|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On October 15 2026 00:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". I literally saw the post before you edited it.
Then you'd see the edit was that I changed "Jewish Underground" to "Makhteret" and inserted the word "systematic" before settler violence (since there was indeed violence before 1947, just in a less organized way).
Civil war is correct, as dyhb told you. The civil war in the Mandate displaced Arab/Muslim Palestinians. The civil war occurred because the UN ordered the Mandate to be divided. The Mandate was ordered to be divided because the Arabs/Muslims couldn't accept the Jews and their immigration (they were ~1/3 the pop).
Awful summary. Perhaps mention something like "Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946)". In fact, just read a Wikipedia page for a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
So the civil war, as tragic as that was, those people are largely not going to be undisplaced, in any possible future. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, displacing themselves.
You may very well be right about that part. Yet the demand of the international Palestinian movement is not the complete abolition of Israel. It's the end to Israel's apartheid treatment of Palestinians and illegal settlements.
|
On October 15 2026 00:48 oBlade wrote:
So the civil war, as tragic as that was, those people are largely not going to be undisplaced, in any possible future. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, displacing themselves.
How about we start with having them not take more land that is not currently theirs?
|
On October 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:48 oBlade wrote:On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". I literally saw the post before you edited it. Then you'd see the edit was that I changed "Jewish Underground" to "Makhteret" and inserted the word "systematic" before settler violence (since there was indeed violence before 1947, just in a less organized way). Show nested quote +Civil war is correct, as dyhb told you. The civil war in the Mandate displaced Arab/Muslim Palestinians. The civil war occurred because the UN ordered the Mandate to be divided. The Mandate was ordered to be divided because the Arabs/Muslims couldn't accept the Jews and their immigration (they were ~1/3 the pop). Awful summary. Perhaps mention something like "Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946)". In fact, just read a Wikipedia page for a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
Do you know that land is not people? That it's not even houses?
Opposed the very idea of partition means it wasn't going to be sunshine and rainbows even if Israel didn't get the other 20% of desert.
On October 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +So the civil war, as tragic as that was, those people are largely not going to be undisplaced, in any possible future. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, displacing themselves. You may very well be right about that part. Yet the demand of the international Palestinian movement is not the complete abolition of Israel. It's the end to Israel's apartheid treatment of Palestinians and illegal settlements.
And what is the plan of the "international Palestine movement" to achieve this? In my opinion paragliding over a different border 150km away from the alleged settlements to machinegun dancers didn't help.
On October 15 2026 01:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:48 oBlade wrote:
So the civil war, as tragic as that was, those people are largely not going to be undisplaced, in any possible future. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, displacing themselves. How about we start with having them not take more land that is not currently theirs?
I'm not going in a circle with you. If you think Israel wants to have to control Gaza forever, you don't know what's going on. If that's what they wanted they wouldn't have left.
|
Yeah, I mean, I don't really think anyone from any country would be "sunshine and rainbows" about the nations of the world agreeing to divvy up over half your homeland to the 33% of the population that's immigrants. In fact people tend to say and do even worse things to immigrants even if they legally own less than 6% of the land.
|
On October 15 2026 01:24 oBlade wrote:
I'm not going in a circle with you. If you think Israel wants to have to control Gaza forever, you don't know what's going on. If that's what they wanted they wouldn't have left.
This is you offering the opinion that they don't want to take more land. Instead of doing that, you could just agree that it would be good if Israel didn't take more land from Palestinians. Apparently you don't think they want to do it, so that's great, it's not costing you anything at all to agree with me.
|
I find it fascinating that this lil Nazi started getting ignored in the US politics thread and decided to come over here to spread his hateful shit here (and in the Russia / Ukraine thread).
Can you imagine if someone suggested to give a state to Mexicans living in Texas? I mean, he actually believes that and is happily cheering on rampart corruption as long as it comes with cruelty to immigrants because Tucker Carlson convinced him that "they" are trying to replace the "native" population with Brown people.
The irony is incredible.
Just reading these screeds second hand is giving me diarrhea.
|
It is curious that ~4%? 5%? of the US population being undocumented migrants is somehow such an apocalyptic catastrophe that MAGA had no choice but to vote for someone who quoted Adolf Hitler multiple times about immigrants to deal with it, but 33% of Palestine's population being immigrants that not only took 56% of the land but publicly promised to eventually take all of it (about the Peel Commission’s 1937 partition proposal: "I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine", David Ben Gurion) is just kind of a "meh, it happened" sort of thing. I wonder white the difference is.
|
On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot.
I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though.
On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004.
I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East.
|
Evangelical Christians make up roughly 23% to 25% of the US population (curiously about the same percentage of people who are into QANON), they literally think Trump is ordained by god, they have been cheering on every escalation and they also, literally believe that a conflict in Middle East will bring forward the end times.
It's a doomsday cult that is the most powerful political block on the planet, and they have an avatar of their choosing walking around with the nuclear football continuously escalating every conflict in the world.
They encouraged him and his to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, they along with Nethyanahu are the biggest cheer leaders of the attack on Iran, and there is a LOT of them, not that hard to find, unfortunately.
|
It's funny how much Trump looks like the Antichrist. It doubly ironic considering one of his biggest enablers goes on tours blabbering about the Antichrist.
|
On October 15 2026 02:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though. Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East.
Once again, the Palestinians have no agency. Nothing they do ever matters. It's pretty wild to say that the Palestinians don't deserve blame when they've continuously rejected peace and elected a terrorist group that's been launching attacks against civilians for 20 years. Not to mention actually launching the attack that started the broader conflict in the first place.
Also, Israel and the US mentioned in the same breath as Iran? Really? It's actually laughable. The Iranians have been funding proxies that have been destabilizing the region for years. Lebanon is a failed state because of Hezbollah. The Houthis have killed thousands in Yemen and turned that country into a failed state. Iran is funding militias in Iraq and was the chief benefactor behind Hamas. And then there's the little detail that they've been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon for decades. Oh, and the 30,000 or so of their own people that they've killed.
On October 6th, the Israelis were not in Gaza and not in Lebanon. They had pretty much let the Iranians build up these proxies next to them. Once 10/7 happened, the Israelis decided they weren't going to let these threats build up on their border anymore. And who knows, we may actually get to see a Lebanon that isn't completely beholden to Iran.
The problem in the Middle East has always been Islamist and jihadist ideologies (not "right wing politics" LOL). Iran is one of the worst purveyors of these toxic ideologies and the region is worse off for it. The sooner Iran's regime falls the better off everyone will be, including the Iranians themselves.
|
On October 15 2026 11:12 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though. On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East. Once again, the Palestinians have no agency. Nothing they do ever matters. It's pretty wild to say that the Palestinians don't deserve blame when they've continuously rejected peace and elected a terrorist group that's been launching attacks against civilians for 20 years. Not to mention actually launching the attack that started the broader conflict in the first place. Also, Israel and the US mentioned in the same breath as Iran? Really? It's actually laughable. The Iranians have been funding proxies that have been destabilizing the region for years. Lebanon is a failed state because of Hezbollah. The Houthis have killed thousands in Yemen and turned that country into a failed state. Iran is funding militias in Iraq and was the chief benefactor behind Hamas. And then there's the little detail that they've been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon for decades. Oh, and the 30,000 or so of their own people that they've killed. On October 6th, the Israelis were not in Gaza and not in Lebanon. They had pretty much let the Iranians build up these proxies next to them. Once 10/7 happened, the Israelis decided they weren't going to let these threats build up on their border anymore. And who knows, we may actually get to see a Lebanon that isn't completely beholden to Iran. The problem in the Middle East has always been Islamist and jihadist ideologies (not "right wing politics" LOL). Iran is one of the worst purveyors of these toxic ideologies and the region is worse off for it. The sooner Iran's regime falls the better off everyone will be, including the Iranians themselves.
Sorry, you think Hamas was elected? Do you think Gaza is a democracy?
And yes, those are the reasons I blame Iran.
Why is it so you think that Netanyahu let Hamas have a much longer leash than the PLO?
And the US it’s there constant fuckery without a plan. They had an opportunity to actually do something successful in Iran, or keep the original nuclear deal. They also could stop supporting Irans greatest ally and military supplier.
That’s just the Cole’s notes.
Side note is I find it super funny that the MIGA claim that I’m a pro Israel stooge and the MAGA claim I’m a crazed far lefty. Hmm I wonder who’s correct? Might just mean I’m reasonable, who knows.
|
On October 15 2026 11:17 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 15 2026 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though. On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East. Once again, the Palestinians have no agency. Nothing they do ever matters. It's pretty wild to say that the Palestinians don't deserve blame when they've continuously rejected peace and elected a terrorist group that's been launching attacks against civilians for 20 years. Not to mention actually launching the attack that started the broader conflict in the first place. Also, Israel and the US mentioned in the same breath as Iran? Really? It's actually laughable. The Iranians have been funding proxies that have been destabilizing the region for years. Lebanon is a failed state because of Hezbollah. The Houthis have killed thousands in Yemen and turned that country into a failed state. Iran is funding militias in Iraq and was the chief benefactor behind Hamas. And then there's the little detail that they've been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon for decades. Oh, and the 30,000 or so of their own people that they've killed. On October 6th, the Israelis were not in Gaza and not in Lebanon. They had pretty much let the Iranians build up these proxies next to them. Once 10/7 happened, the Israelis decided they weren't going to let these threats build up on their border anymore. And who knows, we may actually get to see a Lebanon that isn't completely beholden to Iran. The problem in the Middle East has always been Islamist and jihadist ideologies (not "right wing politics" LOL). Iran is one of the worst purveyors of these toxic ideologies and the region is worse off for it. The sooner Iran's regime falls the better off everyone will be, including the Iranians themselves. Sorry, you think Hamas was elected? Do you think Gaza is a democracy? And yes, those are the reasons I blame Iran. Why is it so you think that Netanyahu let Hamas have a much longer leash than the PLO? And the US it’s there constant fuckery without a plan. They had an opportunity to actually do something successful in Iran, or keep the original nuclear deal. They also could stop supporting Irans greatest ally and military supplier. That’s just the Cole’s notes. Side note is I find it super funny that the MIGA claim that I’m a pro Israel stooge and the MAGA claim I’m a crazed far lefty. Hmm I wonder who’s correct? Might just mean I’m reasonable, who knows.
Obviously it isn't a democracy, but can we please not kid ourselves that Hamas and its ideology don't have widespread support in Gaza and the West Bank please? On 10/7 it wasn't just Hamas fighters entering Israel. Support for radical extremism continues to be the biggest barrier to peace and the Palestinians have a problem with that.
There are simple explanations for Netanyahu's policies, which is that Hamas has widespread support among the population and the PLO doesn't, and that he didn't want to get involved in exactly the kind of conflict in Gaza that we had for the past three years. I will remind you that he has launched operations against Hamas in the past (remember Protective Edge in 2014?). I guess I'm kind of bewildered why the Israelis are warmongers when they were the ones who were attacked.
Can you explain "they had an opportunity to actually do something successful in Iran"? Keeping the original deal is debatable. I agree with you on giving concessions to the Russians in the name of lowering fuel prices (if that's what you mean), that's indefensible. That pales in comparison to the decades of damage the Iranians have done to the region.
I'm not MAGA and I don't think you're a crazed leftist btw. I just think it's important to diagnose the problems in the region correctly.
|
On October 15 2026 11:17 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 15 2026 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though. On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East. Once again, the Palestinians have no agency. Nothing they do ever matters. It's pretty wild to say that the Palestinians don't deserve blame when they've continuously rejected peace and elected a terrorist group that's been launching attacks against civilians for 20 years. Not to mention actually launching the attack that started the broader conflict in the first place. Also, Israel and the US mentioned in the same breath as Iran? Really? It's actually laughable. The Iranians have been funding proxies that have been destabilizing the region for years. Lebanon is a failed state because of Hezbollah. The Houthis have killed thousands in Yemen and turned that country into a failed state. Iran is funding militias in Iraq and was the chief benefactor behind Hamas. And then there's the little detail that they've been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon for decades. Oh, and the 30,000 or so of their own people that they've killed. On October 6th, the Israelis were not in Gaza and not in Lebanon. They had pretty much let the Iranians build up these proxies next to them. Once 10/7 happened, the Israelis decided they weren't going to let these threats build up on their border anymore. And who knows, we may actually get to see a Lebanon that isn't completely beholden to Iran. The problem in the Middle East has always been Islamist and jihadist ideologies (not "right wing politics" LOL). Iran is one of the worst purveyors of these toxic ideologies and the region is worse off for it. The sooner Iran's regime falls the better off everyone will be, including the Iranians themselves. Sorry, you think Hamas was elected? Do you think Gaza is a democracy?
All this time and you don't know that Hamas was voted into power.
On October 15 2026 11:17 Billyboy wrote:
And yes, those are the reasons I blame Iran.
Why is it so you think that Netanyahu let Hamas have a much longer leash than the PLO?
And the US it’s there constant fuckery without a plan. They had an opportunity to actually do something successful in Iran, or keep the original nuclear deal. They also could stop supporting Irans greatest ally and military supplier.
The JCPOA nuclear provisions would have sunset in 2026 (this year) and 2031. If you think Iran's missile and drone shield was bad earlier this year, imagine what you'd be dealing with in 2031 if you drank the it's okay they're negotiating kool-aid. All of a sudden you reach a point where they don't need to "negotiate" anymore.
|
@Nebu
As I said before... it is multifactorial. Ideologies don't develop in a vacuum. Historical grievances, displacement, recurring violence, disillusionment with alternative political movements, failed peace efforts, establishment of social institutions, religious traditions, indoctrination from a young age, the promise of martyrdoms benefits and the suppression of alternatives... all of these can contribute to the appeal of an ideology. I think Hamas' ideology draws on most of these factors, as well as the unsolved refugee status, the failure of establishing a state and of course settlements (although this is exclusively happening in the West Bank and not Gaza since over 20 years). And since 3 years disastrous living conditions for which Hamas' conduct ironically is the main reason as the conflict was escalated to absurd levels.
But I don't see how that contradicts my argument. If you're suggesting that Hamas's popularity is largely a product of the historical circumstances Palestinians find themselves in, I'm perfectly willing to consider that. It still doesn't follow that describing October 7th simply as a response to Israeli actions is an adequate explanation of Hamas' conduct.
You're asking why an ideology gained adherents. I'm asking what that ideology entails, how it shapes Hamas' objectives, and how it informs the decisions the organization makes. Those questions are related, but they're not interchangeable. An ideology can gain popularity partly because of historical grievances while also shaping how those grievances are interpreted, what political objectives are pursued, and which methods are considered legitimate.
Even if we established that Israeli policy was the principal reason for Hamas' popularity, that still wouldn't establish that Israeli policy sufficiently explains Hamas' particular objectives or its decision to attack civilians.
I'd also point out that Hamas isn't the only movement to have developed an anti-Israel ideology and used violence against Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran-backed militias in Iraq provide comparative cases, despite their different national contexts.
That doesn't mean their motivations are identical, or that religion alone explains their conduct. But it does suggest that opposition to Israel and the adoption of armed struggle cannot be understood exclusively through the particular grievances of Palestinians. We need to examine the interaction between historical grievances, ideology, political institutions, geopolitical alliances and strategic objectives. With your argumentation, you semm to be looking only through the lense of Israeli policy. And that's precisely why I think describing October 7th simply as a response to Israeli policy is reductive. It may identify a genuine causal relationship without providing a sufficient explanation of Hamas' conduct.
So I'm happy to discuss why the ideology became popular. But I don't see why answering that question establishes that an explanation of Hamas as merely reacting to Israel isn't reductive. The relevant question is whether the additional factors I've mentioned improve our understanding of Hamas' objectives and actions, and if so, how they can be accounted for in your explanation.
And I'd still like an answer to the question I asked earlier, because I think it gets to the heart of this issue:
Do you think Hamas would stop using violence if Israeli policy changed substantially, provided Israel continued to exist? Or do you think it would continue pursuing its objectives through violence regardless of those changes?
|
The tactic o plugging your ears and going lalalala to ignore facts consistently presented pstating that last election in Gaza was in 2004 and median age being 18 and continuing writing stupid esseys defending Trump and Nethyanahu is really something!
Again, for the slow ones who keep ignoring this fact, 2004 + 18 = 2022.
Today is 2026, October 7th was in 2023.
Hamas military wing (as per IDF) was around 40.000 strong at the time of the attack.
Israel killed 80.000 + in Gaza so far.
One of these 80.000 was the mom of this girl:
This girl watched her mom burn alive after IDF air striked an apartment building just the other day.
Her mom was 33, at the time of last elections in Gaza she was 10, so, naturally, Israel has the right to murder her as revenge for October 7th.
|
Posting individual cases is really easy. I also watched an Israeli head dragged through the streets behind a moped after 7 oct. And some girls hiding at the festival before the Gazans found them and they were killed. Their family members have possibly seen those too. And those cases were not collateral.
|
That girl's mother would be alive if Hamas disarmed, surrendered, and left power. She would even be alive if Hamas was still in power in Gaza but hadn't gone apeshit on October 7th.
|
On October 15 2026 19:08 aseq wrote:
Posting individual cases is really easy. I also watched an Israeli head dragged through the streets behind a moped after 7 oct. And some girls hiding at the festival before the Gazans found them and they were killed. Their family members have possibly seen those too. And those cases were not collateral.
Did you watch that yesterday?
Does that make it OK to keep on blowing up tens of thousands of civilians 3 years later? Were they killed by weapons supplied by our governments?
Nothing about this is easy, except the ease you guys have for dismissing unfathomable suffering of people who don't look like you.
Pretty ghoulish that you see a 3 year old who watched their mother die in front of her and your first instinct is to talk about things that have nothing to do with it while calling it easy to post this stuff, by the way.
|
On October 15 2026 13:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 11:17 Billyboy wrote:On October 15 2026 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 15 2026 02:35 Billyboy wrote:On October 15 2026 00:10 LightSpectra wrote:On October 15 2026 00:03 oBlade wrote:On October 14 2026 23:45 dyhb wrote:On October 14 2026 22:05 LightSpectra wrote:
I love engaging with you dyhb. If I want to hear every possible sentence in the English language except the answer to the question I directly asked, you always hook me up without delay.
But no, not correct. Systematic settler violence began 30 November 1947 (or, if you want to talk about it in its "modern" form, Makhteret was formed in 1979). Hamas was founded in 1987. Oh, the civil war is just more settler violence. And predating the state of Israel. Never change, LightSpectra. It's an edited post, he probably thought "settler violence" just meant badthingsJews/Israelisdo rather than the violence where the settlers are settling settlements, which is in the West Bank, which can only happen after Israel gets the West Bank from Jordan, then looked it up and realized he should put a fact in parentheses. Thank you so much for this post, oBlade. If I ever notice one of your comments is edited, I'm going to assume you made the dumbest error possible, since projecting is your favorite pastime. I'll even remind you of your own bad faith assumption. Do you have a better term to describe Israelis stealing houses and land from Arabs outside of the West Bank? If it's reasonable, I'm happy to use it in addition to the phrase "settler violence". On October 15 2026 00:04 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:On October 14 2026 23:53 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:
That's definitely part of it. There's also a mentality of "the psychopaths are the only people who stand up for us while our children are bombed and our houses stolen, we have no choice but to rely on them".
It is in fact possible to say terrorism and war crimes are bad, yet that doesn't retroactively justify all the evil things done to the side doing terrorism and war crimes. (Especially if the other side is also committing terrorism and war crimes too, which Israel definitely is.) The Western Allies of WWII committed many war crimes, but they were still unequivocally the morally superior side in the war; no sane person would say "the bombing of Dresden & Balkan partisans executing civilians means we should have supplied weapons to Germany and Italy". I’m mostly concerned with what is a possible and positive end game. If Gaza and the west bank were named independent countries today, I don’t believe it would get better for the people. Between the location, demographics, lack of infrastructure (that was a problem before and is now horrific), political situation, and so on there seems no light at the end of the tunnel. It seems like Iran and Israel’s monsters are going to keep using them as fodder for their own political gain well into the future. And even if they don’t, how would Palestinians ever support themselves there? And who’s going to take a radicalized, uneducated millions of refugees. It seems very hopeless. It may very well be hopeless no matter what we do. But I think if the US cut off their aid to Israel, Israel would be forced to be less performatively evil to Palestinians, and that would lessen the radicalization of everyone against Israel. It wouldn't fix all the problems in the area (not by a long shot) but it would be a good start. Incidentally it would also decrease antisemitism outside of Israel because that would dampen a lot of "why are sending billions of free shit to Israel while our own people are impoverished" rhetoric. Stopping the sending of offensive weapons would make a big difference now doubt, Canada did that some time ago. I think we should continue to send defensive weapons as I’m not looking for Israelis to die either. I wish the US had a smart leader and actually handled Iran well, it seemed like everyone else in the region was looking to get along, at least behind closed doors, start normalizing relations and moving toward an era where everyone isn’t always on the brink of war. Israel is a wealthy country. They can afford their own "defensive" weapons if they need to. Or perhaps they could bargain for them contingent upon withdrawing their illegal settlements and whatnot. I’m pretty sure it was sales that were cut off, I could be wrong but I don’t believe Canada donated weapons to Israel. Some sales are still making it to Israel though the US though. On October 15 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote:On October 15 2026 00:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 14 2026 23:55 Jankisa wrote:
It's the same logic that they understand, mostly, when we are talking about the war in Ukraine.
Why was Azov popular, they have Nazi members and use Nazi symbolism. Because they are effective in defending the country against invaders from Russia, from 2014 onward.
Why is (or was) Hamas popular. Because they are the only ones doing anything to fight back against Israel when they take land, kill and maim the population.
In neither of these cases religion, fundamentalism or anything else is needed. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The phrase is from 1974, it was referring to the Troubles, there is a reason why Irish get the Palestinian plight. I’m not sure if I can find it again, but when this started (like pre oct 7 not pre ww2.) Hamas was losing popularity and wasn’t that popular. Gaza was mostly being left alone as Netanyahu thought the PLA and there want of a two state solution was more dangerous. Hamas still had its grip as they would ruthlessly and publicly kill anyone who disagreed but life in Gaza was actually better than some of the more awful places in the Middle East like Yemen and Syria. Hamas is popular in the same way as Kim is popular, you are indoctrinated from birth and if you disagree you die. Yes, life was better, things were trending in a better direction, and then Nethyanahu and Trump came along and fucked everything up. Trump by blowing up Iran's top general and war hero on the tarmac in Iraq as a lame duck president on his way out, triggering Iran going all in on financing it's proxy forces in Hamas, Hezbolah and Houtis. Nethyanahu by escalating settler violence and going after one of the most holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/10/dozens-injured-in-clashes-over-israeli-settlements-ahead-of-jerusalem-day-marchSince then, everything has been down hill, again, as a result of right wing politics on all sides. I'm personally more inclined to blame the democratic states which actually went ahead and voted the war mongers in then the population of Gaza which is of median age of 18 and live in a place where last elections were held in 2004. I put very little blame if any on the residents of Gaza or the west bank. Big portion Iran, Israel and US, with the US impact growing. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone remotely unbiased that would say Trump admin had helped in the Middle East. Once again, the Palestinians have no agency. Nothing they do ever matters. It's pretty wild to say that the Palestinians don't deserve blame when they've continuously rejected peace and elected a terrorist group that's been launching attacks against civilians for 20 years. Not to mention actually launching the attack that started the broader conflict in the first place. Also, Israel and the US mentioned in the same breath as Iran? Really? It's actually laughable. The Iranians have been funding proxies that have been destabilizing the region for years. Lebanon is a failed state because of Hezbollah. The Houthis have killed thousands in Yemen and turned that country into a failed state. Iran is funding militias in Iraq and was the chief benefactor behind Hamas. And then there's the little detail that they've been trying to acquire a nuclear weapon for decades. Oh, and the 30,000 or so of their own people that they've killed. On October 6th, the Israelis were not in Gaza and not in Lebanon. They had pretty much let the Iranians build up these proxies next to them. Once 10/7 happened, the Israelis decided they weren't going to let these threats build up on their border anymore. And who knows, we may actually get to see a Lebanon that isn't completely beholden to Iran. The problem in the Middle East has always been Islamist and jihadist ideologies (not "right wing politics" LOL). Iran is one of the worst purveyors of these toxic ideologies and the region is worse off for it. The sooner Iran's regime falls the better off everyone will be, including the Iranians themselves. Sorry, you think Hamas was elected? Do you think Gaza is a democracy? All this time and you don't know that Hamas was voted into power.Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 11:17 Billyboy wrote:
And yes, those are the reasons I blame Iran.
Why is it so you think that Netanyahu let Hamas have a much longer leash than the PLO?
And the US it’s there constant fuckery without a plan. They had an opportunity to actually do something successful in Iran, or keep the original nuclear deal. They also could stop supporting Irans greatest ally and military supplier. The JCPOA nuclear provisions would have sunset in 2026 (this year) and 2031. If you think Iran's missile and drone shield was bad earlier this year, imagine what you'd be dealing with in 2031 if you drank the it's okay they're negotiating kool-aid. All of a sudden you reach a point where they don't need to "negotiate" anymore.
Oh yes, just like north Korea, Russia, China, Belarus, and so on Gaza has a very popular elected government, you got me!
https://freedomhouse.org/country/gaza-strip/freedom-world/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/qwUwOSY.png)
