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.
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.
Slippery slope fallacies are fallacies.
Would you say it is a slippery slope to claim that Republicans are racists because they're going after illegal immigrants? There are other people of color in the US and they're currently not going after them.
No, I would not say that. That situation is not comparable.
Why not?
Because it’s extremely different. You are not even attempting to debate in good faith here.
You can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then when they reject those words put the burden on them to explain why those aren’t their words. They’re not their words.
I never said they were your words. They were my words. It's a part of my long explanation post. Didn't you read it?
“Would you say” “No I would not”
Are we done here?
Are you okay? You said that you wouldn't say it because they aren't comparable, and I asked you why they aren't comparable in your opinion. I think they are comparable, which is why I compared them in my post. This is a straightforward interaction.
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.
Slippery slope fallacies are fallacies.
Would you say it is a slippery slope to claim that Republicans are racists because they're going after illegal immigrants? There are other people of color in the US and they're currently not going after them.
No, I would not say that. That situation is not comparable.
Why not?
Because it’s extremely different. You are not even attempting to debate in good faith here.
You can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then when they reject those words put the burden on them to explain why those aren’t their words. They’re not their words.
I never said they were your words. They were my words. It's a part of my long explanation post. Didn't you read it?
“Would you say” “No I would not”
Are we done here?
Are you okay? You said that you wouldn't say it because they aren't comparable, and I asked you why they aren't comparable in your opinion. I think they are comparable, which is why I compared them in my post. This is a straightforward interaction.
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.
Slippery slope fallacies are fallacies.
Would you say it is a slippery slope to claim that Republicans are racists because they're going after illegal immigrants? There are other people of color in the US and they're currently not going after them.
No, I would not say that. That situation is not comparable.
Why not?
Because it’s extremely different. You are not even attempting to debate in good faith here.
You can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then when they reject those words put the burden on them to explain why those aren’t their words. They’re not their words.
I never said they were your words. They were my words. It's a part of my long explanation post. Didn't you read it?
“Would you say” “No I would not”
Are we done here?
Are you okay? You said that you wouldn't say it because they aren't comparable, and I asked you why they aren't comparable in your opinion. I think they are comparable, which is why I compared them in my post. This is a straightforward interaction.
They’re not comparable.
Okay! I disagree with you. Have a nice day anyway.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: 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?
A high percentage in all of those cases. I have never said nor do I believe that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are good guys, you just made that up because you're lashing out and you don't care that you are dishonest. I care about stopping Israel more because Israel is responsible for more deaths (in all likelihood, several hundreds of thousands in the last year), is doing it with our support as the West, and by its actions is creating more support for these other groups.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: Edit: that was not a good faith answer, it was not an answer so I just stopped.
No it was a good faith answer, that's what I genuinely believe a communist nation should do if it was surrounded by fascist nations, lol. What do you think I believe it should do, if not that? Surrender? I believe in antifascism, I think violence against fascists is justified, I'll never waver from that.
I mean you said Hamas and the Palestinians were the same, which I totally disagree with. And you seem to think of them as the victims and not as participants. Israel is responsible for way less deaths than Iran, Russia, HTS, Turkey, hell maybe even the Kurds in the middle east. Come on now.
Hamas is got exactly what they wanted from Israel, they share blame for all of this.
Defend is not an answer it is a vague non answer a politician uses. Hell it is what Israel says they are doing.
I'm not quote farming, you know what you said and did so multiple times. And your second sentence is equally bad, you can't claim we've had some long history and then use and ignore it when you please. I mean you do, because you can't have a straightforward honest conversation because you have certain beliefs you would struggle to hide.
Neb I don't hate you, I could care less about you. I don't want other impressionable people to not know that you are writing anti-Semitic tropes and think that you have some actual evidence about a Jewish take over of the middle east.
And you are also saying that a similar % of Israelis, which include 2 million Arabs consider Arabs sub-human and want them all killed as Hamas? Again this is just obviously and completely false. When you say Israel you mean the Jewish ones, it is just that you also know that saying that would make you something you don't want to be. I'm suggesting that instead of using word games to try to keep yourself clean, you just stop spreading tropes and live in reality not the conspiracy rabbit hole.
Until you can come up with a quote I'm going to treat this as a blatant defamatory lie, which is in line with your general behavior.
You couldn't care less about me? Lol there must be like 15 people in your life that you've talked to more than me over the years. I have asked you several times to stop engaging with me, and when I tried to ignore you for a few months, you repeatedly answered most of my posts with lies and nonsense to try and bait me back into talking to you. This is also what you're doing with GH, who has been ignoring you for years and you're still harrassing him on the daily. I wish we lived in the world where you wouldn't care about me, this world is The Good Place.
When people live in conspiracy world, what happens is that they say things that are untrue, and then when reality proves them wrong they either deny it or move on to the next thing. This doesn't seem to match our experience in this thread, does it? You're the one who was adamant that Israel didn't want to ethnically cleanse Palestine. You're the one who thought Israel was only destroying the Gaza houses that were directly tied to Hamas. You're the one who keeps insisting I hate Jews even though that doesn't match my posts. You're the one who keeps being proven wrong, again and again.
You have quite the active fantasy life. When I look at threads created by JimmiC I see you and GH as the main posters. Looks to me like basically the opposite. But as far as GH as concerned, it is pretty safe to say he is awful. You just need to look to his response to Moodoh when he admits that he would value his own children's lives, pretty despicable response. He also loves genocide, just look at his "hilarious" joke about the Uighurs, heck maybe I was wrong about you and you laughed. I remember when you were young and not filled with hate, it is sad to see you now.
I might go to find the quote, but not today. The basic conversation was me saying it was not all Israelis and but rather a few and it was wrong for you to keep bringing up Israel and how I would never call out all Palestinians for what Hamas has done because I believe them to be victims. Your counter was that it would be fine for me to call them all Palestinians, and I confirmed and you doubled down. It is likely hard for you to remember this kind of thing because you post to win arguments instead of your beliefs.
If I had to bet why JimmiC had his account nuked it would be because of the many people who followed him around to insult him, then his last ban was from responding to likely not the only PM threatening him. Maybe he just didn't want to be DDOS'd by whoever was doing that.
And 15 people? Dude you need to get out more, I've talked to at least 100's more than you. I spend hours talking to other hockey parents every weekend which is more than you. And that is before you get to friends, family, co-workers, other parents of my kids friends, people I volunteer with. Your Narcissism runs really wild, if you stopped posting tomorrow I would not care. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm questioning your posts, mainly that I find very distasteful, especially this turn into extremism.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: 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?
A high percentage in all of those cases. I have never said nor do I believe that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are good guys, you just made that up because you're lashing out and you don't care that you are dishonest. I care about stopping Israel more because Israel is responsible for more deaths (in all likelihood, several hundreds of thousands in the last year), is doing it with our support as the West, and by its actions is creating more support for these other groups.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: Edit: that was not a good faith answer, it was not an answer so I just stopped.
No it was a good faith answer, that's what I genuinely believe a communist nation should do if it was surrounded by fascist nations, lol. What do you think I believe it should do, if not that? Surrender? I believe in antifascism, I think violence against fascists is justified, I'll never waver from that.
I mean you said Hamas and the Palestinians were the same, which I totally disagree with. And you seem to think of them as the victims and not as participants. Israel is responsible for way less deaths than Iran, Russia, HTS, Turkey, hell maybe even the Kurds in the middle east. Come on now.
Hamas is got exactly what they wanted from Israel, they share blame for all of this.
Defend is not an answer it is a vague non answer a politician uses. Hell it is what Israel says they are doing.
I'm not quote farming, you know what you said and did so multiple times. And your second sentence is equally bad, you can't claim we've had some long history and then use and ignore it when you please. I mean you do, because you can't have a straightforward honest conversation because you have certain beliefs you would struggle to hide.
Neb I don't hate you, I could care less about you. I don't want other impressionable people to not know that you are writing anti-Semitic tropes and think that you have some actual evidence about a Jewish take over of the middle east.
And you are also saying that a similar % of Israelis, which include 2 million Arabs consider Arabs sub-human and want them all killed as Hamas? Again this is just obviously and completely false. When you say Israel you mean the Jewish ones, it is just that you also know that saying that would make you something you don't want to be. I'm suggesting that instead of using word games to try to keep yourself clean, you just stop spreading tropes and live in reality not the conspiracy rabbit hole.
Until you can come up with a quote I'm going to treat this as a blatant defamatory lie, which is in line with your general behavior.
You couldn't care less about me? Lol there must be like 15 people in your life that you've talked to more than me over the years. I have asked you several times to stop engaging with me, and when I tried to ignore you for a few months, you repeatedly answered most of my posts with lies and nonsense to try and bait me back into talking to you. This is also what you're doing with GH, who has been ignoring you for years and you're still harrassing him on the daily. I wish we lived in the world where you wouldn't care about me, this world is The Good Place.
When people live in conspiracy world, what happens is that they say things that are untrue, and then when reality proves them wrong they either deny it or move on to the next thing. This doesn't seem to match our experience in this thread, does it? You're the one who was adamant that Israel didn't want to ethnically cleanse Palestine. You're the one who thought Israel was only destroying the Gaza houses that were directly tied to Hamas. You're the one who keeps insisting I hate Jews even though that doesn't match my posts. You're the one who keeps being proven wrong, again and again.
You have quite the active fantasy life. When I look at threads created by JimmiC I see you and GH as the main posters. Looks to me like basically the opposite. But as far as GH as concerned, it is pretty safe to say he is awful. You just need to look to his response to Moodoh when he admits that he would value his own children's lives, pretty despicable response. He also loves genocide, just look at his "hilarious" joke about the Uighurs, heck maybe I was wrong about you and you laughed. I remember when you were young and not filled with hate, it is sad to see you now.
I might go to find the quote, but not today. The basic conversation was me saying it was not all Israelis and but rather a few and it was wrong for you to keep bringing up Israel and how I would never call out all Palestinians for what Hamas has done because I believe them to be victims. Your counter was that it would be fine for me to call them all Palestinians, and I confirmed and you doubled down. It is likely hard for you to remember this kind of thing because you post to win arguments instead of your beliefs.
If I had to bet why JimmiC had his account nuked it would be because of the many people who followed him around to insult him, then his last ban was from responding to likely not the only PM threatening him. Maybe he just didn't want to be DDOS'd by whoever was doing that.
And 15 people? Dude you need to get out more, I've talked to at least 100's more than you. I spend hours talking to other hockey parents every weekend which is more than you. And that is before you get to friends, family, co-workers, other parents of my kids friends, people I volunteer with. Your Narcissism runs really wild, if you stopped posting tomorrow I would not care. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm questioning your posts, mainly that I find very distasteful, especially this turn into extremism.
So in this post you write "created by JimmiC" and you pretend that you're looking at these threads as an observer, and you muse about what "JimmiC had his account nuked for", but also you say that you "remember [me] when [I was] young", presumably if you aren't JimmiC you don't remember me when I was young because you weren't on this forum, so what's up with that? Don't you think you can drop this? Everyone knows who you are at this point.
Can't wait for you to bring back the quote. It looks a bit different from what you initially claimed already though, it doesn't look like I said Hamas and Palestinians are the same.
And yeah you're right I probably should get out more, but I'm a bit introverted. I don't like groups that much, I get shy when there's more than like four people. I usually feel drained when I spend a long time with others, even if they are my friends. I think if you care this little about my posts a good thing that you could try doing is not answering them. Much like I've been doing with yours when you don't have a firm grip on my balls. I think both of our lives would improve drastically and immediately, as would the general quality of this forum.
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.
I don't believe that controlling the whole planet makes you safer, if anything I believe the exact opposite. If you don't rule over others against their will, they have less reason to hate you. Also you're not "controlling" these lands, are you, you're taking them. It's not that Palestinians are becoming your subjects, they're erased from the picture. Bit different.
I already explained why I believe this: because it is in line with fascist ideology, and in line with the rhetoric of Israel. Israel isn't saying: "We have a small problem to deal with in Palestine and then we'll live in harmony", Israel is saying "We are surrounded by evil antisemitic human animals and we need to defend ourselves". If Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing about that sentence has changed, so it would be weird and illogical for Israel to stop everything at that point. Didn't you like that explanation? You quoted me saying all of this.
When Israel said they are surrounded by antisemitic governments/groups, I don't think they were including Egypt and Jordan in that. They've had good relations with both for a long time and I really just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. I agree they had those fears of Lebanon and Syria, but those situations had rapidly changed.
Do you see why I am pointing to Egypt and Jordan as evidence they are fine with coexisting so long as they do not pose a risk? For example, Israel is not continuing to blast through Syria to their full capability, despite being severely weakened. Same with Lebanon. They were blasting both Syria and Lebanon a whole lot recently despite being stronger than Gaza. So it doesn't look like they just focus on the weakest Arab group.
To be direct: I think Israel is just extremely intolerant of even mild military risk. They will completely wipe out any risk much more quickly than other nations. If the risk is small, they still focus on eliminating that risk until its gone. I think they label Egypt and Jordan as zero risk and they have no plans to invade either one. I think Israel will try to destroy Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, if things remain as they are. But I don't think they will try to destroy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey because all of those countries can be considered zero threat for either military or diplomatic reasons.
I think Israel gives the impression of being genocide-driven maniacs because they are comfortable being very cruel while they eliminate small risks. But I think history paints a clear picture that Israel prefers to not engage in conflict so long as they are not letting risks fester. But if they perceive even a small risk, F35s are in the air bombing the shit out of whatever that small risk is.
What do you believe contradicts what I said in your explanation? Egypt and Jordan are the group that is less vulnerable. They're like, I don't know, sex before marriage. So the conservatives are currently not doing anything against them, because that would not be smart. Instead they're going after the trans people, which is Palestinians, and if that's over they'll go after the gays and lesbians, Lebanon and Syria. If they succeed in all of that, they'll need a new enemy, and that new enemy might be sex before marriage. Of course if you look at the situation right now it doesn't look like Egypt is going to get attacked, or sex before marriage. That's the whole point of doing things this way, that's literally what you should be expecting. But, you can look at why Republicans are currently targeting trans people: to satisfy religious weirdos who hate non-normative sexualities and want control over women's bodies, and you can look at why Israel wants to take Arab land: because the far right needs an enemy to keep the population safe from in order to justify its power, and because of the colonialism and anti-arab racism that are at the roots of Israel as a project.
But then why were they going so nuts on Syria and Lebanon and then stopped? Why stop? This is by far the best possible opportunity for Israel to grab a whole bunch of Syria. They could do the same in Lebanon. I understand the model you are putting forth, but I think Israel pulling back from Syria and Lebanon does not fit the model. Both Syria and Lebanon paint the same picture as Jordan and Egypt: So long as the US guarantees they are not a military threat, Israel ignores them. Am I misunderstanding your model?
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.
I don't believe that controlling the whole planet makes you safer, if anything I believe the exact opposite. If you don't rule over others against their will, they have less reason to hate you. Also you're not "controlling" these lands, are you, you're taking them. It's not that Palestinians are becoming your subjects, they're erased from the picture. Bit different.
I already explained why I believe this: because it is in line with fascist ideology, and in line with the rhetoric of Israel. Israel isn't saying: "We have a small problem to deal with in Palestine and then we'll live in harmony", Israel is saying "We are surrounded by evil antisemitic human animals and we need to defend ourselves". If Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing about that sentence has changed, so it would be weird and illogical for Israel to stop everything at that point. Didn't you like that explanation? You quoted me saying all of this.
When Israel said they are surrounded by antisemitic governments/groups, I don't think they were including Egypt and Jordan in that. They've had good relations with both for a long time and I really just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. I agree they had those fears of Lebanon and Syria, but those situations had rapidly changed.
Do you see why I am pointing to Egypt and Jordan as evidence they are fine with coexisting so long as they do not pose a risk? For example, Israel is not continuing to blast through Syria to their full capability, despite being severely weakened. Same with Lebanon. They were blasting both Syria and Lebanon a whole lot recently despite being stronger than Gaza. So it doesn't look like they just focus on the weakest Arab group.
To be direct: I think Israel is just extremely intolerant of even mild military risk. They will completely wipe out any risk much more quickly than other nations. If the risk is small, they still focus on eliminating that risk until its gone. I think they label Egypt and Jordan as zero risk and they have no plans to invade either one. I think Israel will try to destroy Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, if things remain as they are. But I don't think they will try to destroy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey because all of those countries can be considered zero threat for either military or diplomatic reasons.
I think Israel gives the impression of being genocide-driven maniacs because they are comfortable being very cruel while they eliminate small risks. But I think history paints a clear picture that Israel prefers to not engage in conflict so long as they are not letting risks fester. But if they perceive even a small risk, F35s are in the air bombing the shit out of whatever that small risk is.
What do you believe contradicts what I said in your explanation? Egypt and Jordan are the group that is less vulnerable. They're like, I don't know, sex before marriage. So the conservatives are currently not doing anything against them, because that would not be smart. Instead they're going after the trans people, which is Palestinians, and if that's over they'll go after the gays and lesbians, Lebanon and Syria. If they succeed in all of that, they'll need a new enemy, and that new enemy might be sex before marriage. Of course if you look at the situation right now it doesn't look like Egypt is going to get attacked, or sex before marriage. That's the whole point of doing things this way, that's literally what you should be expecting. But, you can look at why Republicans are currently targeting trans people: to satisfy religious weirdos who hate non-normative sexualities and want control over women's bodies, and you can look at why Israel wants to take Arab land: because the far right needs an enemy to keep the population safe from in order to justify its power, and because of the colonialism and anti-arab racism that are at the roots of Israel as a project.
But then why were they going so nuts on Syria and Lebanon and then stopped? Why stop? This is by far the best possible opportunity for Israel to grab a whole bunch of Syria. They could do the same in Lebanon. I understand the model you are putting forth, but I think Israel pulling back from Syria and Lebanon does not fit the model. Both Syria and Lebanon paint the same picture as Jordan and Egypt: So long as the US guarantees they are not a military threat, Israel ignores them. Am I misunderstanding your model?
I think the expectation is that Trump will let Israel annex both Gaza and the West Bank, and Netanyahu wants all his forces available in case that comes to pass. Also they're still in Lebanon and Syria currently, they haven't pulled back as far as I know. There was a deadline for them withdrawing from Lebanon at the end of january and they didn't withdraw, and the last line in the timeline of this Wiki is about putting more settlements in the Golan Heights.
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.
I don't believe that controlling the whole planet makes you safer, if anything I believe the exact opposite. If you don't rule over others against their will, they have less reason to hate you. Also you're not "controlling" these lands, are you, you're taking them. It's not that Palestinians are becoming your subjects, they're erased from the picture. Bit different.
I already explained why I believe this: because it is in line with fascist ideology, and in line with the rhetoric of Israel. Israel isn't saying: "We have a small problem to deal with in Palestine and then we'll live in harmony", Israel is saying "We are surrounded by evil antisemitic human animals and we need to defend ourselves". If Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing about that sentence has changed, so it would be weird and illogical for Israel to stop everything at that point. Didn't you like that explanation? You quoted me saying all of this.
When Israel said they are surrounded by antisemitic governments/groups, I don't think they were including Egypt and Jordan in that. They've had good relations with both for a long time and I really just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. I agree they had those fears of Lebanon and Syria, but those situations had rapidly changed.
Do you see why I am pointing to Egypt and Jordan as evidence they are fine with coexisting so long as they do not pose a risk? For example, Israel is not continuing to blast through Syria to their full capability, despite being severely weakened. Same with Lebanon. They were blasting both Syria and Lebanon a whole lot recently despite being stronger than Gaza. So it doesn't look like they just focus on the weakest Arab group.
To be direct: I think Israel is just extremely intolerant of even mild military risk. They will completely wipe out any risk much more quickly than other nations. If the risk is small, they still focus on eliminating that risk until its gone. I think they label Egypt and Jordan as zero risk and they have no plans to invade either one. I think Israel will try to destroy Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, if things remain as they are. But I don't think they will try to destroy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey because all of those countries can be considered zero threat for either military or diplomatic reasons.
I think Israel gives the impression of being genocide-driven maniacs because they are comfortable being very cruel while they eliminate small risks. But I think history paints a clear picture that Israel prefers to not engage in conflict so long as they are not letting risks fester. But if they perceive even a small risk, F35s are in the air bombing the shit out of whatever that small risk is.
What do you believe contradicts what I said in your explanation? Egypt and Jordan are the group that is less vulnerable. They're like, I don't know, sex before marriage. So the conservatives are currently not doing anything against them, because that would not be smart. Instead they're going after the trans people, which is Palestinians, and if that's over they'll go after the gays and lesbians, Lebanon and Syria. If they succeed in all of that, they'll need a new enemy, and that new enemy might be sex before marriage. Of course if you look at the situation right now it doesn't look like Egypt is going to get attacked, or sex before marriage. That's the whole point of doing things this way, that's literally what you should be expecting. But, you can look at why Republicans are currently targeting trans people: to satisfy religious weirdos who hate non-normative sexualities and want control over women's bodies, and you can look at why Israel wants to take Arab land: because the far right needs an enemy to keep the population safe from in order to justify its power, and because of the colonialism and anti-arab racism that are at the roots of Israel as a project.
But then why were they going so nuts on Syria and Lebanon and then stopped? Why stop? This is by far the best possible opportunity for Israel to grab a whole bunch of Syria. They could do the same in Lebanon. I understand the model you are putting forth, but I think Israel pulling back from Syria and Lebanon does not fit the model. Both Syria and Lebanon paint the same picture as Jordan and Egypt: So long as the US guarantees they are not a military threat, Israel ignores them. Am I misunderstanding your model?
There are still on the buffer zone of the buffer zone in syria while occupying southern lebanon which they should had left on january 26th. And there are still occupying the west bank and colonizing the west bank. Zionism is a mix of colonialism and racism. Dunno why they would stop once the process of genocide is done, especially considering egypt and jordan are under brutal puppet regimes whose leaders are totally dependant of the west which gives his inconditionnal support whatever happens. The haschemites are part of the londonian jet set, they don't give a fuck about their subjects, all they care is securing wealth and have fun, they will eventually cooperate with whatever the us tells them to do as they have done since decades.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: 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?
A high percentage in all of those cases. I have never said nor do I believe that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are good guys, you just made that up because you're lashing out and you don't care that you are dishonest. I care about stopping Israel more because Israel is responsible for more deaths (in all likelihood, several hundreds of thousands in the last year), is doing it with our support as the West, and by its actions is creating more support for these other groups.
On February 12 2025 02:47 Billyboy wrote: Edit: that was not a good faith answer, it was not an answer so I just stopped.
No it was a good faith answer, that's what I genuinely believe a communist nation should do if it was surrounded by fascist nations, lol. What do you think I believe it should do, if not that? Surrender? I believe in antifascism, I think violence against fascists is justified, I'll never waver from that.
I mean you said Hamas and the Palestinians were the same, which I totally disagree with. And you seem to think of them as the victims and not as participants. Israel is responsible for way less deaths than Iran, Russia, HTS, Turkey, hell maybe even the Kurds in the middle east. Come on now.
Hamas is got exactly what they wanted from Israel, they share blame for all of this.
Defend is not an answer it is a vague non answer a politician uses. Hell it is what Israel says they are doing.
I'm not quote farming, you know what you said and did so multiple times. And your second sentence is equally bad, you can't claim we've had some long history and then use and ignore it when you please. I mean you do, because you can't have a straightforward honest conversation because you have certain beliefs you would struggle to hide.
Neb I don't hate you, I could care less about you. I don't want other impressionable people to not know that you are writing anti-Semitic tropes and think that you have some actual evidence about a Jewish take over of the middle east.
And you are also saying that a similar % of Israelis, which include 2 million Arabs consider Arabs sub-human and want them all killed as Hamas? Again this is just obviously and completely false. When you say Israel you mean the Jewish ones, it is just that you also know that saying that would make you something you don't want to be. I'm suggesting that instead of using word games to try to keep yourself clean, you just stop spreading tropes and live in reality not the conspiracy rabbit hole.
Until you can come up with a quote I'm going to treat this as a blatant defamatory lie, which is in line with your general behavior.
You couldn't care less about me? Lol there must be like 15 people in your life that you've talked to more than me over the years. I have asked you several times to stop engaging with me, and when I tried to ignore you for a few months, you repeatedly answered most of my posts with lies and nonsense to try and bait me back into talking to you. This is also what you're doing with GH, who has been ignoring you for years and you're still harrassing him on the daily. I wish we lived in the world where you wouldn't care about me, this world is The Good Place.
When people live in conspiracy world, what happens is that they say things that are untrue, and then when reality proves them wrong they either deny it or move on to the next thing. This doesn't seem to match our experience in this thread, does it? You're the one who was adamant that Israel didn't want to ethnically cleanse Palestine. You're the one who thought Israel was only destroying the Gaza houses that were directly tied to Hamas. You're the one who keeps insisting I hate Jews even though that doesn't match my posts. You're the one who keeps being proven wrong, again and again.
You have quite the active fantasy life. When I look at threads created by JimmiC I see you and GH as the main posters. Looks to me like basically the opposite. But as far as GH as concerned, it is pretty safe to say he is awful. You just need to look to his response to Moodoh when he admits that he would value his own children's lives, pretty despicable response. He also loves genocide, just look at his "hilarious" joke about the Uighurs, heck maybe I was wrong about you and you laughed. I remember when you were young and not filled with hate, it is sad to see you now.
I might go to find the quote, but not today. The basic conversation was me saying it was not all Israelis and but rather a few and it was wrong for you to keep bringing up Israel and how I would never call out all Palestinians for what Hamas has done because I believe them to be victims. Your counter was that it would be fine for me to call them all Palestinians, and I confirmed and you doubled down. It is likely hard for you to remember this kind of thing because you post to win arguments instead of your beliefs.
If I had to bet why JimmiC had his account nuked it would be because of the many people who followed him around to insult him, then his last ban was from responding to likely not the only PM threatening him. Maybe he just didn't want to be DDOS'd by whoever was doing that.
And 15 people? Dude you need to get out more, I've talked to at least 100's more than you. I spend hours talking to other hockey parents every weekend which is more than you. And that is before you get to friends, family, co-workers, other parents of my kids friends, people I volunteer with. Your Narcissism runs really wild, if you stopped posting tomorrow I would not care. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm questioning your posts, mainly that I find very distasteful, especially this turn into extremism.
So in this post you write "created by JimmiC" and you pretend that you're looking at these threads as an observer, and you muse about what "JimmiC had his account nuked for", but also you say that you "remember [me] when [I was] young", presumably if you aren't JimmiC you don't remember me when I was young because you weren't on this forum, so what's up with that? Don't you think you can drop this? Everyone knows who you are at this point.
Can't wait for you to bring back the quote. It looks a bit different from what you initially claimed already though, it doesn't look like I said Hamas and Palestinians are the same.
And yeah you're right I probably should get out more, but I'm a bit introverted. I don't like groups that much, I get shy when there's more than like four people. I usually feel drained when I spend a long time with others, even if they are my friends. I think if you care this little about my posts a good thing that you could try doing is not answering them. Much like I've been doing with yours when you don't have a firm grip on my balls. I think both of our lives would improve drastically and immediately, as would the general quality of this forum.
I'm no perfect angel, I don't mind poking at those who are dicks to me, and more so to those who are dicks to all. I'm not hiding, just ran an experiment, was not surprised with the result! And had to protect myself in real life, because I have one.
I've spent a lot more time answering your questions completely and honestly than you have mine. I've asked a whole bunch in this little exchange but you are more interested in your quest against me personally.
That is fine if you are introverted, I'd suspect that is true of most of the people here. It is still important to talk to people for your mental health and to help protect yourself against online manipulation. Nothing I say is ever going to change your mind on me, mainly because you believe what you believe regardless of what it is I say, but you have gone down a rabbit hole of hate. And your social media is going to continue to pull you down there.
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.
I don't believe that controlling the whole planet makes you safer, if anything I believe the exact opposite. If you don't rule over others against their will, they have less reason to hate you. Also you're not "controlling" these lands, are you, you're taking them. It's not that Palestinians are becoming your subjects, they're erased from the picture. Bit different.
I already explained why I believe this: because it is in line with fascist ideology, and in line with the rhetoric of Israel. Israel isn't saying: "We have a small problem to deal with in Palestine and then we'll live in harmony", Israel is saying "We are surrounded by evil antisemitic human animals and we need to defend ourselves". If Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing about that sentence has changed, so it would be weird and illogical for Israel to stop everything at that point. Didn't you like that explanation? You quoted me saying all of this.
When Israel said they are surrounded by antisemitic governments/groups, I don't think they were including Egypt and Jordan in that. They've had good relations with both for a long time and I really just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. I agree they had those fears of Lebanon and Syria, but those situations had rapidly changed.
Do you see why I am pointing to Egypt and Jordan as evidence they are fine with coexisting so long as they do not pose a risk? For example, Israel is not continuing to blast through Syria to their full capability, despite being severely weakened. Same with Lebanon. They were blasting both Syria and Lebanon a whole lot recently despite being stronger than Gaza. So it doesn't look like they just focus on the weakest Arab group.
To be direct: I think Israel is just extremely intolerant of even mild military risk. They will completely wipe out any risk much more quickly than other nations. If the risk is small, they still focus on eliminating that risk until its gone. I think they label Egypt and Jordan as zero risk and they have no plans to invade either one. I think Israel will try to destroy Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, if things remain as they are. But I don't think they will try to destroy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey because all of those countries can be considered zero threat for either military or diplomatic reasons.
I think Israel gives the impression of being genocide-driven maniacs because they are comfortable being very cruel while they eliminate small risks. But I think history paints a clear picture that Israel prefers to not engage in conflict so long as they are not letting risks fester. But if they perceive even a small risk, F35s are in the air bombing the shit out of whatever that small risk is.
What do you believe contradicts what I said in your explanation? Egypt and Jordan are the group that is less vulnerable. They're like, I don't know, sex before marriage. So the conservatives are currently not doing anything against them, because that would not be smart. Instead they're going after the trans people, which is Palestinians, and if that's over they'll go after the gays and lesbians, Lebanon and Syria. If they succeed in all of that, they'll need a new enemy, and that new enemy might be sex before marriage. Of course if you look at the situation right now it doesn't look like Egypt is going to get attacked, or sex before marriage. That's the whole point of doing things this way, that's literally what you should be expecting. But, you can look at why Republicans are currently targeting trans people: to satisfy religious weirdos who hate non-normative sexualities and want control over women's bodies, and you can look at why Israel wants to take Arab land: because the far right needs an enemy to keep the population safe from in order to justify its power, and because of the colonialism and anti-arab racism that are at the roots of Israel as a project.
But then why were they going so nuts on Syria and Lebanon and then stopped? Why stop? This is by far the best possible opportunity for Israel to grab a whole bunch of Syria. They could do the same in Lebanon. I understand the model you are putting forth, but I think Israel pulling back from Syria and Lebanon does not fit the model. Both Syria and Lebanon paint the same picture as Jordan and Egypt: So long as the US guarantees they are not a military threat, Israel ignores them. Am I misunderstanding your model?
I think the expectation is that Trump will let Israel annex both Gaza and the West Bank, and Netanyahu wants all his forces available in case that comes to pass. Also they're still in Lebanon and Syria currently, they haven't pulled back as far as I know. There was a deadline for them withdrawing from Lebanon at the end of january and they didn't withdraw, and the last line in the timeline of this Wiki is about putting more settlements in the Golan Heights.
I suppose I mean why not just keep pushing ahead and keep up the airstrikes if there is still so much land to be grabbed. They are keeping everything they gained but they aren't continuing on. They had plenty of capability to keep going and they stopped. That doesn't mean Israel is peaceful or ethical, but I think it does indicate they aren't focused on just wiping out as much Arab land as possible. There was a point where Israel had Lebanon in a very bad position and stopped air raids. The same is also true of Syria. The situation was much more 1-sided with Syria and they still let up.
I don't think its reasonable to say they only let up the air strikes because of Gaza and West Bank. These strikes calmed down months ago. Trump has been authorizing all sorts of aid and weapons sales to Israel while this whole "seize Gaza" stuff has been going on. This is all very inconsistent with your model of Israel being focused on just taking out as many Arab nations as possible while they are weak.
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.
I don't believe that controlling the whole planet makes you safer, if anything I believe the exact opposite. If you don't rule over others against their will, they have less reason to hate you. Also you're not "controlling" these lands, are you, you're taking them. It's not that Palestinians are becoming your subjects, they're erased from the picture. Bit different.
I already explained why I believe this: because it is in line with fascist ideology, and in line with the rhetoric of Israel. Israel isn't saying: "We have a small problem to deal with in Palestine and then we'll live in harmony", Israel is saying "We are surrounded by evil antisemitic human animals and we need to defend ourselves". If Palestine is ethnically cleansed, nothing about that sentence has changed, so it would be weird and illogical for Israel to stop everything at that point. Didn't you like that explanation? You quoted me saying all of this.
When Israel said they are surrounded by antisemitic governments/groups, I don't think they were including Egypt and Jordan in that. They've had good relations with both for a long time and I really just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. I agree they had those fears of Lebanon and Syria, but those situations had rapidly changed.
Do you see why I am pointing to Egypt and Jordan as evidence they are fine with coexisting so long as they do not pose a risk? For example, Israel is not continuing to blast through Syria to their full capability, despite being severely weakened. Same with Lebanon. They were blasting both Syria and Lebanon a whole lot recently despite being stronger than Gaza. So it doesn't look like they just focus on the weakest Arab group.
To be direct: I think Israel is just extremely intolerant of even mild military risk. They will completely wipe out any risk much more quickly than other nations. If the risk is small, they still focus on eliminating that risk until its gone. I think they label Egypt and Jordan as zero risk and they have no plans to invade either one. I think Israel will try to destroy Yemen, Iran, and Iraq, if things remain as they are. But I don't think they will try to destroy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey because all of those countries can be considered zero threat for either military or diplomatic reasons.
I think Israel gives the impression of being genocide-driven maniacs because they are comfortable being very cruel while they eliminate small risks. But I think history paints a clear picture that Israel prefers to not engage in conflict so long as they are not letting risks fester. But if they perceive even a small risk, F35s are in the air bombing the shit out of whatever that small risk is.
What do you believe contradicts what I said in your explanation? Egypt and Jordan are the group that is less vulnerable. They're like, I don't know, sex before marriage. So the conservatives are currently not doing anything against them, because that would not be smart. Instead they're going after the trans people, which is Palestinians, and if that's over they'll go after the gays and lesbians, Lebanon and Syria. If they succeed in all of that, they'll need a new enemy, and that new enemy might be sex before marriage. Of course if you look at the situation right now it doesn't look like Egypt is going to get attacked, or sex before marriage. That's the whole point of doing things this way, that's literally what you should be expecting. But, you can look at why Republicans are currently targeting trans people: to satisfy religious weirdos who hate non-normative sexualities and want control over women's bodies, and you can look at why Israel wants to take Arab land: because the far right needs an enemy to keep the population safe from in order to justify its power, and because of the colonialism and anti-arab racism that are at the roots of Israel as a project.
But then why were they going so nuts on Syria and Lebanon and then stopped? Why stop? This is by far the best possible opportunity for Israel to grab a whole bunch of Syria. They could do the same in Lebanon. I understand the model you are putting forth, but I think Israel pulling back from Syria and Lebanon does not fit the model. Both Syria and Lebanon paint the same picture as Jordan and Egypt: So long as the US guarantees they are not a military threat, Israel ignores them. Am I misunderstanding your model?
I think the expectation is that Trump will let Israel annex both Gaza and the West Bank, and Netanyahu wants all his forces available in case that comes to pass. Also they're still in Lebanon and Syria currently, they haven't pulled back as far as I know. There was a deadline for them withdrawing from Lebanon at the end of january and they didn't withdraw, and the last line in the timeline of this Wiki is about putting more settlements in the Golan Heights.
I suppose I mean why not just keep pushing ahead and keep up the airstrikes if there is still so much land to be grabbed. They are keeping everything they gained but they aren't continuing on. They had plenty of capability to keep going and they stopped. That doesn't mean Israel is peaceful or ethical, but I think it does indicate they aren't focused on just wiping out as much Arab land as possible. There was a point where Israel had Lebanon in a very bad position and stopped air raids. The same is also true of Syria. The situation was much more 1-sided with Syria and they still let up.
I don't think its reasonable to say they only let up the air strikes because of Gaza and West Bank. These strikes calmed down months ago. Trump has been authorizing all sorts of aid and weapons sales to Israel while this whole "seize Gaza" stuff has been going on. This is all very inconsistent with your model of Israel being focused on just taking out as many Arab nations as possible while they are weak.
Well it looks like Israel has a good shot at succeeding at ethnically cleansing Palestine, so if that comes to pass we'll have our answer then. If they stop there and live in peace with their neighbors, I'll have been wrong, and you'll have been right. If instead it turns out that Arabs are still a very big threat to Israel's existence because of their antisemitism, and that unfortunately forces Israel's hand and they have to take more land from the Arabs in self-defense, then I hope you'll remember this interaction.
If Trump can pull this off... I'm tellin' ya... talk about a wheeler//dealer.
This move will probably save the lives on many, many children who can not get proper medical care where they are in that war torn hell hole. Very heartwarming. Nice olive branch offered by the King. The King of Jordan is willing to discuss a plan with Trump. Good to see some movement by multiple sides of this conflict. Nice diplomacy by Trump.
Biden screwed it up. It'll be up to Donald Trump to fix it I guess?
On February 12 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:I spend hours talking to other hockey parents every weekend which is more than you.
OK, I'll bite. hockey parents? LOL. Thanks for the laughs man. Don't talk to your Rabbi about the moral questions that come to mind regarding Israel's recent maneuvres.... no sir.. go to a hockey game and survey a few fans. What does Don Cherry and Wayne Gretzky have to say about this whole thing?
How many people do you think are in gaza that will need to be resettled to depopulate the area for Isreal? My napkin math based on estimates say there was about 5 thousand kids being born a month in gaza before the war. The idea this is anywhere near a significant movement is delusional.
On February 12 2025 10:30 Sermokala wrote: How many people do you think are in gaza that will need to be resettled to depopulate the area for Isreal? My napkin math based on estimates say there was about 5 thousand kids being born a month in gaza before the war. The idea this is anywhere near a significant movement is delusional.
The point isn’t to actually resettle the population of Gaza to depopulate it, the point is to muddy the water between civilian and combatant even further so they can really engage in full ethnic cleansing to once and for all end Hamas under the guise of security. Also like to state the obvious that theoretically resettling a population like this still amounts to ethnic cleansing if people really think this is a truly “humane” solution to the conflict.
The General’s Plan was to use starvation tactics to forcefully move the civilian population out of Gaza so only theoretically enemy combatants are left to face the full brunt of the Israeli military. Like in Ukraine, you can’t just wave a magic wand and resettle people who don’t want to move from their homeland but the Israelis know this. They used this for a couple of months but obviously it isn’t that easy to starve out entrenched military organizations or even people who really don’t want to move to another state that want nothing to do with them.
There isn’t a lot of good English language content discussing the General’s Plan but Giora Eiland himself actually wrote an op-ed detailing his thought process shortly prior to the ceasefire.
He makes it pretty clear that he reckons they should have been even more genocidal earlier and this was a key reason why Hamas hasn’t been eliminated. The idea that the war should have been against the State of Gaza rather than Hamas would paint the general populace as complicit in Hamas' attacks and therefore undeserving of humanitarian aid. The push to “resettle” civilians in Gaza isn’t for humanitarian reasons, don’t make this mistake.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/the-star-trek-character-you-likely-didnt-realize-was-played-by-the-future-king-of-jordan/the-future-king-abdullah-ii-bin-al-hussein-1729626678.webp)
