Israel/Palestine

[mjl2]

It's just a blatant lie on many levels that I have already explained here but that piece of shit does what he always does.

Say something completely false.
Someone explains in detail why it is false.
He ignores it.
Then he repeats the lie.

[ousdahl]

Did anyone watch that guardian vid I posted of before/after Israel leveling entire neighborhoods and city blocks in Gaza?

Lemme guess:

That’s not indiscrimate, that’s Putin propaganda?

[MICHHAWK]

i was going to watch it. then i remembered i didn't care.

[ousdahl]

It's a really murky issue, in part because - and I thought about saying this in a snarkier way but I won't - we in the modern west (1) have a bent toward political correctness (and, thankfully, tolerance), and (2) really don't have a great modern point of reference for what I understand is correctly termed "Lesser Jihad."*

Are all (or even most) adherents to Islam, terrorists? Or even terrorist-sympathizers? Of course not. And restraint in suggesting or concluding otherwise is well-intentioned and in good faith; I'm glad that the bomb-the-desert-and-the-brown-people-in-their-caves troglodyte types are now the ugly, gross exceptions to the norm.

However, we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Unfortunately, it is not.

This all relates to your question, because I think (without saying this is GOOD) it's more socially acceptable in our discourse to trade in stereotypes of Jews than in stereotypes of Islamic people.

* Go look up "Greater Jihad" and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't hear it echoing throughout the religious right. Every. Single. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.

now do Zionism.

How does that relate to the purpose of my response to trad? Or are you just reflexively bothsidesing here?

we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Cuz, unfortunately, it is not.

Think of it less as me trying to both sides, and more as you picking and choosing which radical religious militants are radical religious militants, and which “actually have a right to defend themselves.”

[ousdahl]

i was going to watch it. then i remembered i didn't care.

Here’s another friendly reminder of how many of you are on team mich here.

[jfish26]

Did anyone watch that guardian vid I posted of before/after Israel leveling entire neighborhoods and city blocks in Gaza?

Lemme guess:

That’s not indiscrimate, that’s Putin propaganda?

Jesus Christ, fine.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... scriminate

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... scriminate

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... scriminate

Or pick ANY other definition you want to find.

In each and every case, knowing whether what Israel is doing is or is not "indiscriminate" requires knowing MUCH MORE about Israel's own knowledge and process than you do. Or than I do. Or than anyone here does.

Since it is not possible for you to know whether Israel is or is not bombing Gaza "indiscriminately," the ONLY possibilities are (1) you don't know what "indiscriminate" means, or (2) you are, intentionally, using "indiscriminately" for hyperbolic effect.

[jfish26]

now do Zionism.

How does that relate to the purpose of my response to trad? Or are you just reflexively bothsidesing here?

we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Cuz, unfortunately, it is not.

Think of it less as me trying to both sides, and more as you picking and choosing which radical religious militants are radical religious militants, and which “actually have a right to defend themselves.”

But that...has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying in response to trad. So, you're reflexively bothsidesing here.

[mjl2]

Zionism is a radical religious militant concept?

Just going total antisemite now.

Not antisemitic:
Israel needs to crack down on settler violence in Area C of the West Bank.
Netanyahu sucks.
The inclusion of extremists like Ben G'vir and Smotrich in the Israeli government is unacceptable.
Israel needs to work harder toward peace.
There should be a ceasefire now!
Israel isn't doing enough to prevent civilian deaths.

I don't agree with all of that, but none of it is antisemitic.

Zionists (which over 90% of Jews are and is an ethnic, not religious concept) = radical religious militants is antisemitic AF.

[ousdahl]

not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

not showing careful choice or planning, especially so that harm results:
an indiscriminate terrorist attack on civilians

If you describe an action as indiscriminate, you are critical of it because it does not involve any careful thought or choice.

See, I think that’s actually an accurate enough way to describe the bombing of ENTIRE FUCKING NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITY BLOCKS TO THE GROUND.

Think of it this way: would you be willing to argue that the Israeli leveling of entire fucking neighborhoods and city blocks is, in any way, discriminating?

“we have intel a Hamas boogeyman is in this building, so better just destroy absolutely everything within a mile radius to be sure!”

[jfish26]

not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

not showing careful choice or planning, especially so that harm results:
an indiscriminate terrorist attack on civilians

If you describe an action as indiscriminate, you are critical of it because it does not involve any careful thought or choice.

See, I think that’s actually an accurate enough way to describe the bombing of ENTIRE FUCKING NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITY BLOCKS TO THE GROUND.

Think of it this way: would you be willing to argue that the Israeli leveling of entire fucking neighborhoods and city blocks is, in any way, discriminating?

“we have intel a Hamas boogeyman is in this building, so better just destroy absolutely everything within a mile radius to be sure!”

I will go back to what I said: In each and every case, knowing whether what Israel is doing is or is not "indiscriminate" requires knowing MUCH MORE about Israel's own knowledge and process than you do. Or than I do. Or than anyone here does.

I will add, though, that even setting aside the literal nuclear option, Israel clearly has capacity for doing a LOT more damage than it has chosen to do. Whether you like it or not, that means Israel is in fact being at least somewhat discriminating.

You will conflate all of this with supporting war crimes. But, just to be 100% clear, that's not what I'm doing. I am pointing out that you are knowingly using the word "indiscriminately" for hyperbolic effect. And, in my opinion, that cheapens the substance of your points.

[ousdahl]

Dude, again, I’m not going for hyperbole! I think the word applies!

You’re doubling down on semantics and fussing about “hyperbole” and giving all the benefit of the doubt to a radical militant ethno-religious gummint, trying to argue they’re being at least somewhat discriminating by offering the evidence that…

…wait for it…

at least they didn’t drop a nuke.

But please, do go on about how I’m the hyperbolic one.

[jfish26]

Dude, again, I’m not going for hyperbole! I think the word applies!

You’re doubling down on semantics and fussing about “hyperbole” and giving all the benefit of the doubt to a radical militant ethno-religious gummint, trying to argue they’re being at least somewhat discriminating by offering the evidence that…

…wait for it…

at least they didn’t drop a nuke.

But please, do go on about how I’m the hyperbolic one.

More hyperbole.

I explicitly set aside the ability Israel does have to level all of Gaza with nuclear weapons. It's right there in words and everything. I did that SO THAT no mistake could be made about what I meant by, "Israel clearly has capacity for doing a LOT more damage than it has chosen to do. Whether you like it or not, that means Israel is in fact being at least somewhat discriminating."

But now, hyperbolically, you straw man me by arguing against something I clearly and intentionally did not say. I did not say "at least they didn't drop a nuke." But, for whatever reason, you need to say that I said that, in order to make the point you want to make.

This is EXACTLY why I said that hyperbole weakens and cheapens your points. If you have to resort to hyperbole (or straw man arguments), it suggests you need rhetorical tricks to make your points. I don't think you do. And so I wish you wouldn't.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Believe it or not, taking out entire neighborhoods is a strategy and is NOT so "indiscriminate" .
Perhaps those neighborhoods house terrorists and their weapons? Those neighborhoods have tunnels that are used for terrorists to carry out terrorism?
Hamas knew there would be HARSH retaliation and they didn't give a flying fuck about the Gazans.
I have more sympathy for the Israelis who are trying to defend and protect their country than I do Hamas and the people living in Gaza, Especially those in this video who were celebrating. If they are left homeless, or dead. Good. Fuck them all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0aogSYh1f0

The innocent civilian casualties are another story. Those I do have a problem with. It's terrible.
If Hamas didn't do what they did on the Jewish Sabbath on October 7th, Gaza would look a whole lot different today. Hamas fucked around and the citizens are finding out. Truly sucks to be them.

[KUTradition]

i don’t think it’s been said yet, but hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel, yet it seems all the scrutiny and cease-fire pressure remains almost solely on Israel

[jfish26]

i don’t think it’s been said yet, but hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel, yet it seems all the scrutiny and cease-fire pressure remains almost solely on Israel

Which speaks to the precariousness of Israel's position. Israel is being asked to follow rules that its opponents will not follow. Israel DOES have a moral and ethical duty (and perhaps strategic incentive) to, to some degree, take the high road. However, where that boundary lies is a real bitch of a question.

[mjl2]

With Netanyahu at the helm, I'm not optimistic, at all.

October 31, 2023-The question of whether Israel has a right to defend itself is an absurd one. States don't have rights. They have capacities. A better question is how should Israel defend itself in a way that is smart, strategic and reflects long term thinking.

Mitchell Minute 1708-The Absurdity of Right to Defend Itself Question

And according to these polls 70% of Jewish Israelis want him to resign after the war ends:
https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1719406520557814207?s=20

My opinion is if he can't start cracking down on settlers in Area C taking advantage of this to torment Arabs, he should be forcibly removed sooner than that.

Ben Gurion destroyed the Jewish terrorist groups. Killed members of the Irgun despite the war that was ongoing and risking Israel's existence. He understood the importance of having the moral high ground. Israel needs him now.

[DCHawk1]

If Q hadn't bravely rebelled against all things connected to the Church when they told him it was a sin to pull his pud, he might know that there is a long tradition in Western Civilization, derived from the work of Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, laying out the morality both of taking military action (jus ad bellum) and of behavior during war (jus in bello). And if he knew that then he'd also know that for at least three millennia, civilized people have agreed that the moral responsibility for civilian deaths in war lies exclusively with those who put them in harm's way, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DO SO PURPOSEFULLY.

Israel is not attacking indiscriminately, and it is not unjustly or immorally killing innocents. The blood spilled in Gaza stains the hands of the leaders of Hamas -- and no one else.

[DCHawk1]

With Netanyahu at the helm, I'm not optimistic, at all.

October 31, 2023-The question of whether Israel has a right to defend itself is an absurd one. States don't have rights. They have capacities. A better question is how should Israel defend itself in a way that is smart, strategic and reflects long term thinking.

Mitchell Minute 1708-The Absurdity of Right to Defend Itself Question

And according to these polls 70% of Jewish Israelis want him to resign after the war ends:
https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1719406520557814207?s=20

My opinion is if he can't start cracking down on settlers in Area C taking advantage of this to torment Arabs, he should be forcibly removed sooner than that.

Ben Gurion destroyed the Jewish terrorist groups. Killed members of the Irgun despite the war that was ongoing and risking Israel's existence. He understood the importance of having the moral high ground. Israel needs him now.

The nice thing about Israel is that you don't have to worry about removing a leader and losing his brilliant military expertise. Yes, Bibi was Sayeret Matkal, but it's not like Gantz, for example, doesn't have ample experience.

[jfish26]

If Q hadn't bravely rebelled against all things connected to the Church when they told him it was a sin to pull his pud, he might know that there is a long tradition in Western Civilization, derived from the work of Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, laying out the morality both of taking military action (jus ad bellum) and of behavior during war (jus in bello). And if he knew that then he'd also know that for at least three millennia, civilized people have agreed that the moral responsibility for civilian deaths in war lies exclusively with those who put them in harm's way, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DO SO PURPOSEFULLY.

Israel is not attacking indiscriminately, and it is not unjustly or immorally killing innocents. The blood spilled in Gaza stains the hands of the leaders of Hamas -- and no one else.

I would only push back that you and I (and Q) also do not and cannot know whether that last part is perfectly true, either. We do not and cannot know the degree to which Israel's actions were needlessly blunt.

[ousdahl]

If Q hadn't bravely rebelled against all things connected to the Church when they told him it was a sin to pull his pud, he might know that there is a long tradition in Western Civilization, derived from the work of Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, laying out the morality both of taking military action (jus ad bellum) and of behavior during war (jus in bello). And if he knew that then he'd also know that for at least three millennia, civilized people have agreed that the moral responsibility for civilian deaths in war lies exclusively with those who put them in harm's way, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DO SO PURPOSEFULLY.

Israel is not attacking indiscriminately, and it is not unjustly or immorally killing innocents. The blood spilled in Gaza stains the hands of the leaders of Hamas -- and no one else.

if my views were as hawkishly Islamophobic as yours, I'd come up with shit like this to help myself sleep at night too.