My Imaginary GF posted:

Pretty sure Sherman didn't take prisoners of civilians who fought against his march.

Muscle Tracer posted:

The state of Georgia says "Physical attacks on white civilians were few." That's in the same sentence in which it insinuates a mass raping of Black women, so not exactly a pro-Union source. Do you have any special insight into the actual death tolls of the March?

Muscle Tracer posted:

The state of Georgia says "Physical attacks on white civilians were few." That's in the same sentence in which it insinuates a mass raping of Black women, so not exactly a pro-Union source. Do you have any special insight into the actual death tolls of the March?

quote:

Physical attacks on white civilians were few, although it is not known how slave women fared at the hands of the invaders. Often male slaves posted guards outside the cabins of their women.

down with slavery posted:

lol if you actually trust any kind of "history" that comes out of the American south

Also, here's the full excerpt


Pretty far cry from "insinuates a mass raping of Black women"

My Imaginary GF posted:

Gee, sounds like how Israel classifies rocket target launch points.

Cat Mattress posted:

Also, how Israel classifies the houses of relatives of suspected opponents.

And the houses of consuls of G5 countries.

emanresu tnuocca posted:

Don't forget the Al Jazeera offices in Gaza.

It's really pretty funny (or the opposite of funny) how Israel didn't get any sort of flak for that when it was clearly a mean spirited vengeful attack cause AJ said some bad things.

down with slavery posted:

Pretty far cry from "insinuates a mass raping of Black women"

FreshlyShaven posted:

So you were also opposed to boycotting apartheid South Africa, right?

Edit: since I'm bored, I may as well take apart these "arguments."


Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should. You have the right to shout the N word at the top of your lungs; that doesn't mean that any decent person should do such a thing. The entire point about BDS is that it's a democratic, grassroots campaign; if the people of a country decide they don't want to support apartheid, they should boycott the apartheid state.


This is categorically untrue. The United States has given billions of dollars in aid to Israel, money that is used to build apartheid walls, Jewish-only settlements and to arm IDF soldiers in their fight to maintain an apartheid regime. We provide Israel with bombs, guns, military intelligence, and other tools used to murder and oppress Palestinians. We are, as are most Western powers, already involved. The difference is that we got involved on the side of the bad guys.

Also, the world has a moral and legal obligation to get involved when we're dealing with apartheid, which is considered a crime against humanity in international law.


Because the truth is always in the middle, right? One side is the victim of apartheid; the other is the perpetrator. One nation is a first-world, nuclear-armed superpower which oppresses its indigenous people with impunity; the other lives in refugee camps, concentration camps and bantustans because of the actions of the former. We have a moral obligation to favor the victim, just like we did in South Africa.

The entire purpose of BDS is to put pressure on Israel to end its apartheid policies, recognize Palestinian human rights and make peace. It is clear that Israel has no interest in doing so; the current government has publicly sworn there will be neither a Palestinian state nor racial equality on its watch and the majority of Israeli Jews are squarely against a peace deal, much less a genuine 2 state solution(meaning, the creation of an actual Palestinian state, not just a non-sovereign collection of semi-autonomous bantustans.) It's clear that if peace is going to happen and apartheid is going to end, foreign intervention will be necessary just like it was in South Africa. Boycotts are an acceptable, non-violent and democratic way of putting pressure on Israel to conform to the norms of international law and basic human decency.

Effectronica posted:

Why doesn't saying Japan is "creepy" bring down tedious narcissists like The Insect Court? Only in the case of Israel does detesting a country's policies mean hatred of an entire ethno-religious group.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

כבר אמרתי לך שאתה חופר?

Oh, hold on, you're yet another one of those vehement pro-Israelis who doesn't know the language, right?

The Insect Court posted:

Please point me to the posts advocating for or excusing the killing of Japanese civilians, describing Japanese people as bloodthirsty murderers, greedy thieves, genocidal racists, the equivalent of the Nazis, etc. TIA(thanks in advance)

It's not that you can't find any posts on the forum that discuss another ethnic group in the same mode as Israeli Jews are talked about in I/P threads. I would suggest that this post or this post can easily be compared to similar posts in I/P threads. Of course, the comparison is a very incomplete and partial one because that poster was banned for anti-black racism, while nobody who image spams I/P threads with pictures meant to convey Israeli Jew's bloodthirst and brutality or posts about how not all Israeli Jews are deceitful genocidal monsters but some of them are is even the least bit anti-semitic, as so many I/P posters are so very eager to remind us.

CommieGIR posted:

Which is hilarious, as Sherman and several others under his command commented on the column of freed slaves that begin to follow in their wake...

The Insect Court posted:

I haven't posted anything in this thread supportive of the Israeli government or its policies.

down with slavery posted:

You're "just asking questions", right?

Dead Reckoning posted:

Is it really that hard to believe someone might find the full-throttle support for the Palestinian cause espoused by some D&D posters to be misplaced without being secretly pro Israel?

Dead Reckoning posted:

Is it really that hard to believe someone might find the full-throttle support for the Palestinian cause espoused by some D&D posters to be misplaced without being secretly pro Israel?

down with slavery posted:

I mean, it's an active genocide being televised to the entire developed world. Having full throttle support for the plight of the Palestinian people seems like the only moral stance to take.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Is it really that hard to believe someone might find the full-throttle support for the Palestinian cause espoused by some D&D posters to be misplaced without being secretly pro Israel?

Dead Reckoning posted:

It would be that simple, if only it were possible to disentangle the Palestinian plight from the political, ethnic, and religious history of the region.

JeffersonClay posted:

I can understand being miffed by full throttle support of Hamas or Islamic jihad, because there exist other Palestinian political organizations which I prefer, but anybody who looks at the I/P situation and thinks the truth must be somewhere in the middle or the IDF is the thin green line between Israel and genocide is misinformed or delusional.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I just don't see any realistic endgame worth putting energy into supporting. Even if Netanyahu's heart grew three sizes tomorrow and Israel unilaterally withdrew behind the 1967 borders, the result would be a bunch of Palestinians killing settlers and kicking people out of their homes, which is what started this mess in the first place, followed by a war in a decade or so when Hamas felt they were ready for another bite at the apple.

Dead Reckoning posted:

It would be that simple, if only it were possible to disentangle the Palestinian plight from the political, ethnic, and religious history of the region.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I just don't see any realistic endgame worth putting energy into supporting. Even if Netanyahu's heart grew three sizes tomorrow and Israel unilaterally withdrew behind the 1967 borders, the result would be a bunch of Palestinians killing settlers and kicking people out of their homes, which is what started this mess in the first place, followed by a war in a decade or so when Hamas felt they were ready for another bite at the apple.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

When that is the absolute sole thing that person bothers adding to at least two threads I've seen on the subject, I would say that that's quite telling. I've spent pages excoriating people for being racists masquerading as anti-colonialists, but I also do my part to add to the conversation.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Is it really that hard to believe someone might find the full-throttle support for the Palestinian cause espoused by some D&D posters to be misplaced without being secretly pro Israel?

The Insect Court posted:

Are you actually suggesting that there are racists in an I/P thread? That's a serious charge A.A., and I think it would behoove you to produce some evidence.

The Insect Court posted:

As for adding to the substance of the conversation, that would require substance to add to. Please do let me know where you see some and I'd be happy to oblige.

down with slavery posted:

God drat you really are a lovely person

No endgame worth supporting? How about stopping the genocide of Palestinians for a quick start?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Where would the Palestinians be kicking settlers out of exactly? A withdrawal would mean the IDF dragging them back to sovereign Israeli territory, like they did with the Gaza settlers, and the North Sinai settlers before them.

Dead Reckoning posted:

And then what? Seriously, poof, all Israeli settlement activity and policing outside of Jewish enclaves stops tomorrow. All you have to do now is sell the Israeli public on the idea that they're going to have to accept the occasional rocket attack and synagogue meat cleaver murder until Hamas works it out of their system, and then solve the issue of who has access to what holy sites, find a way to guarantee the security of settlers on the Palestinian side of the line, decide how to deal with the intransigent ones, apportion water rights, and deal with the fact that the Palestinian state(s?) will be crushingly impoverished without trillions of dollars of development aid no one is willing to pay for.

Dead Reckoning posted:

And then what?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Yeah, I mean, how can you do anything but occupy and displace all minorities and poor people anywhere because some of them are going to end up being violent?

down with slavery posted:

No, you don't get it, stopping the genocide is the endgame. Then what? Then we let the Palestinian people govern their own territory as they see fit. If they start genociding Israelis you'll see the same posters here telling you it's a bad thing.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Yes, that's a wonderful and beautiful principle, but in the real world any durable solution is going to require securing Israeli cooperation, and offering the selling point of "If a minority of Palestinians continue to attack Israelis, we will condemn that too" is ridiculous.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Yes, that's a wonderful and beautiful principle, but in the real world any durable solution is going to require securing Israeli cooperation, and offering the selling point of "If a minority of Palestinians continue to attack Israelis, we will condemn that too" is ridiculous.

down with slavery posted:

Is it? For me isolated acts of terrorism that lead to low casualties (which happen everywhere in the world) is on a whole different level than active genocide.

Are you from the 19th century or something? Do you not understand that the Palestinians are not animals, but actual people?

My Imaginary GF posted:

I do, and I hold their organizations culpable for their actions. From my vantage, it really appears that you ascribe little agency to Palestinians.

down with slavery posted:

Is it? For me isolated acts of terrorism that lead to low casualties (which happen everywhere in the world) is on a whole different level than active genocide.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're asking one side to back off from a position of absolute dominance and just accept the fact that it will most likely result in the deaths of more of their citizens.

quote:

No matter how "moral" it may be, it isn't something that any state would do.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I do, and I hold their organizations culpable for their actions. From my vantage, it really appears that you ascribe little agency to Palestinians.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're asking one side to back off from a position of absolute dominance and just accept the fact that it will most likely result in the deaths of more of their citizens. No matter how "moral" it may be, it isn't something that any state would do.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Yeah, that's why Abbas has been repeatedly proving his security forces as useful for Israeli safety (as the Head of Shin Bet recently admitted to the Knesset), and why Hamas has, when treated fairly, enforced ceasefires on other armed groups. They have proven themselves quite a bit more reliable than Israel, only to be shat upon.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Hard to hold any organization culpable when you keep disrupting their command and control structures, as Israel had been doing since the start of the Second Intifada, if not earlier. Or are you forgetting how Israel keeps withholding tax dollars needed to pay security personnel, or bombs police headquarters on the reg?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Hard to hold any organization culpable when you keep disrupting their command and control structures, as Israel had been doing since the start of the Second Intifada, if not earlier. Or are you forgetting how Israel keeps withholding tax dollars needed to pay security personnel, or bombs police headquarters on the reg?

My Imaginary GF posted:

A good first step would have been for Hamas to condemn the synagogue attack in Jerusalem--now that would have demonstrated that the organization has leadership with ambition greater than pure genocidal intent.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Foreign intervention against your state development always occurs.

My Imaginary GF posted: