|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:"anxiety attacks" In todays news, a group of settlers were reportedly "All shook up" and needed to be tended to by trained medical professionals, the IDF responded by dispatching a fleet of bulldozers to flatten another mile of
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Ok that's really cool and it's great that you admit that it's actually the People whose views are the problem here, but I don't really see how those are Obamass responsibility, or how figuratively screaming "come at me bro!" at the pulpit is going to result in anything but political chaos. Democratically elected leaders don't have a responsibility to challenge people's views even if they are wrong. That's the responsibility of the civil society. Yeah actually they kind of do have exactly that responsibility. Heads of state don't just advocate whatever is popular with no agency. For instance just in the last couple of weeks when Obama's veto on the populist bill to sue Saudi Arabia was overridden, his Press Secretary called it the most embarrassing action in decades and Obama himself called it dangerous. Also how the gently caress you get 'screaming "come at me bro!"' from 'legitimate criticism of Israeli atrocities and war crimes'? Perhaps, just perhaps, a politician with years of experience and giving speeches and communicating ideas who is actually very well-regarded for his ability in that specific skill-set might be able to do something more than scream vague threats and actually communicate legitimate issues in a manner which makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Ok that's really cool and it's great that you admit that it's actually the People whose views are the problem here, but I don't really see how those are Obamass responsibility, or how figuratively screaming "come at me bro!" at the pulpit is going to result in anything but political chaos. Democratically elected leaders don't have a responsibility to challenge people's views even if they are wrong. That's the responsibility of the civil society. Last I checked civil society in America is speaking out against Israel's actions. But any political candidate who could actually lend a voice to them in congress or state is either: a) Virulently anti-semitic/Conspiracy nut/no verbal filter i.e: will make things worse. b) Is essentially a wasted vote since they're not in either two parties. You've heard of the Cuomo BDS debacle havent you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
How could it not? Pretty drat easily. Despite eight years of efforts, Obama hasn't even been able to shift the needle on "locking people up indefinitely with no charge because an anonymous tipster said they were a terrorist". Hell, a significant number of people insisted that he wasn't even a US citizen. You think his opponents can't make an "anti-Semite" accusation stick against a guy with an Arab middle name who just recently pushed the Iran deal through in the face of heavy opposition? The POTUS does have some ability to advocate for things, but his ability to actually meaningfully change public opinion is limited; in spite of his Iran deal efforts, public opinion of both Iran and the deal remains unfavorable, and it's all he can do to keep Congress from tearing it up. Hell, racism is still a thing, in spite of decades of presidential anti-discrimination efforts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
It's really sad that it turns out very few had a problem with Bush's methods and massive expansion of the executive, they were just mad it wasn't their team wasn't at bat. Call me crazy but it's kinda good the US system is designed to retard rapid changes because while it may suck when you are in power it's very good when a maniac like Trump has the possibility of winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:You don't seem to be particularly familiar with American politics. While the President is hugely influential in his party, he is by no means the exclusive actor who guides and shapes its policy. There is an entrenched set of influential career politicians in the Democratic Party who are staunchly opposed to giving anything more than lip service to the Palestinian cause, as in the examples I and Cat Mattress provided you. Are you really going to try to suggest that the governor of New York is more influential within the Democratic Party than the President of the United States of America? That Andy Cuomo's office in Albany has more say over how US foreign policy is conducted than the White House and the State Department? Or that opposing BDS makes one an Israeli shill? What does that make Norman Finkelstein? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/world/middleeast/obama-israel-west-bank-settlements.html quote:WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday castigated the Israeli government for approving plans to create a new Jewish settlement on the West Bank, three weeks after it signed a lucrative military aid package with the United States and just as President Obama was traveling to Jerusalem for the funeral of Shimon Peres. That mainstream American politicians (up to and including the President) do not denounce Israel and Israelis with the sort of hyperbolic vitriol that certain posters would like does not mean that they're not consistently opposed to increased settlement activity or that they're ignoring it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
three weeks after it signed a lucrative military aid package
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:That mainstream American politicians (up to and including the President) do not denounce Israel and Israelis with the sort of hyperbolic vitriol that certain posters would like does not mean that they're not consistently opposed to increased settlement activity or that they're ignoring it. Name a single thing Obama has done in response to any warcrime by Israel. Actual action, rather than saying "fie!" while sending them billions of dollars in military aid that will, in part, be used to police new settlements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
There's something about "actions" and "words". All the castigation in the world is meaningless and futile if it keeps being accompanied by lucrative military aid packages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How could it not? Pretty drat easily. Despite eight years of efforts, Obama hasn't even been able to shift the needle on "locking people up indefinitely with no charge because an anonymous tipster said they were a terrorist". Hell, a significant number of people insisted that he wasn't even a US citizen. You think his opponents can't make an "anti-Semite" accusation stick against a guy with an Arab middle name who just recently pushed the Iran deal through in the face of heavy opposition? The POTUS does have some ability to advocate for things, but his ability to actually meaningfully change public opinion is limited; in spite of his Iran deal efforts, public opinion of both Iran and the deal remains unfavorable, and it's all he can do to keep Congress from tearing it up. Hell, racism is still a thing, in spite of decades of presidential anti-discrimination efforts. Guantanamo was something Obama himself caved in, Americans do have a more favourable view of the Iran deal than they did originally (phone posting but can link to polls later) and though racism has not been solved the acceptable discourse on race has changed radically over the decades. The Insect Court posted:Are you really going to try to suggest that the governor of New York is more influential within the Democratic Party than the President of the United States of America? That Andy Cuomo's office in Albany has more say over how US foreign policy is conducted than the White House and the State Department? Or that opposing BDS makes one an Israeli shill? What does that make Norman Finkelstein? I think that's pretty clearly not what is being said. He's talking about the collective power of a group of ideologically similar entrenched politicians, not that any one politician individually has more sway than the POTUS. quote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/world/middleeast/obama-israel-west-bank-settlements.html Is "I guess when we're talking about how good friends treat one another, that's a serious source of concern as well" an appropriate response to ethnic cleansing? No, clearly not. Your link just proves what people are trying to tell you. In them the USA is critical of Israel for not holding to agreements made to the USA and for making a two-state solution less likely. They don't actually criticise the act as in and of itself wrong. They are more concerned with the moral issue of Israel not holding to agreements than to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Hell, they rate the impact of this on Israel's long term security as more important than the Palestinians. The point you are trying to make is absurd because you seem to be comparing the USA's statements to saying absolutely nothing at all rather than comparing them to the appropriate response to war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
I think one of the really fundamental things I've noticed about a lot of the people posting in israel's defense of its horrible crimes, is this default to legalistics. Anyone who is honest will admit to themselves it's not really laws that govern the world and people's actions, it's power and the relative chance they'll be forced to confront that power whatever form it takes. I think there's just something inherently false to when someone is confronted with evidence of say, an israeli atrocity and the first response is "uh well it's technically legal", because one of the very functions of law, and to a lesser extent, civil/criminal laws, is to justify violent responses from law enforcement without the concomitant feeling of remorse and guilt over having killed or injured other people. Would anyone here who's tried using law or some sort of sacrosanct observance of military law/rules of engagement be as generous with it's applications if they had a family member or a loved one who suffered from state violence? It's absurd on the surface of it; people don't think like "my cousin went to get ice cream for his wife and because he was driving a bit erratically and it was late the idf blew his windshield and most of his face apart but its alright because they felt threatened and were just following the rules of engagement". You can defend israeli actions all you want like that just know that everyone else here thinks you sound like a kid with the D&D player's handbook tearfully trying to explain to their DM how their character actually did survive a trap/fall/combat because just look at this rule here, you're not interpreting it correctly, you need to follow the rules etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Ever think maybe Israel is chaotic neutral? We're just staying in character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
More like Chaotic Stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:More like Chaotic Stupid. That's what I said though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:There's something about "actions" and "words". All the castigation in the world is meaningless and futile if it keeps being accompanied by lucrative military aid packages. In all fairness, Obama is literally incapable of stopping the aid. I feel like there's not enough attention paid to the utterly ridiculous fact that the last military aid deal included a clause saying that Israel would refuse to accept any attempt by Congress to unilaterally increase aid beyond the amount negotiated by the administration. The Obama administration has made several significant and noticeable diplomatic shifts in the way it approaches Israel, but it's asking a bit much for meaningful federal action when there's still a federal law requiring the US to stop funding any UN agency that recognizes Palestine as a state (among a variety of other anti-Palestine laws that constrain the executive).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:That's what I said though? There's a right way and a wrong way to play C/N. The dumb way is referred to as chaotic stupid. Anyway colonialism is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I think one of the really fundamental things I've noticed about a lot of the people posting in israel's defense of its horrible crimes, is this default to legalistics. Anyone who is honest will admit to themselves it's not really laws that govern the world and people's actions, it's power and the relative chance they'll be forced to confront that power whatever form it takes. I think there's just something inherently false to when someone is confronted with evidence of say, an israeli atrocity and the first response is "uh well it's technically legal", because one of the very functions of law, and to a lesser extent, civil/criminal laws, is to justify violent responses from law enforcement without the concomitant feeling of remorse and guilt over having killed or injured other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I think one of the really fundamental things I've noticed about a lot of the people posting in israel's defense of its horrible crimes, is this default to legalistics. Anyone who is honest will admit to themselves it's not really laws that govern the world and people's actions, it's power and the relative chance they'll be forced to confront that power whatever form it takes. I think there's just something inherently false to when someone is confronted with evidence of say, an israeli atrocity and the first response is "uh well it's technically legal", because one of the very functions of law, and to a lesser extent, civil/criminal laws, is to justify violent responses from law enforcement without the concomitant feeling of remorse and guilt over having killed or injured other people. And people who suffer violence from refugees tend to have a lower opinion of them as a whole I'm not sure your argument says anything interesting or profound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
I don't post to appear profound or learned, it was a trend I observed that several posters with a contrary opinion of mine were expressing. Shut the gently caress up about refugees.Dead Reckoning posted:Well, part of it is that people like to throw around the term "war crimes" a lot as a moral cudgel, and since war crimes, like other crimes, are defined acts subject to legal analysis, a legalistic approach is unavoidable when discussing them. A legalistic approach is also part of the idea that actions should be analyzed against a universal standard of whether or not they are permissible, irrespective of our feelings about the parties involved. On a personal level, I'd be horrified if one of my relatives was shot at a military checkpoint, but my personal feelings on the matter have no bearing on whether the shooter's actions were criminal. hot take from the guy who defended the bombing of an MSF hospital by the USAF. Ultramega fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:And people who suffer violence from refugees tend to have a lower opinion of them as a whole I'm not sure your argument says anything interesting or profound. I don't know you or care to necro any embarassing quotes/threads by you but please get the gently caress out of this or any thread if all you're gonna bring to it is a bunch of pithy, hand-wringing poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:hot take from the guy who defended the bombing of an MSF hospital by the USAF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you don't understand how saying "this doesn't meet the definition of a crime" is not the same as supporting something, this may be the source of your confusion. I'm not supporting this action, I'm merely, as the rational adult in the room, insisting that it should bear no consequence for occurring, nor should it be prohibited from occurring in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you don't understand how saying "this doesn't meet the definition of a crime" is not the same as supporting something, this may be the source of your confusion. way to prove me right, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm not supporting this action, I'm merely, as the rational adult in the room, insisting that it should bear no consequence for occurring, nor should it be prohibited from occurring in the future. Ultramega posted:way to prove me right, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not being illegal is not the same as not having consequences. This is a distinction most rational people make. For example, I think adultery is wrong, but I don't think it should be illegal. All right, so lay out what the consequences should be for the destruction of the MSF hospital then, so we can all rest assured that you're not engaging in throwing up waves of bullshit to avoid committing yourself to admitting you believe anything about anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Before you reply and continue to make the topic more about you I want to also point out that the bombing of a hospital full of innocent people is a drop in the ocean compared to the usual poo poo the armed forces gets away with routinely without being censured for and considered in a broader context what people are really taking umbrage with here isn't explicitly the bombing of a hospital full of people, rather toward the general trend of soldiers committing unbelieveably savage acts and getting off with relatively few consequences. There's an extremely apparent power difference being exercised here and to maybe to try to tie this back into Israel/Palestine, the other thing that really strikes a cord with people is the blatant difference in power exercised by the colonizers on the colonized. I said months ago how the west bank settler population is "weaponized". What I missed there entirely was that the very act of colonization is an act of aggression and the blatant exercising of power over a largely powerless population who are extorted and brutalized on a daily basis. It's the culture of impunity there as well that probably most angers me when I hear about I/P in the headlines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Adultery actually has zero consequences on its own though. Like besides hurt feelings if you have a prenup or your spouse doesn't give a poo poo you won't even get the legal problems of a divorce (which will happen irrespective of any moral failures in the process of a divorce). Even without going to their actions in war Israel practices apartheid and colonialism and regardless of not whether they are crimes under Israeli law they are crimes against humanity. Adultery is a bad thing but I wouldn't classify it as that.
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Adultery actually has zero consequences on its own though. Like besides hurt feelings if you have a prenup or your spouse doesn't give a poo poo you won't even get the legal problems of a divorce (which will happen irrespective of any moral failures in the process of a divorce). Even without going to their actions in war Israel practices apartheid and colonialism and regardless of not whether they are crimes under Israeli law they are crimes against humanity. Adultery is a bad thing but I wouldn't classify it as that. How dare people take offense at their spouse betraying their trust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
when jews emigrate to any country but israel it's adultery against g-d
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:when jews emigrate to any country but israel it's adultery against g-d I consider myself mostly a former jew, perhaps if I move to Australia and you come here to tel-aviv god would feel less scorned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How dare people take offense at their spouse betraying their trust. Yeah not where I was going at all 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
so it's gonna be cool watching President Hillary embark on her grand makeup tour to Israel, Saudi and Sultan God-Emperor Erdogan first thing after she's inaugurated
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
today on chapo
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
there's no such thing as a former jew you hot moron, we are never free not even in death
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:we are never free not even in death
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
I think politically the right thing would have been to found Israel on the charred remains of Germany after WWII, but then again I'm a religious man and believe this is all part of God's plan. it's odd, i've spent so many years aggressively arguing against Israel but it seems that despite all of what I've seen, God has realigned my perceptions and I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself unconditionally. What if, idk, I know this must be stupid for some reason but it's just a thought, what if the whole territory just because officially part of Israel and all of the palestinians are treated as honored guests and get super sweet new citizen packages like a butt load of money a housing subsidies and education and all that to settle any hard feelings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I think politically the right thing would have been to found Israel on the charred remains of Germany after WWII, but then again I'm a religious man and believe this is all part of God's plan. Then they'd still get discriminated against. I'm in favour of a single state solution, but it'd require a massive amount of constitutional work, not to mention complete separation of church and state which most Israelis would oppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Welcome, honoured guest, to this country your people have lived in for a thousand years 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:What if, idk, I know this must be stupid for some reason but it's just a thought, what if the whole territory just because officially part of Israel and all of the palestinians are treated as honored guests and get super sweet new citizen packages like a butt load of money a housing subsidies and education and all that to settle any hard feelings? If they're truly treated as equal citizens, then they get an equal right to vote. Palestinian population growth is a lot faster than Israeli population growth, so it'd be only a matter of time until Israel had to confront the contradiction inherent in "Jewish and democratic state". That's why Israel and many Israel supporters are so adamant that a one-state solution is impossible: Palestinians would make up enough of the population that they couldn't simply be marginalized without anti-democratic measures that would harm Israel's international legitimacy. Non-Jewish Israelis already make up about a quarter of Israel's population, and that's already too high for some on the right. That's why the Israeli government absolutely won't permit a one-state solution - it would shift the demographics enough that the Jewish parties would no longer be able to completely ignore the wishes of the Arab minority without resorting to apartheid. There's also the question of what you mean by "all Palestinians". Does it include the Palestinian refugees, who were driven out by force and violence and still sit in refugee camps hoping for return? If you don't include a right of return for them, the Palestinians are obviously going to be pissed, since in many cases the refugees were fleeing outright ethnic cleansing. If you include a highly limited right of return, the Palestinians will cry foul and point to the very broad Law of Return that Israel provides for Jewish people. If you include a full right of return, the Palestinian diaspora outnumbers Israeli Jews, so multiply the previous paragraph by five and you'll be able to guess what Israel thinks of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 23:53
|
|
