|
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 May 19 2021 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I would not use Kwark's phrasing, he can defend his phrasing himself. But I did see you defend the fire-bombing of Dresden under the reasoning that 'it was necessary'.
No, I didn't defend it. I didn't approve of it, and I didn't defend it. I gave an explanation for what led to the massacre, that is not the same thing as approving or defending it. You need to re-read the chain of comments between KwarK and I.
I'll also argue in favor of your right to argue for whatever your political opinion is, even if I find it abhorrent. But you can't both take part in a political discussion and argue that people should not judge you over your opinion. This isn't fighting over whether tesagi is real - a discussion I agree we should be able to have without being judgmental of each other, it's fighting over whether bombing children is justified.
I'm not saying KwarK can't judge me. I'm saying he judged completely unfairly because he interpreted things into my words, and what I actually said was nothing more than an explanation for why things went down the way they did in Dresden.
And since people here love to use reasoning like this one: "well, you didn't say you're in favor of it, but you didn't say you're against it either", may I let you know that I explicitely stated that I consider the Dresden bombing a war crime. Yes, I said that. So assuming that you read all of what I wrote, then you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that I approve of the massacre of civilians. You're strictly not right about this.
|
On May 19 2021 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 16:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
Dear Magic Powers, did you just say that that the deliberate bombing of a non military target, maximised to kill the population and destroy the civilian infrastructure with no military value except for terror, like the bombing run on Dresden and others, is the fault of the Germans? Are you sure? Not the fault of "the Germans", but the fault of "Germany", i.e. the German leadership, which is the Nazis, Hitler being the head of it. Show nested quote +So, your position is, if Israel would start blasting Gaza with speakers saying "As long as you keep firing rockets, this will continue!" and then proceeds to drop explosive bombs followed by incendiary bombs into one sector of Gaza. And then the next sector. And the next. And the next. Until there is either no Gaza left, or there are no rockets flying into Israel anymore. There's context missing from your question. Depending on whether or not Hamas has sent rocket strikes prior to Israel "blasting Gaza" as you put it, and depending on what targets Israel would choose in retaliation to those strikes, the answer that I'd give would change depending on that information. Show nested quote +This would be the responsibility of Hamas for firing rockets into israel and no blame would go to the IDF? And if that is not okay, why do you think Dresden was okay? Would you allow for Dresden again? Germany (not Germans, see my response to the first paragraph) had been waging an aggressive war against Britain and other countries, including the heavy bombardment of innocent and defenseless British towns that were not militarily relevant locations in order to kill and frustrate the population. Britain had no choice other than to retaliate with full force. What should else should Britain have done? Germany was committing war crime after war crime and conquering land after land, showing no regard for the lives of innocent people. Tell me what better options Britain had.
This is you. You had the chance there to clarify. You could have said, you misunderstood me, Dresden was not okay. Or, whoops, i just read about Dresden and oh boy, it was not okay, but i can understand why they did it. You did not though. You found excuse after excuse how Britain had no choice. That's your words. You said, Britain had no choice but to bomb Dresden and kill all these people. You thought it was their best option, that's why you asked if we new better ones. And now you are arguing as if you never said that, that Dresden wasn't just the final fatal run (as if this would matter at all), that you are totally against all killing. This is why we say what we say.
|
On May 19 2021 19:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:
However - and this seems to be something that not too many people are aware of - Britain had taken a stance on the death of civilians years prior. They were engaging in a brutal decimation of civilians, alongside the infrastructure. Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote:
I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2. Those positions are only compatible if German civilians aren't human beings.
You left out the context of where the debate stood at that point, and the precise wording.
This is the chain of comments leading up to it:
On May 19 2021 15:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 14:30 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 14:19 KwarK wrote:
Hamas are responsible for the people killed by their rockets and Israel are responsible for the people killed by their bombs. It seems a very obvious conclusion to me. That’s how weapons work. That would mean every country fighting a defensive war is responsible for every civilian death they've caused during that war, no matter how impossible it is to prevent some or any of those deaths in the pursuit of defeating the aggressor.It would mean the whole concept of "collateral damage" goes out the window. It would mean there's nothing wrong with using human shields. It would mean launching attacks from within a civilian population is completely acceptable. Do you not understand the implications of that, or is it that you agree with the implications? If you shoot someone in order to save another person yourself still responsible for that decision, you still own that. You can justify your decision within an ethical framework but it doesn’t make it someone else’s responsibility. Consider the trolley problem, a trolley is heading towards ten people but you can divert it so that it only kills one person. If you divert it you are responsible for killing one person and for saving ten. You would probably believe yourself justified in diverting it but that wouldn’t change your responsibility. Yes, it would place the responsibility for Dresden on the British rather than the Germans. But I don’t see why that’s an issue, you can be responsible for something while still justifying it. If I bomb a munitions factory then I am responsible for the deaths of the non-combatant workers and also the munitions shortages that may ultimately shorten the war and save lives. If I believe the latter justifies the former then I can accept responsibility for both without issue.
And in response to the way he phrased it (implying that only the British are responsible for any and all civilian casualties caused by them, the Germans aren't responsible at all), I said this:
On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote:
I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2.
I posted my reasoning for that earlier: if the British are responsible for any and all German civilian deaths, and the Germans aren't responsible, then this has certain implications, for example that the aggressor (Germany) could utilize civilians for the sake of war and that could never be considered wrong. Only Britain could be blamed for German civilian deaths under any and all circumstances.
This is not true according to my reasoning. The way I see it, Germany must've been responsible for the death of German civilians, because Germany was the aggressor and they were treating their own civilians as well as British civilians with no regard to the sanctity of human life. This is why Britain couldn't be "the party that is responsible", while Germany "has no responsibility".
The position KwarK took was completely black and white. Only Britain could've been responsible. I disputed that. That's the context.
|
On May 19 2021 19:27 Broetchenholer wrote:You said, Britain had no choice but to bomb Dresden and kill all these people.
No, I didn't. I didn't say it, and I didn't imply it. If you leave out the whole context of the discussion KwarK and I were having, then you may come to the conclusion that I implied it. Otherwise it's false.
KwarK was arguing that only one side is responsible for the civilian deaths caused by them on the other side. Then, the bombing of Dresden came into play, to which I said that that's not a comparable situation, and I also explicitely stated that I consider it a war crime.
Only if you're specifically trying to interpret my words in the worst way possible and ignore the fact that I called it a war crime can you come to the conclusion that I approve of the Dresden bombing.
|
It‘s hard to have an objective opinion on the matter just based on media reports. Looking at the border movements and type of weaponry used by each side probably tells a better story.
In any case one can assume that any sort of international community turns a blind eye to the matter. There‘s not quite the same level of enthusiasm in stopping expansionism in this case compared to the outrage over the Crimean annexion (which to my understanding had a legal basis).
Israel doesn‘t want the Palestinians inside their borders, clearly, so they prefer this kind of perpetual slow warfare over outright invasion.
|
On May 19 2021 19:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 19:10 Nebuchad wrote:On May 19 2021 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:
However - and this seems to be something that not too many people are aware of - Britain had taken a stance on the death of civilians years prior. They were engaging in a brutal decimation of civilians, alongside the infrastructure. On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote:
I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2. Those positions are only compatible if German civilians aren't human beings. You left out the context of where the debate stood at that point, and the precise wording. This is the chain of comments leading up to it: Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 15:06 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 14:30 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 14:19 KwarK wrote:
Hamas are responsible for the people killed by their rockets and Israel are responsible for the people killed by their bombs. It seems a very obvious conclusion to me. That’s how weapons work. That would mean every country fighting a defensive war is responsible for every civilian death they've caused during that war, no matter how impossible it is to prevent some or any of those deaths in the pursuit of defeating the aggressor.It would mean the whole concept of "collateral damage" goes out the window. It would mean there's nothing wrong with using human shields. It would mean launching attacks from within a civilian population is completely acceptable. Do you not understand the implications of that, or is it that you agree with the implications? If you shoot someone in order to save another person yourself still responsible for that decision, you still own that. You can justify your decision within an ethical framework but it doesn’t make it someone else’s responsibility. Consider the trolley problem, a trolley is heading towards ten people but you can divert it so that it only kills one person. If you divert it you are responsible for killing one person and for saving ten. You would probably believe yourself justified in diverting it but that wouldn’t change your responsibility. Yes, it would place the responsibility for Dresden on the British rather than the Germans. But I don’t see why that’s an issue, you can be responsible for something while still justifying it. If I bomb a munitions factory then I am responsible for the deaths of the non-combatant workers and also the munitions shortages that may ultimately shorten the war and save lives. If I believe the latter justifies the former then I can accept responsibility for both without issue. And in response to the way he phrased it (implying that only the British are responsible for any and all civilian casualties caused by them, the Germans aren't responsible at all), I said this: Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote:
I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2. I posted my reasoning for that earlier: if the British are responsible for any and all German civilian deaths, and the Germans aren't responsible, then this has certain implications, for example that the aggressor (Germany) could utilize civilians for the sake of war and that could never be considered wrong. Only Britain could be blamed for German civilian deaths under any and all circumstances. This is not true according to my reasoning. The way I see it, Germany must've been responsible for the death of German civilians, because Germany was the aggressor and they were treating their own civilians as well as British civilians with no regard to the sanctity of human life. This is why Britain couldn't be "the party that is responsible", while Germany "has no responsibility". The position KwarK took was completely black and white. Only Britain could've been responsible. I disputed that. That's the context.
Your dispute is silly. You can't willingly choose a war strategy of targeting civilians and then not be responsible when those civilians, that you have targeted, die from being targeted by you. That is incoherent.
Any time you're criticizing a war tactic, please note that any justification that doesn't apply in the same way to all sides means that one side gets to do whatever you found objectionable without being punished. The concept of "war crime" becomes invalid as we first have to figure out whether the party that is associated with the victims of the war crime had it coming.
|
On May 19 2021 19:43 Nebuchad wrote:
Your dispute is silly. You can't willingly choose a war strategy of targeting civilians and then not be responsible when those civilians, that you have targeted, die from being targeted by you. That is incoherent.
Any time you're criticizing a war tactic, please note that any justification that doesn't apply in the same way to all sides means that one side gets to do whatever you found objectionable without being punished. The concept of "war crime" becomes invalid as we first have to figure out whether the party that is associated with the victims of the war crime had it coming.
You're ignoring the context. KwarK said that one side (in this case the aggressor, that would be Germany) has absolutely no responsibility for civilian deaths on their own side.
Do you understand that this is what the debate was about? I was debating him on that particular claim he made. It wasn't me who made the initial claim about Britain not having any responsibility for those civilian deaths, the context was that KwarK's argument would mean that only Britain would have responsibility. It started originally with civilian deaths caused by Israel in Gaza, and then WW2 was brought into it.
My position is that, during WW2, Germany (the leadership) had complete control over how many more German civilians would die, by surrendering in full. They could've prevented all further civilian deaths in a single day, and they chose not to. This is why I said Britain "isn't responsible for those deaths". If you don't know that context of the discussion then it's no surprise that you would lay out my words the way you do. This is why context always matters.
Do you also understand that I explicitely stated that the bombing of Dresden is a war crime? After that, how can you even think that I approve of or defend the killing of those civilians? It doesn't make any sense.
|
Okay, to me, you are denying the reality of your posts. None of what you have written in hindsight after we called you out on your comments fits what you have written before being called out. If you believe that your posts could only be interpreted in the way you are now telling us you ment them, please consider that everyone that has reacted to your posts so far does not interpret them as you do.
At the same time, i have my own interpretation of why this happened. I will keep them to my self because they both put you in a bad light. I might be completely wrong with that and your intentions might be pure, but i don't think they are. In the end arguing with you about it seems to be fruitless as you don't seem to understand where we are coming from interpreting the things you have written and we can't see into your brain to be assured this was just a misunderstanding.
|
I think KwarK is justified in saying that the people who willingly chose a war tactic of targeting civilians are responsible for the death of the civilians that they have targeted, yes. That would also be my position.
The issue is not so much that we're ignoring context and more that you're ignoring the logical consequences of the arguments you went for. You were saying that Germany has responsibility for the bombing of Dresden, you asked what else Britain was supposed to do. A logical consequence of those arguments being valid would be that the UK didn't do a war crime, as they are painted as the victims and they apparently had no other option. Bombing them was actually the more humane thing to do as those Germans needed to be stopped. If you start this argument, then come back and say, no, actually, what Britain did was a war crime, then the conclusion of your argument isn't in line with its propositions.
|
On May 19 2021 20:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, to me, you are denying the reality of your posts. None of what you have written in hindsight after we called you out on your comments fits what you have written before being called out. If you believe that your posts could only be interpreted in the way you are now telling us you ment them, please consider that everyone that has reacted to your posts so far does not interpret them as you do.
At the same time, i have my own interpretation of why this happened. I will keep them to my self because they both put you in a bad light. I might be completely wrong with that and your intentions might be pure, but i don't think they are. In the end arguing with you about it seems to be fruitless as you don't seem to understand where we are coming from interpreting the things you have written and we can't see into your brain to be assured this was just a misunderstanding.
Can you at least admit that I did in fact call the Dresden bombing a war crime?
|
You did, after all the outrage had already happened. But as you seem to stick to your old posts as well, claiming we simply missed the meaning, i makes it impossible to tell wether you meant that or simply tried to save your hide.
|
On May 19 2021 20:16 Nebuchad wrote:
I think KwarK is justified in saying that the people who willingly chose a war tactic of targeting civilians are responsible for the death of the civilians that they have targeted, yes. That would also be my position.
Sure, that's a debate people can have that can leave them with new insights.
The issue is not so much that we're ignoring context and more that you're ignoring the logical consequences of the arguments you went for. You were saying that Germany has responsibility for the bombing of Dresden, you asked what else Britain was supposed to do. A logical consequence of those arguments being valid would be that the UK didn't do a war crime, as they are painted as the victims and they apparently had no other option. Bombing them was actually the more humane thing to do as those Germans needed to be stopped. If you start this argument, then come back and say, no, actually, what Britain did was a war crime, then the conclusion of your argument isn't in line with its propositions.
I see what you're getting at, and that's a good point. But to simply accuse someone of approving the massacre of civilians, as KwarK did, rather than trying to clarify the issue, that's not how things should go in a debate. I never assume malice first, but incompetence, or a misunderstanding. KwarK didn't assume a misunderstanding, he went straight to a really harsh accusation that made me lose all interest in debating him. And that right after he assumed things about me. I don't see how I'm more at fault than he is for the way this devolved. I stated my position on the Dresden bombing being a war crime to avoid confusion, and despite that I still faced way more pushback than KwarK who straight up accused me.
I guess, somewhat ironically, one could argue that KwarK and I both share responsibility.
|
Northern Ireland24394 Posts
On May 19 2021 17:35 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 17:15 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 16:50 KwarK wrote:
The better option to firebombing the civilian population of Dresden would be not firebombing the civilian population of Dresden. Not only would it save on fuel and reduce carbon emissions, it would also avoid a hundred thousand people dying in a firestorm. Germany wasn't playing nice with Britain. They played very dirty by bombing innocent, defenseless civilians, and the war was close to being lost for Britain numerous times. Defeat would've meant absolute disaster for Britain and perhaps the world, as Hitler made no secret about his terrifying plans. And it wasn't just the Nazis, as Japan was a convenient ally of the Third Reich, and they weren't up to anything good either. Germany was also coming dangerously close to attaining nuclear powers. What Britain did to Germany in WW2 was a desperate attempt at saving humankind from a worse fate. They had to make decisions that went far beyond anything prior. If you think this is even remotely comparable to the Israel-Hamas situation, then I'll have to end our debate. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? The bombings of Dresden took place between the 13th and 15th of February of 1945. Your argumentation for willfully killing ~25000 civilians without any direct military value was "Germany wasn't playing nice with Britain"??? 2 weeks after the bombardment, allied troops reached what is now Germany. 2 Weeks before the bombing, russian troops stood 80 km east of berlin. This is your problem, you reduce the responsibility to they started it and allow the defender then to do whatever they want. That, or you just do not know what you are talking about.
As a Brit, my understanding is that Dresden was both a shameful exercise and one not particularly well known about here. For understandable reasons the Rule Britannia crowd don’t much like mention of Britain’s innumerable atrocities being widely known about.
Not just the timeframe of when it occurred, nor Dresden not being the target of best military importance. Also the use of incendiary bombs which are bound to spread fire to surrounding areas and Bomber Harris’ own ideas on crushing a country’s morale through less discriminate bombing.
|
On May 19 2021 20:27 Broetchenholer wrote:
You did, after all the outrage had already happened. But as you seem to stick to your old posts as well, claiming we simply missed the meaning, i makes it impossible to tell wether you meant that or simply tried to save your hide.
Ah right, everything I said before and after was pure honesty on my part - but that one statement in the middle that puts me in a better light, that's the lie. How convenient. I wish I had your mind reading abilities.
It doesn't seem to me like you have any interest in trying to resolve the issue, you'd rather just keep it simple and demonize me. Very productive.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 19 2021 10:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 09:40 Magic Powers wrote:On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote:
One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18.
There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children.
The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks.
Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right? I'd like to respond to this specifically, because this in my opinion is something that is often not fully understood. Two things are both true at the same time: 1) Israel cannot retaliate against Hamas without risking the lives of innocent civilians, even if they tried. Every missile sent towards a Hamas target has a chance of killing innocent civilians. 2) Reducing civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas is being made virtually impossible by Hamas using what's called "human shields" (presumably to make Israel look as bad - or worse - as themselves). This means that Hamas is actively increasing civilian casualties during Israeli retaliation attacks. If Hamas wasn't doing this, civilian casualties in Gaza could and most likely would be a lot lower. 1) Just because any attack has a chance of civilian casualties does not mean that all attacks have equal chance of equal civilian casualties. You failed to understand my post. Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that may cause civilian casualties, but Israel is not forced to always engage in maximum retaliation regardless of the risk to civilians. Israel does not always have to use that right. It can judgmentally choose not to retaliate if there is no good target. 2) I explicitly addressed the human shields myth. Where would you like Hamas to launch rockets from?
2) Nowhere, stop launching them?  I know this is a bit naive but considering my stance on the issue... aw yeah, I am actually on the evil side 
|
Na, asking Hamas to stop firing rockets is definetely the right side. The are very few people who would argue that Hamas is allowed and morally okay doing it. The question is what could be done to achieve that, and there the ideas diverge.
|
On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote:
My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”.
Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those.
Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative.
So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable?
You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement.
So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view.
|
Northern Ireland24394 Posts
On May 19 2021 18:13 Broetchenholer wrote:
Read your own posts about the topic? You condensed the Boming of Dresden down to, Germany is evil and needed to be stopped, so it was okay for Britain to bomb civilians as an act of terror and retribution. You said this several times. Only in your last post you mentioned that other people might see it as a war crime. This leads us to believe that you think killing civilians for terror and retribution is okay if you have reasons.
Re-reading on this I think some distinctions were drawn, namely that Germany posed an existential threat to Britain, vs the Palestinean/Israel conflict we see today. You can pull punches if you’re in the ring with a small child in a way you can’t really against somebody just as big and strong as you.
That said I’m not sure how useful WW2 comparisons are, occupying as the do a rather unique slot with WW1 in the world’s greatest powers going toe to toe in an industrial era with entire populations mobilised in the war struggle.
Whereas subsequently and in many times before conflict has a huge level of asymmetry in power, or is a vestige of colonialism, or both. Where restraint is absolutely easier to exercise if the will is there, and avoiding civilian deaths likewise.
|
On May 19 2021 21:46 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2021 07:01 MWY wrote:On May 19 2021 05:44 KwarK wrote:
My view is that broadly speaking the Palestinians were minding their own business until all the Zionists showed up and built an Israel on Palestine. I’m not going to assert that there was no violence committed by Palestinians because that wouldn’t be true. What I will assert is that the Palestinians did not initiate the conflict. They weren’t roaming around Eastern Europe picking fights with Jewish people, they were in their homes when Zionists showed up and started picking fights.
I am broadly speaking extremely sympathetic to the Palestinians in the 30s and 40s who saw their country overrun by an invasion of colonists from Europe. I can’t imagine any people not resisting that kind of invasion of their land, I view the Palestinian opposition to the declaration of the state of Israel as wholly rational. What happened to Palestine is essentially a real world example of the right wing fever dream of Central Americans flooding into Texas and establishing a Sharia law Caliphate.
I am fairly sympathetic to the Jewish people, particularly those who came to Palestine after WW2, because their desire for a homeland is rational and the trauma of the Holocaust explains, if not justifies, a lot. That sympathy becomes far more limited after they did not adhere to the UN partition plan.
I’m unsympathetic to the UN as this was essentially the first test of the UN after WW2 and they did absolutely nothing to prevent the question being settled by arms and ethnic cleansing. They came up with a partition plan and did nothing to implement it.
I’m unsympathetic to the Arab nations who, after losing the war with Israel, could have done far more to help the displaced Palestinians. I cynically believe they preferred an ongoing Palestinian crisis as a nationalist rallying cry to the costs that would be involved in fixing it.
I outright condemn the British Empire which inserted itself into Palestinian affairs uninvited and then failed to honour the most basic duties it had assumed towards the Palestinian people. The conflict started under British stewardship and Britain was the party responsible for ensuring that there was no conflict. Perhaps the two state solution would have collapsed after Britain left and perhaps war was inevitable. We won’t know because Britain, entrusted with implementing the UN partition plan, fucked off. Weren't arab palestinians aspiring towards building a state aswell? Was that not a radical nationalist movement? What were the initial crimes of jews/zionists against the arabs? I haven't found any source for this, even more so, only contradicting sources in german aswell as in english. How would you have prevented jewish refugees/migrants from going to palestine? How can you possibly paint the jewish side as only fascists (who might have at some point contemplated to work with fascist countries to get rid of britain) while painting the arab side (who I think you mean when you say Palestinians, wrongly so btw) who was lead by an islamist national antisemitic guy and actually partnered with the nazis as innocent? I wouldn’t call Palestinians living in Palestine aspiring for a decolonial Palestinian state a radical nationalist movement. No more than I’d call Indians living in India wanting freedom from British rule radical nationalists. Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples. You’d have to be a radical 19th century imperialist to argue that the British, rather than the Palestinians, should govern Palestine. You cannot draw an equivalency between on the one side the people of Palestine wanting freedom from colonial rule and the Jewish settlers wanting to establish their own colonial rule in someone else’s land. These are not equivalent nationalistic movements. You might as well argue that the desire by extreme Polish nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland was equivalent to the desire by friendly German nationalists in 1939 to occupy Poland. Crimes of the Zionists against the Palestinians include this famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreBut more generally just taking their land and displacing them with mass migration and violence. Ideally it wouldn’t have been up to me to police the borders of Palestine. Ideally a self governing independent Palestine would have been given the right to police its own borders. But in the context of British rule, turning around ships of illegal migrants. The settlements were not legal, just as it would not be legal for the Palestinians today to sail to Germany and seize land. If you imagine a reasonable policy for Germany when faced with hypothetical ships of Palestinians attempting to illegally enter Germany then I’m sure you can imagine a similar policy for Palestine faced with ships of Jewish refugees. I don’t paint all Zionists as fascists but fascists were certainly among them and there were a lot of terror attacked committed against the British and UN. It also doesn’t make them not look like fascists when the state of Israel gave the fascist terrorists medals. I’m not misspeaking when I refer to the Palestinians living in Palestine as Palestinians, you’re misspeaking when you call them Arabs. The name for the people of Palestine is Palestinian, just as the name for the people of Germany is German (in English). In 1947 Palestine existed and the people were Palestinian. I don’t know if this is a language thing but you’re the one misspeaking when you call the people of Palestine an “Arab side”. Palestine never was a state before, more like a region whose people lived under different rulers, having sometimes more, sometimes less freedom in their decisions, just like it was the case for many regions. So comparing this to countries that have had a history of being independent before is false. Even so, I would agree that in general, people in a region have a right to form their own state. This was however, clearly a case of a muslim nationalist movement which did not care about people of other religions or cared about representing those. Oh wow an example from 1948. Which happened after literal decades of progroms against jewish people. Apparently you don't have better examples. Again, you still just claim that there was violence iniated by jews against muslims when there are multiple examples that go against that narrative. So migration is a crime to you? Is that a general stance from you or does it just apply when the migrants are jewish? You understand that most jews were living in circumstances that in a modern view, would likely make them refugees, even before the holocaust. So you say that sending them back with the use of force towards a live of discrimation and later on even probable death would have been justifiable? You clearly paint Palestinians as if they were all muslims, all in support of a nationalist islamic movement, all just defending themselfes from migrating jews. As far as i know, Palestinians were muslims, christians and jews. The latter two didn't commit terrorist acts against the migrating jews and most likely were not in favor of said islamic movement. So while you keep defending one side, in contrast, for jews you throw around the words fascism, colonialism and invasion like it's nothing. You seem to have, to put it mildly, a very very biased view.
This is the kind of post that comforts me in my belief that this is a really simple question. If the best that people can come with in defense of the behavior of Israel today is to dishonestly pretend that colonization is migration, to ignorantly pretend that Hamas was there since 1936 or that christians (and marxists) weren't part of the PLO/PFLP and are totally fine with being second/third class citizens, and to ignore the fascism jumping at their faces, then there probably isn't a good argument to be made.
|
I don't think there is any parallel between dresden and the current conflict. Neither side said so. It was purely an example of the bombing of civilians in a conflict where the defender and moral side of the conflict was not morally right to bomb these civilians. Kwark used it to point to an obvious instance where the defender should not have done it and was then baffled when magic powers said responsibility did lie with the nazis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
