Jump to content

Israel


SmokeyBear1861

Recommended Posts

We're well past that and into the realm of collective punishment. You know this. It doesn't require anyone being particularly clever to draw these lines. That you are unable to grasp this reality is not an indictment of anyone but yourself. 

I agree with your first sentence. I stated as much repeatedly in posts above. Which you didn’t bother to read/digest in your zeal to mount your well-ridden high horse. So, you saying I’m unable to grasp something that, umm, you ignored. Well, you’re consistently you, I’ll give you that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I fucking love General Dynamics, the F-16 was and is a triumph but Northrop Grumman is the new hotness for the B-21.  Our MIC is cool as shit: 

image.thumb.jpeg.da296ecf45e3617184f1800508f511b7.jpeg

 

Just a reminder, GD is out of the military aviation business and has been for 30 years now.  Ships/subs, tanks, missiles, yes.  Fighters and bombers, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Stop existing. /Ben Gvir, Minister of National Security

I am asking a real question.

Israel should not declare a ceasefire, but they should move to a contain and monitor. They have tools to liquidate Hamas without leveling the city. Aid should be allowed in, after checks by both Egypt and Israel.

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

I am asking a real question.

Israel should not declare a ceasefire, but they should move to a contain and monitor. They have tools to liquidate Hamas without leveling the city. Aid should be allowed in, after checks by both Egypt and Israel.

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

Is the "they" in that question the civilians, or Israel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

 

Hamas should give back the hostages. That is short term to get some breathing space.

The easiest thing in the world is to provide a sign of life for any remaining hostage. Establishing the hostages are alive would be incredibly valuable to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 
 
I suspect that any hostages that are not shown currently to be alive either aren’t alive, or are not well at all. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive:

  • We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
  • We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

spacer.png

Edited by Don Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

It's hard to escape the feeling that Netanyahu is intentionally waging this war in a manner that is at least in part intended to hurt Biden's re-election chances. 

Bibi has two priorities:

1) staying in power at all costs to save his ass from prison, and

2) doing anything he can to get Trump re-elected, because Trump will help cover Bibi's ass.

That's it.  Note how I didn't list "take action for the long-term good of Israel" in there?  That's because it's not even a minor factor.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Going south isnt particularly working out for the civilians. 

 

13 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

No it isn't, so what should they do?

 

I suppose they could stop listening to Israeli assurances about safe areas because the Israelis bomb those place, too.

As I wrote above, I'm only just rejoining this thread and have only read this page. Maybe that explains my befuddlement with your question, @InkaUtexas. Have you suggested something in this regard on earlier pages?

The Palestinian civilians seem helpless and increasingly diminished by hunger, violence, homelessness, and grief to me. 

Seeing the photo above illustrating what kind of medical procedures are going on without anesthetic is an absolute outrage to me. As president, I would inform Israel that we are going to fly into Gazan airspace and conduct air drops to hospitals and refugee clusters. No matter their answer, those airdrops would procede. 

If the military brass could assure that Americans could land on the coast to truck in supplies with only slight risk of attack by Hamas, I'd quite possibly inform Israel that we are going to do that. And they need to stay clear of any risk of accidentally firing upon our people.

The consequences of Israeli interference with efforts to restore some level of civilization to Gaza would be a drastic change in our relationship.  Again, I don't want my name or my country's reputation attached to Israel's slaughter campaign.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

 

I suppose they could stop listening to Israeli assurances about safe areas because the Israelis bomb those place, too.

As I wrote above, I'm only just rejoining this thread and have only read this page. Maybe that explains my befuddlement with your question, @InkaUtexas. Have you suggested something in this regard on earlier pages?

The Palestinian civilians seem helpless and increasingly diminished by hunger, violence, homelessness, and grief to me. 

Seeing the photo above illustrating what kind of medical procedures are going on without anesthetic is an absolute outrage to me. As president, I would inform Israel that we are going to fly into Gazan airspace and conduct air drops to hospitals and refugee clusters. No matter their answer, those airdrops would procede. 

If the military brass could assure that Americans could land on the coast to truck in supplies with only slight risk of attack by Hamas, I'd quite possibly inform Israel that we are going to do that. And they need to stay clear of any risk of accidentally firing upon our people.

The consequences of Israeli interference with efforts to restore some level of civilization to Gaza would be a drastic change in our relationship.  Again, I don't want my name or my country's reputation attached to Israel's slaughter campaign.

Yes I have. And I agree with that. Would not be the US though, it could be a multi-national force.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bibi has two priorities:

1) staying in power at all costs to save his ass from prison, and

2) doing anything he can to get Trump re-elected, because Trump will help cover Bibi's ass.

That's it.  Note how I didn't list "take action for the long-term good of Israel" in there?  That's because it's not even a minor factor.

I'm not really sure Trump will want to help Bibi.  Trump thinks Bibi betrayed him by recognizing Biden's election.  Further, if Trump wins again, in his mind he won't think he needs to support Israel for political reasons any more.  Trump might be able to get over the personal anger if he's got a transactional reason to do so, but what would that be (in his mind)? If Trump is reelected, I think his line on Israel and on Jews will essentially be "Bibi and most Jews were very mean to me and they're a very disloyal group of people." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2023 at 10:45 AM, Don Johnson said:

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive:

  • We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
  • We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

spacer.png

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 
(If I lived in WB or Gaza, and a stranger said he was taking a poll and asked what I thought of Hamas, I’m pretty sure I’d say, “They’re doing a great job!”)
 
Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2023 at 10:45 AM, Don Johnson said:

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961

Poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

 Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive:

  • We asked respondents to speculate about Hamas’ reasons for waging its October the 7th offensive: a response to attacks on al Aqsa and to release prisoners as Hamas claimed or an Iranian plot to thwart Arab normalization with Israel. The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a “response to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;” while only 14% (5% in the West Bank and 27% in the Gaza Strip) thought it was an Iranian plot. 
  • We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.

spacer.png

What a dumb fucking question. “Now that Country X is bombing the shit of your family and friends, do you approve of an attack against Country X?” Gee, I wonder how human beings in that situation will respond?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 
(If I lived in WB or Gaza, and a stranger said he was taking a poll and asked what I thought of Hamas, I’m pretty sure I’d say, “They’re doing a great job!”)
 
Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

 

15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

I think Palestinian hatred for Israelis has more to do with their lived experiences than their religious beliefs. The latter would be a luxury for believers who aren't digging themselves and their loved ones out of collapsed buildings every few months. 

I'm curious though as to the last post. If someone supports the Palestinian people, how do you recommend they express it so as to not be considered antisemitic or a "useful idiot" for said antisemites? From what I can tell, anything pro-Palestinian is immediately shouted down as antisemetic or, as you say, useful to true antisemites. This is a genuine question and I hope it is read as such. Set aside people harassing delis and the like, I think we can all agree that even if those people don't have antisemetic intent that method isn't helpful and should be viewed as antisemetic or useful to antisemites.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, statsman said:

Back to the topic of anti-semites participating in anti-Zionist campaigns. Why does it matter? It matters because as long as there are vocal and visible anti-Semites in that movement, their cries can be rejected as tarred by anti-Semitism. That’s just the facts. Those protestors need to clean their movement up. It’s stupid for them to count on non-partisans and pro-Israeli partisans to parse out the factions for them. 

Well, you're missing the foundational reason why having the Palestinian movement tainted by a material antisemitic strain is a big problem.  The people who need to be most convinced to take a moderate approach as Israel, jews, and their supporters/allies.  And a very strong motivating factor in the thinking of those folks is "for 2000+ years, damned near everyone in the fucking world has tried to kill us all at one point or another.  We are always one tipping point away from the next pogrom/holocaust/genocide of the jews."  That's a real foundational belief, and it is not unmerited.

So, when one of the major reasons for Israeli recalcitrance, and jewish resistance to moderation, is "people are out to kill us all," presenting them with a position that features loud voices saying "yep, we absolutely want to kill you all" is truly the most counter-productive approach you can take.

Israel and the jewish community would very much like a baseline global agreement that "hey, jews can live, shouldn't be exterminated, and if anyone tries to do so, they are wrong and we will help jews defend themselves."  I mean, that's a fantasy, but I'm just pointing out the obvious: when one side in an adversarial engagement has a justifiable compulsive fear of "if I have any weakness, it will be exploited and the bad guys will try to exterminate me," you're going to have a very, very hard time getting any concessions from them.  So, showing up at the table where a material percentage of your team says "damn right I wanna kill em all!" is not going to be productive.  Yet, here we are.

Am I saying that the Israeli/jewish paranoia is helpful, rational, or even fully justified?  Nope.  I'm just observing that it is a thing, and it's not an entirely irrational thing.  It won't be going away anytime soon -- 2,000 years of cultural training of "tomorrow, the majority may turn on us and try to kill us all" is not easily wiped away.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

Agreed. I also think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic pro-Israeli folks do not realize they're also serving as useful idiots to promote antisemitism.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 6:28 PM, RomaVicta said:

I've only read this page, but I think antipathy towards Anastasis is affecting judgment around here. I agree what I've read of his on this page.

Perceptions that strike me as odd:

Hamas will exterminate Israel if we don't support Israel right now in their shamelessly brutal slaughter in Gaza. This page has a lot of posters that I respect. They are intelligent enough to recognize what Israel perpetrates in the West Bank and Gaza and even use the harshest terms to describe them. Hamas deserves whatever fate they meet. They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country.

Opposition to American military support must mean the opposer doesn't care about Israel at best and is fine with Israel paying for their crimes by being genocided off the planet. Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page.

I'll tiresomely repeat my stance. I don't want my country associated with the vicious slaughter going on in Gaza. I would halt all materiel aid right now. I would extend humanitarian aid and support to both countries as needed; clearly the greater need there is in the country that has sustained a lengthy attack by heavy, conventional forces.

Some have answered that stopping military support would spell the end of Israel. Again, nope. Suspension of war aid need not be a permanent policy no matter what. As I said above, I wouldn't be party to seeing any nation or people obliterated. As Jerry said to George once, "We're trying to have a civilization here."

Written without rancor.

"They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." 

This is absolute speculative bullshit.  If Iran or some other could figure out a way for Hamas to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into Israel they would do it in a heartbeat and Hamas would set it off in a heartbeat.  The continued rule by Hamas in Gaza is the literal definition of an existential threat to Israel.

"Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page."

This sort of perfectly illustrates the current thinking of so many.  Think about what you wrote?  You are against military aid to Israel right now because you believe that Israel has the upper hand.  Yet you readily admit you would be for military aid to Israel if the balance of power was reversed.  This is such a self rightous, self serving , its all about my feelings and my need to make myself feel good sentiment.  You are basically saying that in any conflict anywhere if one side has a perceived power advantage over the other that the side that is weaker can do almost anything to the powerful side and if the powerful side fights back they are immediately the opressor. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

"They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." 

I do also think that this is a terribly logically flawed take, regardless of which group/side you apply it to.  If you were to state that "rebuttal" accurately, it would really be "look, they aren't going to kill ALL of you....they're just going to kill as many of you as they can."  Imagine if someone said "I want to kill EVERYONE in your neighborhood, but due to ammo shortages, I can probably only kill 5% of you," would you be super comfortable taking your evening walk around the block?

Genocidal intent and action aren't diminished because of lack of capability (I mean, maybe it is diminished if there's functionally NO capability -- if Brisket says "I hate the Nepalese people, and I'm gonna kill em all!," but I don't even have a passport, I'm pretty sure Nepal won't be worrying about dumbass Brisket). 

And some reverse of that is true as well -- saying "I don't have any genocidal intent," but engaging in indiscriminate bombing that kills a large chunk of your population falls under the "actions speak louder than words" banner.  Nevermind that there are voices in Israeli leadership that ALSO voice genocidal intent to go with the indiscriminate bombing.

And yes, I think everyone here with a lick of sense knows that if Hamas had Israel's military capability, there would not be a living jew left in the levant.  That's a big problem, because Israel knows that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I don't think every Pro-Palestinian is antisemitic.

I think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic Pro-Palestinians do not realize that they are serving as "useful idiots" to promote antisemitism.

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Agreed. I also think a metric fuckton of not-antisemitic pro-Israeli folks do not realize they're also serving as useful idiots to promote antisemitism.  

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

Somehow, I don’t think you’d be on board with telling Arab or Muslim Americans not to make the war in Gaza all about them and then claiming Islamophobia. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

If someone supports the Palestinian people, how do you recommend they express it so as to not be considered antisemitic or a "useful idiot" for said antisemites? From what I can tell, anything pro-Palestinian is immediately shouted down as antisemetic or, as you say, useful to true antisemites. This is a genuine question and I hope it is read as such. Set aside people harassing delis and the like, I think we can all agree that even if those people don't have antisemetic intent that method isn't helpful and should be viewed as antisemetic or useful to antisemites.

It's a valid question and honestly very tough to answer.

I can only speak for my opinion, but I would say that criticisms of the Israeli government, the seeming disregard for civilians, the general tone set forth by certain politicians both here and abroad, etc... that's all fair game.  Fuck Bibi.  But when folks start dipping their toes into talking about "Zionism" is when things tend to get a little messy.  I'm by no means saying that any criticism of Zionism is antisemitic, but I would say that most of the obviously antisemitic people have REALLY strong opinions on the topic.

And I'll acknowledge that there are bad actors claiming antisemitism in places where there  is none.  Fuck them, but please don't allow yourself to dismiss the notion of ANY antisemitism just because some jackasses are crying wolf.

And unrelated to the previous response, but another thing complicating the matter is that the groups, especially the unaffiliated third parties in America, are not speaking the same language.  We've talked about it ad nauseum regarding the "From the River to the Sea" chant, but here's a paragraph that sums it up pretty well:

 

Quote

Even the same words conjure completely different meanings in people’s minds. A liberal Western diplomat might hear “free Palestine” as a reasonable call for a two-state solution. Some inhabitants of the West Bank might hear it as a message of hope simply to end IDF occupation of their home city, while others would hear a call for annihilation of the foreign state occupying their entire homeland.

When your chant for peace is heard by many as a chant for destruction, how do we find a resolution?

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Not to mention a lot of American Jews making the events of Oct. 7th about them and claiming antisemitism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback.

Sort of like when those uppity black folks claim racism every time they get the smallest amount of pushback about anything.

bench presenting GIF

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, statsman said:

I’m not ready to condemn Palestinians in general for anti-Semitism, even buying these poll results. They live in a world where there is no “other side” opinion available. Their leaders have it all figured out for them. It’s kind of like surveying white southerners in Jim Crow America about race relations. After experiencing a civil rights movement, mass opinions began moving. 
 

I mean, sure. But do you see Christians killing muslims and screaming "God is Great!!!!WHARRRGABRBBBBBLLL" No. Because their definition of a "good person" in simply different than ours.

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

What a dumb fucking question. “Now that Country X is bombing the shit of your family and friends, do you approve of an attack against Country X?” Gee, I wonder how human beings in that situation will respond?

I think this is a pretty fair perspective.  Tell me, how do you think human beings might respond if one nice fall morning Country Y sent armed men to rape and murder many of your family and friends? Do you think that human beings in that situation might approve of bombing the shit out of Country Y? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think this is a pretty fair perspective.  Tell me, how do you think human beings might respond if one nice fall morning Country Y sent armed men to rape and murder many of your family and friends? Do you think that human beings in that situation might approve of bombing the shit out of Country Y? 

No.  And they shouldn't.  Because they are zionist colonizers (and the part that is MOSTLY quiet but necessarily follows that statement is "and therefore they had it coming.")

The truth is often unpleasantly simple.

1 -- on October 7th, Hamas launched an attack that openly and proudly sought to kill and brutalize civilians, especially jews (they literally crowed about murdering "jews") in Israel.  When someone does that to you, that is going to stoke a raging fire of anger and hatred against the attacker.

2 -- in response to the October 7th attack, Israel has launched an overwhelming military response that has displace a metric shit ton of civilians, and kill thousands of civilians.  When someone does that to you, that is going to stoke a raging fire of anger and hatred against the attacker.

Do you see any prospects for anything other than "continued raging fires of anger and hatred" in both directions in the region?  I don't.  Everything we clamor about here -- ceasefires, a two state solution, are these chants really antisemitic?, Bibi's government sucks......they're just noise and don't matter a single bit.  The elements of burning hatred and violence in the respective societies are too big, burning too brightly, for anything else to even have a chance of poking through.

People have died.  More will die.  Lots more.  In both directions (yes, Hamas or some other Palestinian organization will eventually launch another successful attack against Israel and/or jews outside of Israel).  Nobody can stop what's coming.  There's too much human nature in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Somehow, I don’t think you’d be on board with telling Arab or Muslim Americans not to make the war in Gaza all about them and then claiming Islamophobia. 

Actually, it would be great if they didn't do that because it's just as unhelpful and stupid. I'd tell Cenk Uygur to shut the fuck up just as quickly as I'd tell Amy Schumer.

I know you're just looking for another gotcha, sorry to disappoint. You're welcome to go back to the DT thread and salivate over how many Palestinians have died so far to salve your ego.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

I mean, sure. But do you see Christians killing muslims and screaming "God is Great!!!!WHARRRGABRBBBBBLLL" No. Because their definition of a "good person" in simply different than ours.

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Dude. 
You don’t know any Muslims, do you? 
 
I recommend you get out more, outside your circle. 
 
 I don’t know about the Koran, but I do know about the Bible. I taught an adult Sunday School class I called “Least Loved Stories From the Bible”, looking at difficult passages, and one was 1 Samuel 16, where that prophet of God basically calls for ethnic cleansing (genocide, really) of the Amalekites. It’s horrific, and I think it horrified the Jewish rabbis of the 7th century BC, who felt compelled to include Ruth (the story of how a Moabite woman- functionally, akin to a modern Palestinian-became the grandmother of Israel’s greatest king) in the canon. 
 
I don’t think your Koranic interpretations are helpful or illuminative. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is absolute speculative bullshit. 

Always a powerful argument. Also, a statement which you follow with dreams of dirty bombs being smuggled into Israel. 

My observations and opinions are based on things that are clearly obvious right now.

Israel has overwhelming advantage over entities like Hamas.

Israel is not on the verge or near the verge of being destroyed.

Your last paragraph is emotional drivel speculating about me and others.

I'm not the only "not thinking" about what he writes.

Have a good weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Dude. 
You don’t know any Muslims, do you? 
 
I recommend you get out more, outside your circle. 
 
 I don’t know about the Koran, but I do know about the Bible. I taught an adult Sunday School class I called “Least Loved Stories From the Bible”, looking at difficult passages, and one was 1 Samuel 16, where that prophet of God basically calls for ethnic cleansing (genocide, really) of the Amalekites. It’s horrific, and I think it horrified the Jewish rabbis of the 7th century BC, who felt compelled to include Ruth (the story of how a Moabite woman- functionally, akin to a modern Palestinian-became the grandmother of Israel’s greatest king) in the canon. 
 
I don’t think your Koranic interpretations are helpful or illuminative. 

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. 1 Samuel 15:3 ‘Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’,"

— Bibi Netanyahu, 10/29/23, using the Bible (Torah) to justify the killing of not only Hamas, but of the entire Palestinian people. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Hey, he just saw a great opportunity to be islamophobic with some plausible deniability baked in, let him cook, I guess. Some posters here will love it.

Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast

Quote

In recent days, crowds of thousands have gathered throughout the Muslim world—burning European embassies, issuing threats, and even taking hostages—in protest over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper last September.  The problem is not merely that the cartoons were mildly derogatory.  The furor primarily erupted over the fact that the Prophet had been depicted at all. Many Muslims consider any physical rendering of Muhammad to be an act of idolatry.  And idolatry is punishable by death. Criticism of Muhammad or his teaching—which was also implicit in the cartoons—is considered blasphemy.  As it turns out, blasphemy is also punishable by death.  So pious Muslims have two reasons to “not accept less than a severing of the heads of those responsible,” as was recently elucidated by a preacher at the Al Omari mosque in Gaza.

The religious hysteria has not been confined to the “extremists” of the Muslim world. Seventeen Arab governments issued a joint statement of protest, calling for the punishment of those responsible. Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned the drawings as a “vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign” that has “hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world.” Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while still seeking his nation’s entry into the European Union, nevertheless declared that the cartoons were an attack upon the “spiritual values” of Muslims everywhere. The leader of Lebanon’s governing Hezbollah faction observed that the whole episode could have been avoided if only the novelist Salman Rushdie had been properly slaughtered for writing “The Satanic Verses.”

Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives.  Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.

It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims.  Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world.

As Sam has said, Islam is the mother of all bad ideas. Their antisemitism and antichristianism is dogmatic, it is in the text.

 

  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two stories up right now that ought to make anyone question the tactics used by the IDF in this conflict, where more than 15,000 civilians, including thousands of children, have already been killed.

1. Three Israeli hostages carrying a white flag were shot and killed by the IDF.

On Friday, the three hostages emerged, shirtless, from a building tens of yards away from the Israeli soldiers, bearing a stick with a white cloth, the military said in a preliminary investigation. One of the soldiers, believing they posed a threat, opened fire on the three hostages, killing two of them and wounding the third, the early investigation found.

The third fled into the building, from which a cry in Hebrew for help could be heard. The battalion commander ordered the forces to hold their fire. But the wounded hostage later re-emerged, after which he was shot and killed, the military statement said.

In a briefing with reporters, an Israeli military official called the incident a violation of the military’s regulations. The hostages may have escaped or been abandoned by their captors, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity under military protocol.

2.  Yet another journalist was killed. That makes 64 who've been killed so far.

An Al Jazeera cameraman was killed and the network’s Arabic-language Gaza Strip bureau chief was wounded on Friday during an attack in southern Gaza, Al Jazeera said, the latest in a long string of journalist casualties in the war.

The cameraman, Samer Abu Daqqa, and Wael al-Dahdouh, the bureau chief, were covering the aftermath of airstrikes at a U.N. school-turned-shelter in Khan Younis when both were wounded, the network said. Mr. al-Dahdouh told Al Jazeera that he was able to walk out of the area and seek help, but Mr. Abu Daqqa died from his injuries, the network said.

In October, Mr. al-Dahdouh’s wife, son, daughter and infant grandson were killed at the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza, where they had been sheltering.

*****

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in New York that defends the rights of journalists around the world, 64 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since the war between Israel and Hamas began on Oct. 7, more than in any other similar period of time since the group started collecting data in 1992.

The C.P.J. defines journalists as “people who cover news or comment on public affairs through print, digital, broadcast media and other means,” and media workers as essential support staff, including translators, drivers and fixers. The group has said it does not include people in its tallies if there is evidence of their “acting on behalf of militant groups or serving in a military capacity at the time of their deaths.”

*****

International watchdogs have said that an Israeli strike on Oct. 13 that killed a videographer for the Reuters news agency and injured six other journalists was a targeted attack carried out by the Israeli military. Earlier this year, a C.P.J. report found that no one had been held accountable for nearly 20 journalists killed by the Israeli military since 2001.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the administration has about had enough of Bibi's bullshit. As of now, 85% of Gaza's 2 million people, suffering from disease and hunger, have been displaced while also being bombed in the south where they were told to go. Meanwhile, the administration is looking into the reports of the IDF's alleged use of white phosphorus. 

Biden Warns Israel It Is ‘Losing Support’ Over War

Mr. Biden delivered the blunt assessment of America’s closest ally in the Middle East during a fund-raiser in Washington, where he described Mr. Netanyahu as the leader of “the most conservative government in Israel’s history,” which doesn’t “want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution” to the country’s long-running dispute with Palestinians.

The president said that Israel had support from Europe and much of the world as well as the United States, but he added that “they’re starting to lose that support by the indiscriminate bombing that takes place.”

The president’s remarks came hours after Mr. Netanyahu pledged to defy weeks of American pressure to put the Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza once the fighting ends. Mr. Netanyahu ruled out any role there for the authority, which now governs Palestinian society in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

*****

In his remarks at the fund-raiser, Mr. Biden pledged to continue that support for Israel’s effort to protect itself, saying that “we’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel in the process. Not a single thing.”

“Without Israel as a free-standing state, not a Jew in the world is safe,” he added.

But he also described his response to Mr. Netanyahu’s private assertion that the United States had “carpet-bombed” Germany and dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

“I said, ‘Yeah, that’s why all these institutions were set up after World War II, to see to it that it didn’t happen again,’” Mr. Biden told the donors at the event.

*****

Nearly two months of aerial bombardment by Israel and a continuing ground war have leveled much of Gaza City in the northern part of the tiny enclave, which is home to nearly two million Palestinians. More than 15,000 people, including several thousand children, have been killed in Gaza during the fighting, according to the territory’s health authorities.

The United Nations says that more than 85 percent of the population has been displaced, with some aid organizations reporting rampant disease and widespread hunger.

Mr. Netanyahu says his government is determined to destroy Hamas’s ability to threaten Israel’s population, and has repeatedly warned Palestinians to move south. Some locations in the south of Gaza have also been bombed, drawing criticism from humanitarian organizations.

*****

But on Monday, administration officials said they were looking into reports that Israel’s military had deployed white phosphorus supplied by the United States along the border with Lebanon, in violation of international law.

That allegation, made in reports by Amnesty International and The Washington Post, represented another potential disagreement between the two countries about Israel’s conduct. Israel’s military on Monday said it complies with international law and denied using the weapon illegally.

John Kirby, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, said the United States would be “asking questions” about the incident. White phosphorus is an incendiary, toxic substance used to create light and smoke screens during combat. Its use is not illegal, but deploying it deliberately against civilians or in a civilian setting violates the laws of war.

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

I mean, sure. But do you see Christians killing muslims and screaming "God is Great!!!!WHARRRGABRBBBBBLLL" No. Because their definition of a "good person" in simply different than ours.

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

I would fucking love to know where you copied and pasted this from.

ETA: also, Sam Harris is an extraordinarily stupid man when it comes to discussing religion. 

Edited by wildcat09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You must not have been a history major.



Isn't the point that Christianity has (mostly) moved beyond that?

I was at a sherry drinking event with UT's eminent Roger Louis, A.J.P. Taylor, Martin Gilbert etc... in 1984 at U.T. It was only about a month before Taylor's accident.   Taylor made the observation that Islam and modernity are fundamentally opposed and that there are no countries in which Muslims comprised a sizeable minority that were not experiencing strife because, fundamentally, Islam can't accept the practice of other religions. Louis and Gilbert both thought about it and rather agreed, I think.  One of the greatest nights of my life. I was such a young whipperschnapper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...