|
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. |
United States44354 Posts
On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 03:53 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 01:49 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Not sure if you just had another night at the pub or just wanted to show how bad assumptions lead to terrible conclusions, but obviously nothing. The point was to switch up the "good" and "bad" guys to see what would be an acceptable response. Who knows maybe even get a good faith answer for a change, but no luck.
[quote]
It is fairly common knowledge that while Nazis are fascists not all fascists are Nazis. Next wtf "most anti west" are Nazi's pro west? And I specifically said with the power balance being the same, so you got everything wrong.
That being said you did open a can of worms. What is it about Hamas you like more than Fascists? Start with treatment of women, and work through all the things you hate about fascists and then go look up Hamas's position on those. Leaving your social media bubble is going to be required though, not sure if you are brave enough to venture into the world of journalism with rules.
Nazism is a very western ideology yes. It's basically colonialism but to the east with racial theories which have been nutured by colonialism and slavery. The idea of cosmopolitism destroying civilization was prevalent during the 19th century and which kind of people were associated to cosmopolitism ? You guess right, the jews. As much as I have strong negative feeling toward germany, the shoah is an european affair. While nowaday mainstream media love to compare urss to nazi germany with the concept of totalitarism, actual historians complain that you don't understand nazism with this concept because he just ignores the major western influences. The fact the racial pangermanist ideologies took at lot of a frenchman (gobineau) saddens me. As for you survivalist logic, that was the same used by pol pot in order to preserve the revolution or by the germans during ww2, the shoah happened because judeo-bolchevism was seen as a existential threat. You contradicted youself btw because I am pretty sure you said, and you were right, that arab leaders don't care about palestinians which means israel isn't threatened. Regardless, there are the biggest military of the region and protected by the yankees. So, israel is not threatened at all, their survivalist logic is wrong and wrong survavilist logic is the matrice of all genocide. When someone begins to massively targets women and children, it's because they feel deeply threatened but if they can actually reach the women and children of the opponents, then, it means there are not actually threatened. I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed.
Israel has successfully traded land for peace with nations with strong governments willing to make peace. Hamas is the exception, not the rule.
|
On February 11 2025 23:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 03:53 stilt wrote:
[quote]
Nazism is a very western ideology yes.
It's basically colonialism but to the east with racial theories which have been nutured by colonialism and slavery. The idea of cosmopolitism destroying civilization was prevalent during the 19th century and which kind of people were associated to cosmopolitism ? You guess right, the jews. As much as I have strong negative feeling toward germany, the shoah is an european affair.
While nowaday mainstream media love to compare urss to nazi germany with the concept of totalitarism, actual historians complain that you don't understand nazism with this concept because he just ignores the major western influences.
The fact the racial pangermanist ideologies took at lot of a frenchman (gobineau) saddens me.
As for you survivalist logic, that was the same used by pol pot in order to preserve the revolution or by the germans during ww2, the shoah happened because judeo-bolchevism was seen as a existential threat.
You contradicted youself btw because I am pretty sure you said, and you were right, that arab leaders don't care about palestinians which means israel isn't threatened. Regardless, there are the biggest military of the region and protected by the yankees.
So, israel is not threatened at all, their survivalist logic is wrong and wrong survavilist logic is the matrice of all genocide.
When someone begins to massively targets women and children, it's because they feel deeply threatened but if they can actually reach the women and children of the opponents, then, it means there are not actually threatened. I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. Israel has successfully traded land for peace with nations with strong governments willing to make peace. Hamas is the exception, not the rule.
So in this future where Israel successfully finishes its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and yet ten years later they're still in a war to take a part of Lebanon or Syria, will you be shocked and surprised that I was correct?
|
On February 12 2025 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 23:53 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. Israel has successfully traded land for peace with nations with strong governments willing to make peace. Hamas is the exception, not the rule. So in this future where Israel successfully finishes its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and yet ten years later they're still in a war to take a part of Lebanon or Syria, will you be shocked and surprised that I was correct?
There is no need to make this some weird ego thing with predictions. If someone thinks Israel can achieve peace with other nations the way they did with Egypt/Jordan, they will be surprised when that doesn't happen. It will mean that person has made a wrong prediction, as they have thousands of times in their lives, because most people make many wrong predictions.
None of us here are operating with deviant intentions. We are just dudes talking. We may have reached different conclusions and have subsequent different perspectives, but its not like we are choosing predictions with some kinda agenda or selfish purposes. No one wins anything if we guess right and no one is harmed if we guess wrong. I think its purely harmful to the conversation to attach the kinda ego stuff you're pushing here. We can all have great conversations without that.
|
On February 12 2025 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 23:53 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:
[quote]
You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs
Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. Israel has successfully traded land for peace with nations with strong governments willing to make peace. Hamas is the exception, not the rule. So in this future where Israel successfully finishes its ethnic cleansing of Palestine and yet ten years later they're still in a war to take a part of Lebanon or Syria, will you be shocked and surprised that I was correct? There is no need to make this some weird ego thing with predictions.
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again.
|
On February 12 2025 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again.
I think if Israel can have the same relationship with Syria+Lebanon as they do with Egypt+Jordan, they will not ethnically cleanse Syria+Lebanon. I don't know enough to say whether that is achievable or not, but I do see Egypt and Jordan as examples of Arab nations that Israel shows no interest in ethnically cleansing. Is it that you suspect Israel will try to ethnically cleanse Egypt and Jordan as well?
|
On February 12 2025 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again. I think if Israel can have the same relationship with Syria+Lebanon as they do with Egypt+Jordan, they will not ethnically cleanse Syria+Lebanon. I don't know enough to say whether that is achievable or not, but I do see Egypt and Jordan as examples of Arab nations that Israel shows no interest in ethnically cleansing. Is it that you suspect Israel will try to ethnically cleanse Egypt and Jordan as well?
Of course, yes. But they will start with Lebanon clearly. What they would do in this future will be very similar to what they did with Hamas: do absolutely everything in their power to make sure that Lebanon and Syria are unstable and stay unstable, and then go, look guys, what can we do, Lebanon and Syria are unstable, we can't have a good relationship with them, we are forced to take some of their land in self-defense. They'll repeat that process as long as it works.
How can I tell that this is likely, well I can because it's in line with how every far right endeavor has been attempted in history and today. You may have read in the US politics thread that Kwark thinks the Republicans are currently doing a racism. But it's weird, because, have you noticed that they only target illegal immigrants? So it's not a racism when you think about it, it's only a fight against illegals. Or like, that the Republicans hate LGBT people? Nah man, they're only going after trans people, not gay people, so it's unfair to say that they are against LGBT.
You see how it works? You always focus on the most vulnerable group first, because the "most" anything is the most extreme part, and as an extreme they are less protected. But when you win, it's not the end, it's time to go after the next part. That's why we know that the far right isn't only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people.
Now you could imagine someone who is only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people, of course. I'm even willing to say that I'm sure there are a few honest terfs, who are only transphobic and have nothing against lesbianism for instance. So how do we determine what we're dealing with? Well it's easy, we look at the context. Is it likely that Republicans are only against illegal immigrants? Well, their current strategy is a direct descendant of the southern strategy, in which they were trying to get votes by appealing to racists in the wake of the advances of civil rights for black people. Black people aren't illegal immigrants, are they. So clearly the strategy book that is being followed goes further than illegal immigrants, they're just targeted as the most vulnerable group currently. If they're "successfully dealt with", we'll hear more about black crime statistics and skull shapes, obviously. Similarly, the main hatred against trans people in conservative America is rooted in religious beliefs against non-normative sexualities, and that entails everything from L to T, so that's why we know that gay people aren't safe.
How do you translate that to Israel? Well, the same applies. Check out the propaganda that Ren has been fed: Israel is surrounded by enemies and is fighting for survival in this hostile environment. It's not just this small issue with Palestine and once it's fixed we can all live in harmony, it's all the surrounding arab nations that are filled with antisemitic animals and need to be taught a lesson in who is the strongest from time to time. Once Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing in this sentence has changed, the "border" is just in a different place.
It is functionally the same as declaring that Poland is safe because Russia is currently only going after Ukraine.
|
On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 03:53 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 01:49 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Not sure if you just had another night at the pub or just wanted to show how bad assumptions lead to terrible conclusions, but obviously nothing. The point was to switch up the "good" and "bad" guys to see what would be an acceptable response. Who knows maybe even get a good faith answer for a change, but no luck.
[quote]
It is fairly common knowledge that while Nazis are fascists not all fascists are Nazis. Next wtf "most anti west" are Nazi's pro west? And I specifically said with the power balance being the same, so you got everything wrong.
That being said you did open a can of worms. What is it about Hamas you like more than Fascists? Start with treatment of women, and work through all the things you hate about fascists and then go look up Hamas's position on those. Leaving your social media bubble is going to be required though, not sure if you are brave enough to venture into the world of journalism with rules.
Nazism is a very western ideology yes. It's basically colonialism but to the east with racial theories which have been nutured by colonialism and slavery. The idea of cosmopolitism destroying civilization was prevalent during the 19th century and which kind of people were associated to cosmopolitism ? You guess right, the jews. As much as I have strong negative feeling toward germany, the shoah is an european affair. While nowaday mainstream media love to compare urss to nazi germany with the concept of totalitarism, actual historians complain that you don't understand nazism with this concept because he just ignores the major western influences. The fact the racial pangermanist ideologies took at lot of a frenchman (gobineau) saddens me. As for you survivalist logic, that was the same used by pol pot in order to preserve the revolution or by the germans during ww2, the shoah happened because judeo-bolchevism was seen as a existential threat. You contradicted youself btw because I am pretty sure you said, and you were right, that arab leaders don't care about palestinians which means israel isn't threatened. Regardless, there are the biggest military of the region and protected by the yankees. So, israel is not threatened at all, their survivalist logic is wrong and wrong survavilist logic is the matrice of all genocide. When someone begins to massively targets women and children, it's because they feel deeply threatened but if they can actually reach the women and children of the opponents, then, it means there are not actually threatened. I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed.
This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again.
No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen.
|
On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 03:53 stilt wrote:
[quote]
Nazism is a very western ideology yes.
It's basically colonialism but to the east with racial theories which have been nutured by colonialism and slavery. The idea of cosmopolitism destroying civilization was prevalent during the 19th century and which kind of people were associated to cosmopolitism ? You guess right, the jews. As much as I have strong negative feeling toward germany, the shoah is an european affair.
While nowaday mainstream media love to compare urss to nazi germany with the concept of totalitarism, actual historians complain that you don't understand nazism with this concept because he just ignores the major western influences.
The fact the racial pangermanist ideologies took at lot of a frenchman (gobineau) saddens me.
As for you survivalist logic, that was the same used by pol pot in order to preserve the revolution or by the germans during ww2, the shoah happened because judeo-bolchevism was seen as a existential threat.
You contradicted youself btw because I am pretty sure you said, and you were right, that arab leaders don't care about palestinians which means israel isn't threatened. Regardless, there are the biggest military of the region and protected by the yankees.
So, israel is not threatened at all, their survivalist logic is wrong and wrong survavilist logic is the matrice of all genocide.
When someone begins to massively targets women and children, it's because they feel deeply threatened but if they can actually reach the women and children of the opponents, then, it means there are not actually threatened. I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen.
Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up.
As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't.
|
On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 04:27 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
I really have no idea what you are talking about after your first 2 sentences. I'm guessing it has to do what you think I'm getting at instead of what I'm saying but impossible for me to know because whatever it is, is so far off that I can't follow. You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't.
No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes.
edit: ask your self why you are not at least equally mad at Iran and Turkey, who's colonialism is far more advanced than Israel.
|
On February 12 2025 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2025 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again. I think if Israel can have the same relationship with Syria+Lebanon as they do with Egypt+Jordan, they will not ethnically cleanse Syria+Lebanon. I don't know enough to say whether that is achievable or not, but I do see Egypt and Jordan as examples of Arab nations that Israel shows no interest in ethnically cleansing. Is it that you suspect Israel will try to ethnically cleanse Egypt and Jordan as well? Of course, yes. But they will start with Lebanon clearly. What they would do in this future will be very similar to what they did with Hamas: do absolutely everything in their power to make sure that Lebanon and Syria are unstable and stay unstable, and then go, look guys, what can we do, Lebanon and Syria are unstable, we can't have a good relationship with them, we are forced to take some of their land in self-defense. They'll repeat that process as long as it works. How can I tell that this is likely, well I can because it's in line with how every far right endeavor has been attempted in history and today. You may have read in the US politics thread that Kwark thinks the Republicans are currently doing a racism. But it's weird, because, have you noticed that they only target illegal immigrants? So it's not a racism when you think about it, it's only a fight against illegals. Or like, that the Republicans hate LGBT people? Nah man, they're only going after trans people, not gay people, so it's unfair to say that they are against LGBT. You see how it works? You always focus on the most vulnerable group first, because the "most" anything is the most extreme part, and as an extreme they are less protected. But when you win, it's not the end, it's time to go after the next part. That's why we know that the far right isn't only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people. Now you could imagine someone who is only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people, of course. I'm even willing to say that I'm sure there are a few honest terfs, who are only transphobic and have nothing against lesbianism for instance. So how do we determine what we're dealing with? Well it's easy, we look at the context. Is it likely that Republicans are only against illegal immigrants? Well, their current strategy is a direct descendant of the southern strategy, in which they were trying to get votes by appealing to racists in the wake of the advances of civil rights for black people. Black people aren't illegal immigrants, are they. So clearly the strategy book that is being followed goes further than illegal immigrants, they're just targeted as the most vulnerable group currently. If they're "successfully dealt with", we'll hear more about black crime statistics and skull shapes, obviously. Similarly, the main hatred against trans people in conservative America is rooted in religious beliefs against non-normative sexualities, and that entails everything from L to T, so that's why we know that gay people aren't safe. How do you translate that to Israel? Well, the same applies. Check out the propaganda that Ren has been fed: Israel is surrounded by enemies and is fighting for survival in this hostile environment. It's not just this small issue with Palestine and once it's fixed we can all live in harmony, it's all the surrounding arab nations that are filled with antisemitic animals and need to be taught a lesson in who is the strongest from time to time. Once Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing in this sentence has changed, the "border" is just in a different place. It is functionally the same as declaring that Poland is safe because Russia is currently only going after Ukraine.
To what extent do you think Israel would continue to expand? Are you saying this is all specific to Arab nations, or do you think Israel has similar ambitions to the big 3? I want to better understand the disconnect between our assumptions.
|
United Kingdom10006 Posts
If people are able to pretend that pointing out what Israel is doing is antisemitic then surely that tells you something fundamental about what Israel is doing.
|
On February 12 2025 02:14 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 10:24 stilt wrote:
[quote]
You justify israel actions with security concerns I call it bs
Got it or this is still too much for you ? Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't. No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes.
I have a different theory, I don't think you're scared at all, I think you're a little angry because nobody answered your recent attempts at baiting the forum into bad discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). You finally got a few people to answer you with "whAt if IsrAel waS coMmuNisT???", but clearly that wasn't enough because nobody reacted to your subsequent insults.
Since you're not getting enough attention, you're lashing out, much like a small child would. And lashing out against me or GH by lying about what we believe is an old classic for you because as we know, you're JimmiC and you've been doing that for a decade at this point.
|
On February 12 2025 02:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
If people are able to pretend that pointing out what Israel is doing is antisemitic then surely that tells you something fundamental about what Israel is doing.
Israel is taking over the middle east? Isn't Islamic extremism spreading far faster than radicalized Jews? If Israel is hell bent on killing all the Arabs why are their over 2 million living in Israel and doing better than most Arabs the rest of the world? When Neb talks about the bad Israelis off to conquer does he mean them too? Is it not far more likely that Israel attacked Gaza because of Oct 7th, then some grand plan to take over the middle east?
Plenty of people including you and even me have criticized Israel without using anti-Semitic tropes. It is super easy to do.
|
On February 12 2025 02:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 10:27 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Where and when did I justify Israel's actions and which ones? If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts? So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't. No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes. I have a different theory, I don't think you're scared at all, I think you're a little angry because nobody answered your recent attempts at baiting the forum into bad discussions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). You finally got a few people to answer you with "whAt if IsrAel waS coMmuNisT???", but clearly that wasn't enough because nobody reacted to your subsequent insults. Since you're not getting enough attention, you're lashing out, much like a small child would. And lashing out against me or GH by lying about what we believe is an old classic for you because as we know, you're JimmiC and you've been doing that for a decade at this point.
You are clearly the one lashing out, I guess the truth really hurts. I would like you to examine your beliefs that is why I keep asking these questions. But you are unwilling and instead keep writing out anti-semitic tropes. That is not because of me, it is because of you.
|
On February 12 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2025 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again. I think if Israel can have the same relationship with Syria+Lebanon as they do with Egypt+Jordan, they will not ethnically cleanse Syria+Lebanon. I don't know enough to say whether that is achievable or not, but I do see Egypt and Jordan as examples of Arab nations that Israel shows no interest in ethnically cleansing. Is it that you suspect Israel will try to ethnically cleanse Egypt and Jordan as well? Of course, yes. But they will start with Lebanon clearly. What they would do in this future will be very similar to what they did with Hamas: do absolutely everything in their power to make sure that Lebanon and Syria are unstable and stay unstable, and then go, look guys, what can we do, Lebanon and Syria are unstable, we can't have a good relationship with them, we are forced to take some of their land in self-defense. They'll repeat that process as long as it works. How can I tell that this is likely, well I can because it's in line with how every far right endeavor has been attempted in history and today. You may have read in the US politics thread that Kwark thinks the Republicans are currently doing a racism. But it's weird, because, have you noticed that they only target illegal immigrants? So it's not a racism when you think about it, it's only a fight against illegals. Or like, that the Republicans hate LGBT people? Nah man, they're only going after trans people, not gay people, so it's unfair to say that they are against LGBT. You see how it works? You always focus on the most vulnerable group first, because the "most" anything is the most extreme part, and as an extreme they are less protected. But when you win, it's not the end, it's time to go after the next part. That's why we know that the far right isn't only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people. Now you could imagine someone who is only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people, of course. I'm even willing to say that I'm sure there are a few honest terfs, who are only transphobic and have nothing against lesbianism for instance. So how do we determine what we're dealing with? Well it's easy, we look at the context. Is it likely that Republicans are only against illegal immigrants? Well, their current strategy is a direct descendant of the southern strategy, in which they were trying to get votes by appealing to racists in the wake of the advances of civil rights for black people. Black people aren't illegal immigrants, are they. So clearly the strategy book that is being followed goes further than illegal immigrants, they're just targeted as the most vulnerable group currently. If they're "successfully dealt with", we'll hear more about black crime statistics and skull shapes, obviously. Similarly, the main hatred against trans people in conservative America is rooted in religious beliefs against non-normative sexualities, and that entails everything from L to T, so that's why we know that gay people aren't safe. How do you translate that to Israel? Well, the same applies. Check out the propaganda that Ren has been fed: Israel is surrounded by enemies and is fighting for survival in this hostile environment. It's not just this small issue with Palestine and once it's fixed we can all live in harmony, it's all the surrounding arab nations that are filled with antisemitic animals and need to be taught a lesson in who is the strongest from time to time. Once Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing in this sentence has changed, the "border" is just in a different place. It is functionally the same as declaring that Poland is safe because Russia is currently only going after Ukraine. To what extent do you think Israel would continue to expand? Are you saying this is all specific to Arab nations, or do you think Israel has similar ambitions to the big 3? I want to better understand the disconnect between our assumptions.
Do you mean within a realistic framework? There's no shot that Israel would be in a position to claim land that doesn't belong to an Arab nation in the foreseeable future unless many other things about the world have changed.
|
On February 12 2025 02:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:On February 10 2025 21:16 stilt wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
So not only you don't understand what I am writing but you don't get either what you're implying with this analogy, amazing. Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect. If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious. Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't. No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes. I have a different theory, I don't think you're scared at all, I think you're a little angry because nobody answered your recent attempts at baiting the forum into bad discussions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). You finally got a few people to answer you with "whAt if IsrAel waS coMmuNisT???", but clearly that wasn't enough because nobody reacted to your subsequent insults. Since you're not getting enough attention, you're lashing out, much like a small child would. And lashing out against me or GH by lying about what we believe is an old classic for you because as we know, you're JimmiC and you've been doing that for a decade at this point. You are clearly the one lashing out, I guess the truth really hurts. I would like you to examine your beliefs that is why I keep asking these questions. But you are unwilling and instead keep writing out anti-semitic tropes. That is not because of me, it is because of you.
We can tell that this isn't true because none of the posts I pointed out were directed at me, so clearly you don't "keep asking these questions" because you "want me to examine my beliefs".
|
On February 12 2025 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:On February 10 2025 22:47 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Thank you for admitting it was your assumption you are treating as fact. The big problem (and you are far from the only one) is we never get anywhere because people are assuming a questions means this, and generally as awful a thing as we can think of if that person is not on your team. The opposite when they are on your team, the assumption is agreeing on everything, which is also incorrect.
If I ask you if your favorite colour is green, that just means I'm curious if green is your favorite colour, end stop. It doesn't mean my favorite colour is green, or red. It could be any number of colours. I'm asking to find out not to trick, and then I'll ask different questions depending on the answer because I'm curious.
Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic. But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies. While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns. You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't. No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes. I have a different theory, I don't think you're scared at all, I think you're a little angry because nobody answered your recent attempts at baiting the forum into bad discussions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). You finally got a few people to answer you with "whAt if IsrAel waS coMmuNisT???", but clearly that wasn't enough because nobody reacted to your subsequent insults. Since you're not getting enough attention, you're lashing out, much like a small child would. And lashing out against me or GH by lying about what we believe is an old classic for you because as we know, you're JimmiC and you've been doing that for a decade at this point. You are clearly the one lashing out, I guess the truth really hurts. I would like you to examine your beliefs that is why I keep asking these questions. But you are unwilling and instead keep writing out anti-semitic tropes. That is not because of me, it is because of you. We can tell that this isn't true because none of the posts I pointed out were directed at me, so clearly you don't "keep asking these questions" because you "want me to examine my beliefs".
I do want you to, and others who are reading it as well. You just won't, when was the last time you gave a good faith answer to me? Hell you defense of your one trope is ultra close to the good Jew bad Jew trope. I don't think you're consciously anti-Semitic, you just believe anti-Semitic tropes to be facts and not conspiracy theories.
|
On February 12 2025 02:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2025 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2025 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
I disagree, I think there's a need because I've just spent the last year arguing with a bunch of idiots and racists that Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and now that it's obvious even to them that they do, it looks like we're smoothly transitioning to "Once they've ethnically cleansed Palestine it'll be all over". So before I engage with this new silliness I want to know if this one is going to stick or if we'll be off to the next excuse when I'm proven right again. I think if Israel can have the same relationship with Syria+Lebanon as they do with Egypt+Jordan, they will not ethnically cleanse Syria+Lebanon. I don't know enough to say whether that is achievable or not, but I do see Egypt and Jordan as examples of Arab nations that Israel shows no interest in ethnically cleansing. Is it that you suspect Israel will try to ethnically cleanse Egypt and Jordan as well? Of course, yes. But they will start with Lebanon clearly. What they would do in this future will be very similar to what they did with Hamas: do absolutely everything in their power to make sure that Lebanon and Syria are unstable and stay unstable, and then go, look guys, what can we do, Lebanon and Syria are unstable, we can't have a good relationship with them, we are forced to take some of their land in self-defense. They'll repeat that process as long as it works. How can I tell that this is likely, well I can because it's in line with how every far right endeavor has been attempted in history and today. You may have read in the US politics thread that Kwark thinks the Republicans are currently doing a racism. But it's weird, because, have you noticed that they only target illegal immigrants? So it's not a racism when you think about it, it's only a fight against illegals. Or like, that the Republicans hate LGBT people? Nah man, they're only going after trans people, not gay people, so it's unfair to say that they are against LGBT. You see how it works? You always focus on the most vulnerable group first, because the "most" anything is the most extreme part, and as an extreme they are less protected. But when you win, it's not the end, it's time to go after the next part. That's why we know that the far right isn't only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people. Now you could imagine someone who is only against illegal immigrants, or only against trans people, of course. I'm even willing to say that I'm sure there are a few honest terfs, who are only transphobic and have nothing against lesbianism for instance. So how do we determine what we're dealing with? Well it's easy, we look at the context. Is it likely that Republicans are only against illegal immigrants? Well, their current strategy is a direct descendant of the southern strategy, in which they were trying to get votes by appealing to racists in the wake of the advances of civil rights for black people. Black people aren't illegal immigrants, are they. So clearly the strategy book that is being followed goes further than illegal immigrants, they're just targeted as the most vulnerable group currently. If they're "successfully dealt with", we'll hear more about black crime statistics and skull shapes, obviously. Similarly, the main hatred against trans people in conservative America is rooted in religious beliefs against non-normative sexualities, and that entails everything from L to T, so that's why we know that gay people aren't safe. How do you translate that to Israel? Well, the same applies. Check out the propaganda that Ren has been fed: Israel is surrounded by enemies and is fighting for survival in this hostile environment. It's not just this small issue with Palestine and once it's fixed we can all live in harmony, it's all the surrounding arab nations that are filled with antisemitic animals and need to be taught a lesson in who is the strongest from time to time. Once Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing in this sentence has changed, the "border" is just in a different place. It is functionally the same as declaring that Poland is safe because Russia is currently only going after Ukraine. To what extent do you think Israel would continue to expand? Are you saying this is all specific to Arab nations, or do you think Israel has similar ambitions to the big 3? I want to better understand the disconnect between our assumptions. Do you mean within a realistic framework? There's no shot that Israel would be in a position to claim land that doesn't belong to an Arab nation in the foreseeable future unless many other things about the world have changed.
I suppose within reasonable framework? I suppose all nations would prefer to control the whole planet if they had a magic wand? If nothing else, may as well for their own safety?
I’m just trying to have a conversation about what we think Israel’s actual goals are. You are saying Israel will just ethnically cleanse other nations after Palestinians are gone. I am asking for more specifics because I don’t understand why you think that. I explained they don’t seem to have any plans to do that with Egypt or Jordan. Are you saying you think Lebanon and Syria will be ethnically cleansed? Or just that Israel would ethnically cleanse them if they had a magic wand? Since we often have wildly different impressions of specific situations, I am trying to learn more about how you think to better understand why we seem to have such different predictions so often. We’ve both agreed Israel would leap at an opportunity to remove all Palestinians if they had a chance to do so. So we can agree sometimes. But with regards to Egypt and Jordan, it seems like we are operating with very different assumptions. So that’s why I’m asking for you to explain those to me. It’s of course up to you, but I’m just continuing the conversation. I’m not trying to spin you into some kinda gotcha. I just don’t understand.
|
On February 12 2025 02:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2025 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:32 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On February 12 2025 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2025 01:55 Billyboy wrote:On February 11 2025 22:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 11 2025 10:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2025 09:01 stilt wrote:
[quote]
Then why were you curious ? You're acting as if your question was asked in a vaccum. If that's really the case, you were off topic.
But no, you did ask on a thread about palestine-israel a question on how should react a communist country surrounded by fascist enemies.
While israel's justification for their action has been always about security concerns.
You deliberately use their exact argument with your analogy, it's not a bad assumption on my part, you're being dishonnest by ignoring the context in which it is asked. I think the detail you are missing is: Once this geographic situation is created, the results naturally lead from it. Its honestly very similar to the momentum of the conflict itself. A lot of the diplomatic issues between Israelis and Palestinians right now just comes down to not trusting each other. Because neither of them think they can trust the other, they are totally unwilling to make any actual vulnerability-inducing concessions. "How can Palestinians trust Israel after the last 80 years? Of course they will never accept Israel's existence. They have nothing to lose" also means Israelis can never trust Palestinians. If I knew someone thought I was 100% going to try to kill them, it would mean I could not trust that person, even if I had zero plans to kill them. They would try to kill me to prevent me from killing them. If October 7 meant Israel can never trust Gaza, and then Israel's response to Gaza meant Palestinians can never trust Israel, where does that even go? The sad reality of the conflict is that it is self-sustaining. It has so much momentum it can never feasibly end unless one of them leaves. The problem here is that once your friends are successful and they get Palestinians to leave, die or live as second class citizens, they're not going to, you know, stop there. They'll still be surrounded by subhuman Arabs who don't deserve to live, and they'll still be ruled by far right fascists who require war and insecurity in order to be legitimate as rulers. So what will happen then is that they'll try and get some of Lebanon, or some of Jordan, or some of Syria, or some of Egypt. Nothing is fixed. This anti-Semitic trope really needs to stop being posted here. Thank you to Kwark for putting it down so quickly. Very disappointing to see it again. No the Jews are not going to slowly take over the world if they are not stopped in Gaza, no matter what octopus drawing you have seen. Of course you are fully aware that I don't think the reason why Israel would be doing that is because they're Jewish, you're only pretending to believe that because you like to attack me and you don't care about slander. And of course because I'm making sense, you can't attack me for what I'm saying, you have to make things up. As you know, there are many Jews in Europe and America, and even some in Israel, who oppose what Israel is doing, and I consider them my friends and allies. It is extremely antisemitic to think that what we're talking about is a trait that is inherent to Jews and/or jewishness, so you would be a massive antisemite if you believed that. But clearly you don't. No I fully believe that is what you tell yourself and what your bubble tells you. Scary to watch someone get radicalized. All the people you speak about in the second paragraph are not repeating antisemtic tropes. I have a different theory, I don't think you're scared at all, I think you're a little angry because nobody answered your recent attempts at baiting the forum into bad discussions ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). You finally got a few people to answer you with "whAt if IsrAel waS coMmuNisT???", but clearly that wasn't enough because nobody reacted to your subsequent insults. Since you're not getting enough attention, you're lashing out, much like a small child would. And lashing out against me or GH by lying about what we believe is an old classic for you because as we know, you're JimmiC and you've been doing that for a decade at this point. You are clearly the one lashing out, I guess the truth really hurts. I would like you to examine your beliefs that is why I keep asking these questions. But you are unwilling and instead keep writing out anti-semitic tropes. That is not because of me, it is because of you. We can tell that this isn't true because none of the posts I pointed out were directed at me, so clearly you don't "keep asking these questions" because you "want me to examine my beliefs". I do want you to, and others who are reading it as well. You just won't, when was the last time you gave a good faith answer to me? Hell you defense of your one trope is ultra close to the good Jew bad Jew trope. I don't think you're consciously anti-Semitic, you just believe anti-Semitic tropes to be facts and not conspiracy theories.
The last time I gave a good faith answer to you is two days ago, when you asked "If Israel was communist and the surrounding countries were all fascists determined to kill every citizen, power dynamics are the same. How do you suggest Israel reacts?", and I answered "I think it should defend itself".
You don't think I'm antisemitic. It's possible that you desperately want me to be an antisemite because that would mean you are a better person than me, but you're not feeling it in your bones. At best you're trying to convince yourself, at worst you know you're full of it.
|
What percentage of Israeli's do you think want to kill all the "sub human" Arabs? What % of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis do think want to kill all the Jews? Why is one a major problem that needs to be stopped before it takes over the world and the others the good guys?
Edit: that was not a good faith answer, it was not an answer so I just stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
