|
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. |
The last election in Gaza was in 2006. As of 2023, less than a third of Gaza was 35 or older, meaning over two-thirds of the country wasn't even old enough to vote in their last election. Hamas won 44% of the vote in the 2006 election, so (assuming supporters of each party died at approximately the same rates) less than half of a third (i.e. less than 1/6th) of the 2023 population voted for Hamas.
Even if Hamas-supporters disproportionately killed the supporters of the other parties, it's still less than a third.
Edit: The voting age in Gaza in 2006 was actually 21, not 18, so it's only people 38 or older in 2023 that could've ever voted for Hamas.
|
On October 15 2026 21:52 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2026 13:45 oBlade wrote: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.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
This is textbook bait and switch. Textbook.
On October 15 2026 22:07 LightSpectra wrote:
The last election in Gaza was in 2006. As of 2023, less than a third of Gaza was 35 or older, meaning over two-thirds of the country wasn't even old enough to vote in their last election. Hamas won 44% of the vote in the 2006 election, so (assuming supporters of each party died at approximately the same rates) less than half of a third (i.e. less than 1/6th) of the 2023 population voted for Hamas.
Even if Hamas-supporters disproportionately killed the supporters of the other parties, it's still less than a third.
Voters are different than supporters.
You cannot reliably conclude from lack of elections that there is lack of support. You cannot jump from voters dying and elections not being held, and therefore no new voters appearing, to therefore no supporters appear. The CCP has broad support in China despite you can't vote against them. Hamas has held ~40% support over long periods. Hamas indoctrinates from a young age, including child soldiers. I can link you to lists of them celebrating martyred, to borrow a library genre, "young adults," that they led to jihad, it's real and despicable.
At any rate, your point is moot. Whether Hamas is evil and has overwhelming support, or Hamas is evil and has no support and is inflicting their rule on Gaza, the issue is clear.
So what are concerned citizens like you doing to help depose Hamas from their grip on power and free all current and future generations of the people of Gaza from the rule of an terrorist organization? And maybe even give them the chance at self-determination but somehow without letting them vote in Islamofascism this time.
|
You're right, it wouldn't matter if Hamas had 100% support among Gazans. Blowing up an apartment building filled with women and children because there might be a Hamas guy in the neighborhood somewhere, conceivably, is still wrong.
|
On October 15 2026 14:44 PremoBeats wrote:
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.
It does actually. Why wouldn't it?
|
On October 15 2026 11:38 RJGooner 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? 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.
Sure there are supporters, but their support also dropped after the attack. I also push back at the people who say that the Israeli population is blood thirsty. Both groups are just humans stuck in various degrees of horrible situations acting in their perceived self interest. With the main difference is Israelis have a much better chance of changing their leadership internally.
I actually think the pager attack in Lebanon was great, yes there was civilian casualties and that sucks but it was targeted on Hamas members and took out a huge part of their leadership as well. Some surgical attacks in Gaza would have made a lot of sense as well. Mosad is pretty damn famous for being able to do that with incredible success. What I think is awful is that they are taking out low level fighters, where lots of civilians are. Not only is this morally wrong, but it is a horrible strategy because those fighters are easily replaceable, especially when you just killed a whole bunch of people’s , aunts, sisters, parents, brothers and so on.
Let me give you a more concrete example, Hamas moves their fighters in ambulances (or at least did). So Israel started to attack the ambulances if they thought it was Hamas fighters, some times they were right other times they were wrong. Technically by the way the war crimes are written Hamas not Israel would have committed the crime because they used the ambulances for war. But even if you take morality out of the equation this is an awful strategy. Not only are 2 low level fighters not worth the cost of a cruise missile. But if you are wrong it is a huge recruitment win for their enemy, looks horribly internationally and doesn’t further their security goals in anyway. The US, when they had adults in charge, didn’t take every chance they had to kill even osama because of civilian causalities and the damage they would cause to their efforts.
Collective punishment never works, the way the IDF is fighting this, even if they actually take out Hamas all they will have accomplished is create a power vacuum for another murder cult with an endless supply of ptsd raged up youth to recruit.
The US has had ample opportunity to hurt Iran that they won’t do that would be way more effective. They could support Ukraine to hurt Irans military supplier and intelligence source. They could have developed and tested all the technologies needed to stop shahed drones in live action, without putting any of their own personal or equipment at risk all the while getting more international support from their allies. They could just stop publicly threatening their allies and complementing their enemies, there by upping the chances of international support. They could take out the weapons shipments. They could have started their campaign while the Iranians were protesting and the Iranians were slaughtering the civilians, likely encouraging more resistance and gaining international support. Instead they had Trump “truthing” about how he would help them and doing absolutely nothing losing all the trust of the Iranians. They could have not publicly announced their intention to support the Kurds, so Iran wouldn’t have preemptively stopped them. They could have had an actual strategy to secure the straight, including proper man power and equipment in the area. It is not like this wasn’t the known response. And that’s just off the top of my head, there is so much more incompetence (like texting their secret plans to a reporter) that I haven’t even touched on. This is going to go down as one of the most poorly executed campaigns in American history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
615
398
204
840
EPT
