some point it has to end, and GH seems to be the only one who understands that it has to end sooner rather than later. Hence the additional "revolutionary" qualifier in his socialism. It must not come too late, and too late is much sooner than people seem to realize. So I think it's ok to be on board with lesser-evilism in the short term, but it's not ok to tolerate lesser-evilism in the long term. And the key issue I'm seeing is that the short term IS the long term because the cycle keeps repeating. I hope you see my angle. Furthermore, GH has fully appreciated that Trump/Republicans is worse than the Democrats as far as I'm aware. He just doesn't think that the difference is meaningful - and I think this is because he looks much further than the next six to twelve months. He's thinking about the likelihood that this cycle will simply last forever, not in spite of lesser-evilism, but precisely because of it.His critics have absolutely no argument against that, because realistically speaking someone like Trump is always going to disrupt - and even revert, such as Roe v Wade - much of the progress that Democrats could dream of accomplishing. This is GH's angle. I think his argument is far more nuanced than people seem to appreciate. Small tangent, you can ignore this: note that I'm not myself advocating for full socialism (I have no specific percentage in mind, I just think right now in the US and even in my country there's far too little support for workers). But that I think is a separate, future argument - which could certainly also lead to infighting, I'm aware, but I'm willing to deal with that because at least a general agreement on radical change must exist first before infighting over socialism can even happen. Those nuances will be interesting to discuss.
There are more and less damaging times to try to break that cycle.
I do broadly agree that when lesser evilism isn’t the odd call one has to make, but the default, then you’ve a big problem.
That said I think the differences are also really undersold, they’re quite profound ones. They’re not basically the same thing, plus or minus a degree or two. They can still both be repugnant, while there’s quite a gap.
There’s nuance elsewhere. It’s not just US attitudes or policy this affects.
International pressure, even if it’s sustained and meaningful, are the GOP gonna change course? Fuck no they won’t. The Democrats might, I wouldn’t say it’s a probable, but it’s not totally infeasible either.
You’ve effectively shut off that potential pipeline for positive change as well.
Then we’ll end up in a position of ‘why aren’t the Europeans/other nations not doing more?’ And yeah for sure that could be done, don’t get me wrong I’d like to see it. But it’s kinda practically redundant as what the US says, essentially goes and you’re got a stridently pro-Israel administration, backed by an incredibly pro-Israel base.
I’m not even sure what the kind of leverage needed to actually shift that looks like, although whatever it is I don’t consider it especially likely.
I’m not even especially advocating for ‘people should vote the Dems’ or anything like that particularly, but there’s some pretty pronounced differences too.
|
On February 08 2025 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2025 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On February 07 2025 22:14 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2025 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't think women would have voting rights today if suffragettes had left it at "good enough". They were radical and over 1300 women in the UK went to prison.
Voting for Democrats is not radical enough to create positive and lasting change for Palestinians and other Arabs. It has never worked once so far. It didn't work under Obama, it didn't work under Biden. It's time to wake up. When someone spends years telling us that the difference between the two parties is insignificant and then as soon as the power changes hands they act like the house is on fire, that betrays that they never believed their own bullshit. The reason why voting doesn't matter isn't because democrats and republicans are the same, the reason why it doesn't matter is because Democrats represent a continuation of the system. That system is a two party system, and the fundamental mechanism of a two party system is that the power changes from one to the other. So when the Democrats win, the Republicans get power a little later. You haven't changed anything. Where you might disagree is on the priorities that the Democratic party has. What they would want to elect is a Democrat, for sure. In situations when they can't have that, I firmly believe that they would much rather elect a Republican than a leftist. This one is more of an opinion than the others. I get the impression that GH pushes it to "not voting matters" sometimes, and I disagree with that. Overall I'm not a fan of GH's strategy these last few weeks where he's doing a bunch of attacks at individuals and a bunch of moralization, two things that I find very cringe. I'll take him doing that over Democrats though, and in this thread we had a bunch of people straight up defending genocide so, you know, that's worse. Meh, to the degree electoralism has any positive benefit, it comes out of demanding more from politicians in exchange for voting for them. As far as "not voting matters" it is just that Democrats have already effectively taken demanding more off the table, making the belief that you can actually make meaningful and sustained progress through Democrats delusional by their own metrics/history. "Democrats have to be more immoral because the voters are more immoral!" So much of the lib/Dem worldview and personality that comes with it is built on their moral superiority to people on their right. I'm not really trying to moralize, so much as point out how ridiculous/"cringe" they look moralizing over Republicans while supporting genocide themselves.
I don't want this to come across as deflection or something, but I feel like "democrats are bad" is extremely irrelevant to any current event discussion with this topic right now. Harris had an immoral perspective on this issue. I agree. But its also entirely irrelevant to the current suffering of Palestinians.
Is it not more worthwhile to discuss current and future events? Republicans will be in power the next 4 years. Whether democrats are fantastic or terrible, they will not play any role in Palestinian lives for the next 4 years.
Currently, Trump is saying there will be no American boots on the ground in Gaza and they will take over after Netanyahu burns the place down. Trump has indicated he will be trying to relocate Palestinians anywhere that will accept them. Basically handling the situation like a mass eviction before demolishing an apartment building.
|
On February 08 2025 01:38 WombaT wrote:
Then we’ll end up in a position of ‘why aren’t the Europeans/other nations not doing more?’ And yeah for sure that could be done, don’t get me wrong I’d like to see it. But it’s kinda practically redundant as what the US says, essentially goes and you’re got a stridently pro-Israel administration, backed by an incredibly pro-Israel base.
Europe will help Palestinians to the extent it remains a net-positive for them.
It isn't a coincidence that Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and all other Muslim nations are doing a grand total of "absolutely nothing". They are weighing the pros and cons and deciding not to help. This is the larger point I have been trying to make. The situation itself is so conclusively against Palestinians that even their most impassioned supporters do not help them.
We are at a point where "Gaza will no longer exist and all Palestinians are getting kicked out" is met by the sound of crickets. All these neighboring countries that yelled all these big things about helping Palestinians are taking no action to prevent what is clearly a super terrible situation for Palestinians.
|
Trump continues his battle against justice and demands sanctions against the ICC. This undermines their investigation efforts of war criminals.
The reason why Trump does this is of course that the US is itself stacked with rows of war criminals, both during its own wars and dating back to the post-WW2 days of collaborating with brutal SS officers against the Soviet Union.
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-impose-sanctions-international-criminal-court-2025-02-06/
|
Good, fuck the ICC, it costs a lot of money and never really trials war crimials anyway.
Nice idea, good try.. but if the only guys you "get" are 43rd tier yugoslav generals, we can get rid of the institution.
UN next please, and then ICCP.
|
On February 08 2025 20:38 KT_Elwood wrote:
Good, fuck the ICC, it costs a lot of money and never really trials war crimials anyway.
Nice idea, good try.. but if the only guys you "get" are 43rd tier yugoslav generals, we can get rid of the institution.
UN next please, and then ICCP.
Sigh...
I'm hoping when you posted this you weren't in your usual state of mind. Maybe someone pissed you off or whatever, I hope your day improves.
|
On February 08 2025 20:38 KT_Elwood wrote:
Good, fuck the ICC, it costs a lot of money and never really trials war crimials anyway.
Nice idea, good try.. but if the only guys you "get" are 43rd tier yugoslav generals, we can get rid of the institution.
UN next please, and then ICCP.
Im personally in favor of law and order and a rule based world, but hey you do you. It be alot cooler if past Presidents were tried for being war criminals, and we can only hold them accountable if we legitimize establishments like the ICC and the UN. Otherwise, hey f it, might makes right, and history shows how well that works out
|
On February 09 2025 03:50 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2025 20:38 KT_Elwood wrote:
Good, fuck the ICC, it costs a lot of money and never really trials war crimials anyway.
Nice idea, good try.. but if the only guys you "get" are 43rd tier yugoslav generals, we can get rid of the institution.
UN next please, and then ICCP. Im personally in favor of law and order and a rule based world, but hey you do you. It be alot cooler if past Presidents were tried for being war criminals, and we can only hold them accountable if we legitimize establishments like the ICC and the UN. Otherwise, hey f it, might makes right, and history shows how well that works out
The world is only Law and Order if those with power decide it to be. Might doesn't make "right" because that's a moral judgment, but might does make what is and it always has. Institutions like the ICC or the UN only have power if the powerful decide that they do and are willing to enforce the rules. Of course, the powerful love to give exceptions for themselves.
In this case, that's a good thing to protect what's right. The UN and the ICC is being used as a cudgel by Islamists to try to degrade and destroy the only nation in the world where Jewish people are safe. Those nations want to go back to the "peaceful times" when Jewish people were second class citizens in Islamic nations and their treatment in the entire middle east was equivalent to the treatment of the Palestinians of the last 70 years. That Israel exists is an embarrassment to Islam and that's why the numerous Islamic nations love to gang up on Israel in the UN and the ICC.
When the UN and the ICC is being used for evil, it should be rejected by those with power and even disbanded if necessary.
|
The only nation in the world where people are both safe and forced to kill hundreds of thousands of people in self-defense
|
On February 08 2025 21:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2025 20:38 KT_Elwood wrote:
Good, fuck the ICC, it costs a lot of money and never really trials war crimials anyway.
Nice idea, good try.. but if the only guys you "get" are 43rd tier yugoslav generals, we can get rid of the institution.
UN next please, and then ICCP. Sigh... I'm hoping when you posted this you weren't in your usual state of mind. Maybe someone pissed you off or whatever, I hope your day improves.
Trump or not, the US is not respecting ICC decisions against, not even trialing against their citizens. Neither is China or Russia and many other countries.
This makes ICC a stupid clownshow and it can be trashed.
Next time you need to trial war criminals from .. Canada.. you can re-Open it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg
Trump is right when he says that international law is basicly just fluff for Euro-cucks.
Most of Europe was "Willing" to attack Iraq.. and afghanistan breaking international law. See any Euro-Politician on the bench?
No?
Putin can invade Ukraine.. and while there is a lot of help.. Asia doesn't give a fuck.. there aren't Chinese or NATO troops on the ground upholding international law.
UN the same.
Whole lotta nothingburgers with Russia and PRC always throwing in the veto.
Keep the food programme, and then rent out the nice building for cheap.
|
On February 09 2025 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:
The only nation in the world where people are both safe and forced to kill hundreds of thousands of people in self-defense
Yes. They can only achieve safety by killing their enemies because their enemies will never stop coming to kill them. Their willingness to strike back is what keeps them safe.
|
On February 09 2025 04:33 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2025 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:
The only nation in the world where people are both safe and forced to kill hundreds of thousands of people in self-defense Yes. They can only achieve safety by killing their enemies because their enemies will never stop coming to kill them. Their willingness to strike back is what keeps them safe.
That doesn't make any sense obviously, you can't be both safe and surrounded by enemies who will never stop coming to kill you, that's not how words work. But you probably don't care, do you.
|
On February 09 2025 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2025 04:33 RenSC2 wrote:On February 09 2025 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:
The only nation in the world where people are both safe and forced to kill hundreds of thousands of people in self-defense Yes. They can only achieve safety by killing their enemies because their enemies will never stop coming to kill them. Their willingness to strike back is what keeps them safe. That doesn't make any sense obviously, you can't be both safe and surrounded by enemies who will never stop coming to kill you, that's not how words work. But you probably don't care, do you.
Let's say you have an enemy or a lot of them that want to kill you. You have the power to put them in jail or the dirt and do so. Are you now safe? Those people still want to kill you, but no longer can, so yes, you are safe. Israel needs to cripple those who would kill them and take away any power from them to strike Israel. That's how Israel remains safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
