|
The Poles have a gift for being oddly cheerful in morbid situations.
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
To be fair this seems to be an exhibition in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Krakow, and from the description they seem to be critical of exactly those themes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:To be fair this seems to be an exhibition in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Krakow, and from the description they seem to be critical of exactly those themes.  Krakow is pretty much the best.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Been seeing a bit of this on the social media: Excuse me ma'am, don't you think you're a little under-dressed for this tourist destination? 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Is that Rush Limbaugh and a realdoll?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Is that Rush Limbaugh and a realdoll? It's Newt "I divorced my first wife while she was undergoing cancer treatments and cheated on my second wife" Gingrich along with
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:It's Newt "I divorced my first wife while she was undergoing cancer treatments and cheated on my second wife" Gingrich along with Didn't he leave his second wife when it turned out she had MS?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Not all that many, actually, considering the thousands of years of human history and the vast size of the world! Your first two links together list maybe a dozen ethnic cleansings prior to the 19th century, several of which are so old and vague they're likely more legendary than historical. And the third is just a cluttered, vague mess that talks about voluntary migrations from ancient times and Nazi deportation in the next. Not nearly enough to support your claim that literally everybody in the world would be uprooted if indefinite rights of return were instituted for all forcibly-displaced peoples. Considering the thousands of years of human history (and the fact that not a lot of it is recorded), the vast size of the world, the invasions, wars, persecutions, annexations, slavery, conquests, generally how violent we are as a people, there is not a single one of us who doesn't descend from someone who was once driven away from their land in one way or another. Main Paineframe posted:Yes, few ethnic groups today are the "original" inhabitants of the land. But that doesn't necessarily mean they deported or slaughtered the previous inhabitants! That was a thing in the colonial era, and it occasionally happened in ancient times, but for the most part conquerers were perfectly happy to leave the original inhabitants in ace as long as they paid their taxes and didn't get too uppity, and eventually either the natives would assimilate into the conquered people (most famously in the case of the Romans) or the conquerors would assimilate into the natives (like the Normans in Britain). Some native ethnic groups retained a distinct identity, partially or fully, but some didn't and just vanished into another larger group. It was a thing throughout history. We have plenty of recorded examples of Romans alone slaughtering or driving away entire population groups. Again, it didn't happen always, but it happened frequently enough at vast enough scale that it extends to every human being ever. How many of us are covered by the Mongol conquests alone? Slavery? You go far back enough and there's a burning village in all of our DNA. Main Paineframe posted:Maybe, but try calling those specific people out and arguing with them instead of painting the whole thread with that brush. Because I, for one, am just fine with a right of return for the Mizrahi to the countries that expelled them, a right of return for Native Americans to the United States, and so on. Alright. Main Paineframe posted:It's not just a philosophical question, since Germany is still paying reparations to the state of Israel for the Holocaust to this very day, on top of yearly reparations payments to all known Holocaust survivors, and is under legal pressure to provide reparations to the children of Holocaust survivors as well. If you know of a line in the sand beyond which Germany is no longer responsible in any way for Nazi atrocities, the state of Germany would probably love to know exactly where that line is. As far as I can tell, Germany stopped paying reparations in the sixties. Most Holocaust survivors were still alive then. I could find no information about it paying it to this very day. All known Holocaust survivors deserve their payments, as all known Nakba survivors deserve reparations or chance to return into Israel. Main Paineframe posted:Yes, they do...but not necessarily for the country they were born in! Typically, people don't get citizenship based on what country they were born in, but rather what citizenship their parents hold. If a male child is born in Japan to a Lebanese father and an American mother, they will have Lebanese citizenship and American citizenship but not Japanese citizenship. If that child grows up in Japan, is unable or unwilling to go through the naturalization process for gaining Japanese citizenship as an adult, marries a Haitian mother, and has a child, that child could potentially be entitled to Lebanese, American, and Haitian citizenship - but not Japanese citizenship. Being born in a country, by itself, does not necessarily entitle you to automatic citizenship, no matter how many generations your family has lived there. Except that it happens in literally every case except bizarre outliers like the Arab countries or Myanmar or Japanese with Koreans. And morally it certainly entitles you to that unless you possess no morals. The legalese is what it is, but I'm talking about how things happen in the real world, and unless you can point me out to vast swathes of people living in countries to their fourth generation without the citizenship of that country, you don't really have a case here. Just because something is written in law doesn't mean its right. Israel has a lot of laws, for example, regarding nationality and citizenship, that this thread has condemned over and over again. team overhead smash posted:So why not punish the 1% still alive? As for the beneficiaries, we are talking about the settlers, yes? It is nigh-impossible for them to not be aware of the history of the land they were choosing to settle on. They knew they were taking part in a campaign of dispossession and ethnic cleansing, but didn't care either for social/religious reasons or for the selfish reasons of tax breaks, etc. Either way, it's not an excuse. Buying stolen jewellery doesn't make the jewellery yours. With land and homes, this is even more improtant. I'm not opposed to punishing them. As beneficiaries, I'm talking about the population of Israel, most of who are born right where they are and who took no part in the Nakba. You don't choose where you're born. team overhead smash posted:Most importantly I notice that you also didn't bother to respond to my mention of bringing justice and restitution to the victims. Apparently that aspect of it was beneath consideration. I think the original survivors of the Nakba need to be given reparations or citizenship in Israel, and I've mentioned that multiple times, your reading comprehension is not my fault. team overhead smash posted:Your system is wrong. You're claiming it's being inconsistently applied when you have misunderstood the basis of how it even works. You stated "The right of return, if applied equally to all descendants of people who have been driven from their lands, would neccessitate the movement of pretty much every single human being on Earth." but as I have pointed out, it doesn't work like that. This isn;t a subjective matter of preference It wouldn't necessitate it. It would justify it for pretty much every human being on Earth. team overhead smash posted:It isn't arbitrary. The basis for pretty much all modern law everywhere in the world is that it isn't retroactive. It would be nice if Genghis Khan hadn't hosed up so many places, but we're not exactly going to make Mongolia pay hundreds of billions of pounds worth as restitution for the genocide and wars of aggression he conducted even though they clearly don't fit with modern international military law - because that law didn't exist then. No matter how stupid you think laws might be, them being retroactive would be stupider. What's more stupid, laws being retroactive or entire groups of people being blamed for crimes committed when they didn't even exist? Because I'm generally against punishing kids for their parents' crimes or accusing entire demographics of past crimes of their ancestors. But OK, if you want to dig deeper: UN article 11 of Resolution 194 is actually non-binding, and not a law at all. So I guess it doesn't matter? If you want to go with Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it became a binding law only in December 1948 when Nakba had been on full swing for half a year. Any deportations and such before then are OK? Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left before the State of Israel was in existence which I guess since laws can't apply retroactively can't be put on a country that did not exist then as an entity, since British were still running things? Are their descendants poo poo out of luck too? If you want to go further, Israel wasn't actually recognized as a country until 1949. The 1951 Refugee Convention was written in well, 1951. That's got to exclude a lot of things right there. I'm just trying to see how far this rabbit hole of total adherence to legalese extends before your morals/common sense start to fight back. It's OK if you believe in right of return but there are a lot of holes in your plan to argue that its supported by laws applied non-retroactively. team overhead smash posted:Besides, your arguement is inconsistent. You first of all complain about how the right of return being applied to all refugees forever is unworkable. Then once it's explained how it isn't applied retroactively forever but from a set point in time (making your former complaint irrelevant), you turn 180 degrees complain that it doesn't cover everyone in human history by stretching back retroactively to conclude them. Why the switch? You seem more focused on rubbishing the right of return than having any solid position about how such a right would work. My position is that right of return is wrong for anyone who wasn't actually physically driven away from their land. I really don't get what is so confusing about that. team overhead smash posted:Well then maybe don't state that Arab states are under obligations to do things when they aren't Well then maybe you should be excusing Israel as well since they have a lot of laws in regards of Palestinians. team overhead smash posted:I don't really get this. I've explained how this doesn't make sense as a legal point and if you're making a moral point then surely even temporary refugees which weren't born in your country and will only be there temporarily should be looked after and treated well. 67 years and several generations isn't "temporary". And it makes complete sense from a moral and common sense point and is in fact done so in practice in every single nation that exists, besides few outliers. team overhead smash posted:I've pointed out how the same laws are being consistently applied to everyone. On the other hand you do seem to have completely flipped your position once I explained the right of return to allow you to continue complaining about it even if it is from a position that is mutually exclusive with the position you were holding just a post or two before. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Nothing's been flipped here, my position has always been exactly the same - I don't believe in right of return as a concept for anyone who hasn't actually been physically driven from their lands and I think countries are obligated to give citizenship to stateless people born in their countries. The laws haven't mattered to me at any point, not when Israel uses them to justify its citizenship, military or apartheid actions, not when Arabs use it. I'm pretty sure all of that has been repeatedly stated by me. team overhead smash posted:It's not just a case of blame, it's a case of justice and restitution for the victims. Even if every single perpetrator dropped dead yesterday there would still be a right of return today and the right of return is a key part of the apartheid state with people who have a right to live in Israel being denied entry on the basis of their race/religion. I think the victims deserve justice and restitution. I think we disagree on who are victimizing most of them on a day-to-day basis and what their rights should be. VitalSigns posted:It seems like there's a pretty big moral hazard in telling a country that has been kicking people off their land and just taking it for decades and decades on up to this very day that the longer they can delay a peace settlement, the more of that land they get to keep and the less reparations they are obligated to pay If you really think Israel will come to the peace table without being forced to it by massive sanctions campaign and the halt of unconditional support from US, I have really bad news to you. How long Israel wants to delay a peace settlement is irrelevant because it won't be something they choose willingly but when they reach their breaking point. What Israel wants to keep at the point of peace negotiations is also irrelevant because the end result will most likely be a single state, and if not, anything short of 1967 borders will be unacceptable to the world. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:07 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:What's more stupid, laws being retroactive or entire groups of people being blamed for crimes committed when they didn't even exist? Because I'm generally against punishing kids for their parents' crimes or accusing entire demographics of past crimes of their ancestors. Yeah, but it's not that simple when the kids are actively benefiting from the proceeds of that theft. If I kick you out of your house and steal it, then give it to my kid, you or your kid don't have a right to try to get it back in court because "oh, well the kid didn't do anything, he just lucked into inheriting a free house! It would be wrong to take his property"? There's a huge-rear end difference between "we're putting you in jail because your dad is a thief" and "we're taking the property your dad stole and gave to you and giving it back to the family of the original owner".
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, but it's not that simple when the kids are actively benefiting from the proceeds of that theft. Are you American? Bad news for you. Native Americans don't exactly have it great in the U.S. even now. Considering how few of them are left, I think all of them would be entitled to millions as the remaining heirs at the very least. Bad news for me too, there were Sámi people living here until the Ugric tribe I'm half-descended from drove them to the north. VitalSigns posted:If I kick you out of your house and steal it, then give it to my kid, you don't have a right to try to get it back in court because "oh, well the kid didn't do anything, he just lucked into inheriting a free house! It would be wrong to take his property". I would have the right for it. I'm the original owner. My kid? My grandkid? When does the ownership end and why does it matter if its two generations or twenty if things aren't still OK for everyone at the end? What about the people who, through no fault of their own, happen to live in something that was stolen when they weren't born? It's OK that they are homeless/deported now too? If someone is being denied full rights and participation in the society where they live and were born, I believe that the solution is to fix that society, not to look for another society/past where their ancestors were being denied the same and demand them justice from there. Or, to use the Native American example I think United States should fix the horrific system that still continues to gently caress them over instead of starting to figure out the exact heritage of everyone to determine who gets Arizona and who gets Oklahoma and how much of the Empire State Building belongs to some dude whose ancestors lived in Manhattan. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:18 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Are you American? Bad news for you. Native Americans don't exactly have it great in the U.S. even now. Considering how few of them are left, I think all of them would be entitled to millions as the remaining heirs at the very least. Uh, yeah I am massively in favor of reparations for Native Americans, African Americans, the children of those disenfranchised by South African apartheid. The economic legacies of those crimes continue on to this very day, and it's absolutely right to rectify these inequalities. DarkCrawler posted:If someone is being denied full rights and participation in the society where they live and were born, I believe that the solution is to fix that society, not to look for another society where their ancestors were being denied the same and demand them justice from there. To use the Native American example I think United States should fix the horrific system that still continues to gently caress them over instead of starting to figure out the exact heritage of everyone to determine who gets Arizona and who gets Oklahoma and how much of the Empire State Building belongs to some dude whose ancestors lived in Manhattan. Maybe the USA should just deport them all to Canada and wait 50 years, then it's magically someone else's problem and we don't have to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh, yeah I am massively in favor of reparations for Native Americans, African Americans, the children of those disenfranchised by South African apartheid. The economic legacies of those crimes continue on to this very day, and it's absolutely right to rectify these inequalities. Well I'm more in favor of building a society without racial discrimination or restricted citizenship, free healthcare, education, etc. so that everyone has an equal chance at succeeding and the economic legacies of those crimes are erased. How would you start calculating those reparations? Is someone half-black entitled to less? Do new immigrants have to participate in collecting those sums or does anyone who descends from slaveholders/colonists have to announce it to IRS so they can be taxed harder? Which Americans have to move out of their houses? If I'm half-black AND half-slaveholder do I just skip the whole thing? VitalSigns posted:Maybe the USA should just deport them all to Canada and wait 50 years, then it's magically someone else's problem and we don't have to deal with it. Maybe you should reply to the question instead of insinuating that I'm for deportations. But there's no magic there. If you're really callous enough to think that you have no responsibility to treat someone who was born in your country and has been there their whole lives equally to everyone else, just because their parents were unlucky enough to be deported there, I don't know what to tell you. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:34 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
I do think the countries where Palestinians live now have a duty to support them and give them citizenship. I don't think that erases the obligation of the State of Israel to those same people. I'm not accusing you of supporting deportation, I'm pointing out the moral hazard in your proposal: any state that expels someone just has to delay any negotiations for 50 years and it is absolved because it's somebody else's problem now. And you don't have to do some weird genetic analysis for reparations to African American and Native America people, that's impossible now obviously. We just need a stiff progressive tax rate, and we need to make large investments in those communities that are still plagued by poverty and not treated as equal citizens. For the Palestinians this is easier, since the Nakba is within living memory and there are records of who is owed money. If 200 years pass before a peace treaty happens and it becomes impossible to resolve any claims then sure we'd have to do it differently, but that's just another argument for not dragging out the process. Especially as every year Israel can drag out the process, more refugees grow old and die and Israel can claim that the original owners of more and more land are dead so they shouldn't have to make restitution. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:44 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And you don't have to do some weird genetic analysis for reparations to African American and Native America people, that's impossible now obviously. We just need a stiff progressive tax rate, and we need to make large investments in those communities that are still plagued by poverty and not treated as equal citizens. That's not reparations now, is it? That's just socialism (which, speaking from personal experience, is great). VitalSigns posted:For the Palestinians this is easier, since the Nakba is within living memory and there are records of who is owed money. Are there? Do nearly seven decades in squalid refugee camps, with Black September, the Lebanese and Syrian Civil Wars and bunch of inter-Palestinian conflicts really ensure the reliability of said records? Some of them were expelled before the State of Israel existed. Some of them have intermarried and assimilated in places where that isn't as impossible (Plenty of Palestinians outside ME too). Is it just about money, or land too? Some left voluntarily before or after. How many Israelis need to be deported or moved out for 4-5 million Palestinians to move there? If there are say, 20 people descended from two original refugees, do they have to split what's entitled for those two or do they get that times twenty? And of course, where is the money coming from? Things change plenty in seventy years to make it an immensely complicated process. It's the reason why reparations have been nearly always given to the actual people who the atrocities were targeted against, for example Japanese internment camps. Or given as a lump sum to an entity representing them, like Holocaust reparations to Claims Conference. I'm certainly for Israel giving reparations for Arab countries and State of Palestine for absorbing and resettling Palestinian refugees who had to abandon their property, like West Germany gave for Israel - the problem is that in the case of most Arab countries they haven't actually done that. And that Arab countries would then have to give back a part of that money to Israel for absorbing and resettling Jewish refugees from Arab countries. VitalSigns posted:If 200 years pass before a peace treaty happens and it becomes impossible to resolve any claims then sure we'd have to do it differently, but that's just another argument for not dragging out the process. Especially as every year Israel can drag out the process, more refugees grow old and die and Israel can claim that the original owners of more and more land are dead so they shouldn't have to make restitution. But again, the peace treaty won't happen until the world forces it on Israel. Israel's claims and cries won't matter, they'll take what they can or face the far worse consequences, like white South Africa, Rhodesia or the American South. By then I'd say every original owner is dead anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:That's not reparations now, is it? That's just socialism (which, speaking from personal experience, is great). Well, why not? It takes money to get these people set up in their society and bring them up to economic parity with the rest of the country. That's the same thing reparations money to Palestinian refugees would be intended to do. There are also differences: Native Americans weren't kicked out to another country. They still live here, so there's no issue with them being prevented from entering the USA. When South Africa tried to do this with the Bantustans, exile people there, and forbid them from reentering South Africa by revoking their citizenship, the world was like "nope, you have to let them back in South Africa, sorry, you can't just deport black people to their own states and then have white majority rule in the lands you want to keep". There is no legal barrier to a Cherokee going to, eg, Georgia and buying some land and living in his ancestral homeland. Buying land there just takes money, I'd be fine with the US government buying people out like that. DarkCrawler posted:Are there? Do nearly seven decades in squalid refugee camps, with Black September, the Lebanese and Syrian Civil Wars and bunch of inter-Palestinian conflicts really ensure the reliability of said records? Some of them were expelled before the State of Israel existed. Some of them have intermarried and assimilated in places where that isn't as impossible (Plenty of Palestinians outside ME too). Is it just about money, or land too? Some left voluntarily before or after. How many Israelis need to be deported or moved out for 4-5 million Palestinians to move there? If there are say, 20 people descended from two original refugees, do they have to split what's entitled for those two or do they get that times twenty? And of course, where is the money coming from? I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country if they want and be taken care of exactly as Israel takes care of foreigners whose ancestors have never lived in Israel with their own Right of Return. Israel certainly manages to find money for that, don't they? I also agree that whatever reparations Israel pays to Arab countries should be reduced by the amount Arab countries owe Israel for their own expulsions, and those Jews should be permitted to return to those Arab countries if they want, assuming they would actually want to.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, why not? It takes money to get these people set up in their society and bring them up to economic parity with the rest of the country. That's the same thing reparations money to Palestinian refugees would be intended to do. Socialism isn't reparations to me, its just an equalizer regardless of who your ancestors are. There are poor whites in the US as well as well as poor immigrants who have no ancestors in the U.S. VitalSigns posted:I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to enter the country if they want and be taken care of exactly as Israel takes care of foreigners whose ancestors have never lived in Israel with their own Right of Return. Israel certainly manages to find money for that, don't they? I think that Israel's own right of return is wrong too. I'm not sure why people keep saying that I'm for it, I'm not.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Do you actually believe that a flood of refugees coming in is workable in practice? How is it fair to destroy their privileged security of being a majority, and worse, disperse Mizrahim to states that expelled them and clearly have interest in having them live in their borders as full citizens? How does advocating this incentivize Israel to negotiate and stop worse behaviors that actually make life worse for the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis? Chomsky has argued, rightly I think, that focusing on the refugee issue, which Israel clearly will never cave on, sucks out the oxygen from more pressing issues and enables the Israeli right to claim that their opponents are disingenuous and really want to destroy Israel than obtain human rights or anything of the sort. If you say, welp, no peace deal unless refugees, and the international community has clearly made Israel's actions viable and that shows no evidence of changing significantly, there's going to be no peace deal. And that's going to be a lot worse for Palestinians than it will be for Israelis. And if you're in denial about this, look at Taba, look at any part of the international consensus. They're not coming back, it's effectively a settled issue. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 14:28 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:How is it fair to destroy their privileged security of being a majority, and worse, disperse Mizrahim to states that expelled them and clearly have interest in having them live in their borders as full citizens?  Where did you fish that one?Allowing refugees to return, be they Palestinians expelled from Israel or Mizrahi Jews expelled from Arab countries, is not expelling them back the other way around. Mizrahim are quite unlikely to wish in their majority to leave Israel now, so they wouldn't be dispersed.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
By the way, DarkCrawler: You're kind of objectively wrong in that argument about reparations that you were having with VitalSigns. Reparations can and do include investments specifically in the communities of those affected (or other sorts of investments, like helping pay for their college, etc). This sort of reparations is both more politically palatable and more effective than just giving checks to everyone. Also, regarding the right of return stuff, I think that your argument is a really good example of a bad slippery slope argument. Is it difficult to determine where to draw the line regarding when people can be allowed to return to land seized from them in the past? Yes, it is. This does not mean that it is logical to draw that line at "only the current generation." We have to draw lines all the time in laws, and one regarding a right of return for Palestinians would be no different. At the very least, it makes sense for people who can show records to be allowed to return. As VitalSigns and I think others have mentioned, your argument also creates a big problem in that it encourages countries like Israel to just postpone negotiations for a few decades. Kim Jong Il posted:How does advocating this incentivize Israel to negotiate and stop worse behaviors that actually make life worse for the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis? Chomsky has argued, rightly I think, that focusing on the refugee issue, which Israel clearly will never cave on, sucks out the oxygen from more pressing issues and enables the Israeli right to claim that their opponents are disingenuous and really want to destroy Israel than obtain human rights or anything of the sort. If you say, welp, no peace deal unless refugees, and the international community has clearly made Israel's actions viable and that shows no evidence of changing significantly, there's going to be no peace deal. And that's going to be a lot worse for Palestinians than it will be for Israelis. While I would probably agree that it isn't useful for countries to focus on this in negotiations, we are just discussing whether it is the moral/right thing to do on a message board. "Palestinians should have the right of return to Israel" is not the same thing as "Politicians should focus on giving Palestinians the right of return to Israel."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Regarding a question earlier about Israeli preparations for attacking Southern Lebanon, Israel has sent calming messages to Iran and Hezbollah, reassuring them that the upcoming home front drill is not going to be used as a cover to attack them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Regarding a question earlier about Israeli preparations for attacking Southern Lebanon, Israel has sent calming messages to Iran and Hezbollah, reassuring them that the upcoming home front drill is not going to be used as a cover to attack them. Was not expecting confirmation of this post to be the actual content of the link.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Was not expecting confirmation of this post to be the actual content of the link. BRB, going to pitch Calming Message (מסר מרגיע) as code-name for next Southern Lebanon military offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
I'm more in favor of Operation Gentle Caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:How many of us are covered by the Mongol conqu[/url]ests alone? Cutting out the vast swathes of unsupported "everybody knows what I'm saying is true, so I don't have to actually support it" rhetoric...the vast majority of people in areas conquered by the Mongols weren't expelled, and there weren't really any mass population transfers or expulsions of minorities. Despite the brutality of the Mongol invasions, anyone who was still alive when the country submitted generally fared decently under Mongol rule, and in many cases the Mongols would even leave local rulers in charge - as long as they accepted that they were vassals of the Mongol Empire and paid the demanded tributes and taxes. quote:As far as I can tell, Germany stopped paying reparations in the sixties. Most Holocaust survivors were still alive then. I could find no information about it paying it to this very day. Given that all three of these links were found on the first page of a Google search for "germany holocaust reparations", you must not have looked very hard! http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-902528.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/europe/for-60th-year-germany-honors-duty-to-pay-holocaust-victims.html?referrer= http://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-increases-reparations-for-holocaust-survivors/ Oh, and the heavily-subsidized nuclear-capable submarines Germany gives Israel every couple years were apparently part of a quiet Holocaust reparations deal with Israel, too. quote:Except that it happens in literally every case except bizarre outliers like the Arab countries or Myanmar or Japanese with Koreans. And morally it certainly entitles you to that unless you possess no morals. The legalese is what it is, but I'm talking about how things happen in the real world, and unless you can point me out to vast swathes of people living in countries to their fourth generation without the citizenship of that country, you don't really have a case here. Do you need the fourth generation specifically? It's hard to find any info for this, since people usually don't have much reason to complain about living in one country while having citizenship in a different one (unless they're ex-Americans, who bitch endlessly about the tax burden) and thus there's no particular reason for anyone to track it, but the problem of the tens of thousands of people (and their children) who have been stateless ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia over two decades ago is fairly well-documented. And no, their children don't get automatic citizenship in the country they were born in. Look, can you point out some of these "literally every case" you claim to know about? Because, as far as I can tell, you are wrong and all of your claims are backed up by "everyone knows" and "it always happens" with basically no specifics whatsoever. I'm going to the trouble of finding sources and researching things before I say them, and I feel like I'm wasting my time with gathering all these facts, carefully selecting perfect examples, saving sources in case someone asks, and double-checking everything I read, because I'm beginning to get the impression that you're just taking your own gut feelings as the only "facts" you need. Sorry to call you out like this, but I gave a specific example based on the real citizenship laws if several different countries and you came back with the equivalent of "well, none of that really means anything". Between that and your continued reluctance to back up your absurd claim that literally every ethnic group on the planet has been forcibly displaced and expelled as part of ethnic cleansing operations, which you have supported with nothing more than a few Wikipedia articles that didn't even support what you were saying...I hate to call people out, but I'm getting the distinct feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about and don't care to change that. quote:As beneficiaries, I'm talking about the population of Israel, most of who are born right where they are and who took no part in the Nakba. You don't choose where you're born. If somebody steals a precious and irreplacable family heirloom from someone else, gives it to their child, then dies, is it unfair to take the stolen item back from the child because it would be "punishing" the child by taking away the (stolen) gift that they had no part in stealing? Of course not; the confiscation of the item is not a punishment to the perpetrator but rather an effort to make right by restoring to the victim what was taken. The fact that the child lost the stolen item is just a case of tough cookies, because the item never belonged to the child - it didn't stop being a stolen good just because it changed hands, even if it was freely given to someone unaware of its history. The current generation of Israelis may not have chosen to grow up on stolen land, but it's stolen just the same. Do you also think that if someone is discovered to have a counterfeit $100 bill they didn't know about, it's the responsibility of the authorities who confiscate that bill to provide them with a new one because otherwise they would be being "punished" by losing $100 they thought they had?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I'm more in favor of Operation Gentle Caress. Operation Happy Ending Operation Girlfriend Experience In other news, Amnesty International got around to publishing a new report on war crimes committed by Hamas in the last war: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde21/1643/2015/en/ quote:Hamas forces in Gaza committed serious human rights abuses, including abductions, torture and summary and extrajudicial executions with impunity during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict. To date, no one has been held to account for committing these unlawful killings and other abuses, either by the Hamas de facto administration that continues to control Gaza and its security and judicial institutions, or by the Palestinian “national consensus” government that has had nominal authority over Gaza since June 2014. This earlier report cover the use of rockets: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde21/1178/2015/en/ The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Obama: Netanyahu's Palestine stance erodes Israel's credibility
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
What strikes me about this piece is A) what an apparently radical break this is from recent US foreign policy, and yet, B) how tepid Obama's language nonetheless is in comparison to the brutality of the actual situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Didn't he leave his second wife when it turned out she had MS? Looks like you're right. I wonder when he'll leave numero tres.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
This is interestingquote:French telecoms giant Orange SA would end its relationship with an Israeli operator that pays to use its name "tomorrow" if it could, but to do so would be a "huge risk" in terms of penalties, its CEO said Wednesday. http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:55950a03df06491b9254cda1e9e74b9e
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Another rocket attack from Gaza: "A group calling itself the Omar Brigades has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's attack, prompting Israeli fighter jets to bomb three empty fields used by Hamas fighters in the southern Gaza strip." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 02:22
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Another rocket attack from Gaza: That'll show those fields 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
This is a significant step up from bombing UN schools, at leasr
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Well it's not like they can't draw new bombs from US stocks
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Xandu posted:This is interesting The amount of tears over this is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Another rocket attack from Gaza: death .cab for qt posted:This is a significant step up from bombing UN schools, at leasr Disinterested posted:That'll show those fields Reuters and several other sources say that according to "witnesses and medics" says the bombings were carried out against Hamas "training camps", so at least that's the rhetoric Israel's using. No idea which source is right, but the Reuters article is more thorough and takes a moment to highlight the really important things about that bombing, so I'll go with it this time. What really important things? For one thing, by all accounts, the rocket attack was not carried out by Hamas (which Israel acknowledges), but Israel "retaliated" by bombing Hamas instead of targeting the group actually responsible, a group that Hamas actively opposes and works against. It seems clear that Israel is more interested in using it as an excuse to attack Hamas than attacking the group they themselves recognize as the culprit. Also, the group that fired the rocket at Israel explicitly said it did so as retaliation against Hamas for the shooting of an ISIL member. I'll say it again - a pro-ISIL group is firing rockets at Israel in order to hurt Hamas, and explicitly stated that when they claimed responsibility, while also declaring jihad against Israel. And Israel responded by bombing Hamas and doing nothing against the group that launched the attack. This poo poo ain't kosher. quote:Israel retaliated on Thursday for rockets fired at it from Gaza with bombing raids against three militant training camps, and a radical group sympathetic with Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
This has been standard practice for at least a couple of years now? Israel sees Hamas as responsible for all those rogue organizations running around Gaza, and if they won't get them under control we'll just have to give them a reason to try harder! (instead of resources and legitimacy)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, the group that fired the rocket at Israel explicitly said it did so as retaliation against Hamas for the shooting of an ISIL member. I'll say it again - a pro-ISIL group is firing rockets at Israel in order to hurt Hamas, and explicitly stated that when they claimed responsibility, while also declaring jihad against Israel. And Israel responded by bombing Hamas and doing nothing against the group that launched the attack. This poo poo ain't kosher. Seems to me that these Omar Brigades know perfectly well how Israel works and are exploiting it, like a video gamer abuses a glitch in a game's code. Also I'm pretty sure that Israel is in favor of Daesh-linked organizations taking root in Palestine. After all, what they want the most is to keep the status quo forever, and that means never running out of pretexts to occupy and bomb Palestinians. Daesh being the greatest bugaboo in the West since the fall of the Soviet Union, equating Palestinians to them is perfect. They may also want to do with Daesh and Hamas the same play they did before with respectively, Hamas and Fatah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
"If somebody steals a precious and irreplacable family heirloom from someone else, gives it to their child, then dies, is it unfair to take the stolen item back from the child because it would be "punishing" the child by taking away the (stolen) gift that they had no part in stealing? Of course not; the confiscation of the item is not a punishment to the perpetrator but rather an effort to make right by restoring to the victim what was taken. The fact that the child lost the stolen item is just a case of tough cookies, because the item never belonged to the child - it didn't stop being a stolen good just because it changed hands, even if it was freely given to someone unaware of its history. The current generation of Israelis may not have chosen to grow up on stolen land, but it's stolen just the same." Well at a certain point enforcing what was at one point rigth requires a greater evil then the good that can be acheived. The world is for the living and not the ghosts of the past. We aren`t yet at this point in Israel, but give it...50 years or so then i`d say it should from a moral viewpoint cease to be merely occupied land. Legally it never will. But why make the law our master when it should be our servant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
When you commit a crime, keep on committing it until there's prescription.
Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Baudolino posted:Well at a certain point enforcing what was at one point rigth requires a greater evil then the good that can be acheived. So... Egypt should not be in a position to demand antiquities looted in the 1800s back from other nations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
