|
I know I am going to regret asking this, but do you actually think Palestinians were behind the 9/11 attacks and/or are a credible threat to the USA, or are you arguing that Americans are too stupid to tell foreigners apart and that's why America has to be an enemy of Palestine and an ally of the country most of the attackers were from? I guess my question is, are you arguing that you personally are too stupid to know who was behind 9/11 or that Americans are?
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
All deaths that occurred in the invasion of Poland are morally the fault of the Poles and the Poles alone, because if Poland had surrendered immediately no one would have had to die. E: The USA is responsible for Pearl Harbor because Roosevelt could have ceded Southeast Asia to Japan and paid them oil tribute E2: hakimashou posted:i am arguing that i personally am too stupid to know who was behind 9/11 Oh okay I figured, thanks for clearing that up. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Neither the ANC nor the Afrikaner NP are willing to budge on whether black people can leave the bantustans, clearly both sides are equally at fault for apartheid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Continuing to expand into new areas, cleanse the locals, and build settlements sounds a lot like setting up an apartheid state to me, considering it's taking areas which are not currently part of a racist apartheid state and reconstituting them as one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Another aspect of this which is fundamentally problematic is the extent to which anti-Zionism is not about ideas but about repeating the proper catechism. If you say that it's absurd to say that Israel is being "set up", then people immediately claim that the illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem historically is irrelevant, and settlements emerge apparently from the aether rather than being a manifestation of existing Israeli policy for decades. It's a stupid statement to make, but it's of course not about thinking, it's about the fact that someone disputed one of the slogans. Building new settlements isn't setting them up, because other settlements were built before?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Do you know what a "state" is? Yes. Do you know that states aren't "set up" in one instant, and that "setting up" a state is a long process that takes decades and often centuries? Continuing to incorporate more and more areas into an ever-greater expansionist state is certainly an ongoing process of setting up a state. No one would ever argue, regarding any other state, that an ongoing program of military conquest and occupation isn't "setting up" a wider imperial state because "oh well you see we have been expanding for decades so we must be past the set-up stage by now"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah. A conversation that would not have happened had the people interrogating them not been antisemites. How many times must this be explained to you? This also doesn't explain the non-/anti-Zionists forced to leave for carrying similar "offensive" symbols. Eh I don't know about this. There are some versions of the Christian cross that have, hm, very political overtones. Asking what someone means by their choice of cross to display is not anti-Christian bias, and if their response is "why yes, it just so happens I do believe in a white nationalist ethnostate from which all others have been relocated into walled-off enclaves under an apartheid regime, whoa hey you can't kick me out just for being a Christian stop discriminating against my religion" I am going to be...skeptical that it was just a total coincidence that a white supremacist just so happened to select a version of a religious icon associated with their white supremacist politics and there was no intent to make a political statement thereby. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:The Star of David doesn't carry those overtones. Agreed. Neither does the Christian cross. The flag of Israel does though. As do certain juxtapositions of the cross-and-flame (but not others, for example the Methodist cross). So it doesn't seem inherently unreasonable to me to ask someone whether their symbol is intended to represent their religion or their politics, if an ambiguous symbol is chosen. And if the response is "well yes I just so happen to be a political supporter of apartheid thanks for asking", well maybe it's still a coincidence but I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Other people in other countries do much worse things than BDS, Kim Jong Il, so shouldn't you be spending 100% of your time talking about those things before you say a word about BDS?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's not 100%, it's proportionality. And I do spend a lot of time thinking about them, it's imperative that tyrants like Assad or the Sauds be brought to justice. Ah, so you're advocating that no one ever do anything about BDS, because that would violate the concept of proportionality as any time or effort spent counter-organizing can't ever be proportional to the amount of time one should be spending organizing against all the more numerous and much more serious things happening around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If Israel was uniformly interested in colonization, they would have done so. Their interest in colonization is irrelevant to them refraining from doing so because no matter how much interest they have they could not succeed without American aid, loans, and weapons shipments, which would stop if they decided to go full Assad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Is anyone actually pro-Israel. All the pro-Israel posts on these last two pages look like lazy trolling, it's all just rephrasings of the evil three-decade-old apartheid defenses in my home country.
All we need now is Kirschen-style alternate history "Palestine didn't exist before 1948, so Palestinians must not have been here either, maybe they appeared out of the ether one day" so we can check off the "actually, white people settled Africa first" argument. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
I don't think qkkl is being serious, it's a little too on the nose. Real Likud defenders take care to disguise their unreasonable demands. But you know, Poe's Law. It's hard to tell when you've got unironic psychopaths like Hakimashou who has been relentlessly pro-genocide in every situation for years and years, including arguing that it would be good if America nuked the world immediately after WW2 because it would be America doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:It's not racism that baffles me but the idea that something as obviously malleable as culture or geographic location can be fetishized. It's the same impulse that makes idiots buy pallets of nutri-grain bars or something after the kellogs ceo badmouths trump or whatever. I mean, European history is basically one long story of people idolizing the little dale where they were born and the good familiar apes they've known all their lives who speak the good language and worship the right god, while snarling in rage and fear at the bad other apes who live in the next dale over and speak with a slightly different accent and wear unfamiliar clothes and worship the wrong god (or the right god in the wrong way), and then killing millions of each other in blood feuds over whose neighborhood has the better people, so...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Was it ever different anywhere else? Good point. I just meant it's not surprising people like that still exist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Didn't Britain consciously make all those non-white people British in the 40s as a gambit to hang on to their overseas empire?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Londinium 79AD 85% Roman Briton  Londinium 979AD 10% Roman Briton, 20% Dane, 70% Saxon oh my lord what a disaster, these Saxons they aren't even human!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, who isn't aiding and abetting war crimes? Oh well then, as long as you keep your murdering down to "The History of Russia Minus 1" levels that makes it okay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Dommolus Magnus posted:What is his point here? Probably something more like "holy poo poo, an Israeli is sincerely disseminating neo-Nazi propaganda because its anti-Semitic attack is targeting someone who has criticized Israeli government policy. Authoritarianism is a hell of a drug".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah, I'm sure that's "Dr." David ""Former" KKK Grand Wizard" Duke's argument here.  I'm dumb
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Any Jew can take advantage of the Law of Return, which Israel, as a sovereign state, has as part of its immigration law, so they can come in, and make themselves relevant. Much like Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state and can decide not to give citizenship to Palestinians in order to "help" them retain their Right of Return, and keep them disenfranchised, and keep blaming Israel for this in perpetuity. Actually this is everyone else's fault for not letting you stay with them. Toodles!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
A murderer wouldn't honor due process, so why should police have to honor due process if they think someone might be a murderer? Heh take that, human rights 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Nah, he's just a shithead. He thought the US should have nuked the USSR and killed everyone there after World War 2. Ah but if the US had successfully executed a first strike against a non-nuclear foe, the US would be the winners, retroactively justifying murdering millions and millions of people and spreading fallout all over the globe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Good to see the right-wing racist argument that someone moving in down the street from you is actually just like them kicking you out of your own home.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:. Please don't conflate all Jewish people with the State of Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
fritzgryphon posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria ? Therefore, I suppose, resistance to apartheid was immoral, because the white minority government had greater military might and could have massacred the majority if they so chose. Therefore the only moral course of action for the ANC was to surrender unconditionally and collaborate with the Nats to defeat any movement for democracy or civil rights as swiftly as possible thereby minimizing the number of protesters or dissidents or just ordinary civilians Botha's government had to murder to sustain minority rule.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Even he were right about the economics (like you said he's not, slavery was incredibly profitable and the South was terrified of losing the free labor their plantation economy depended on), the """moral""" conclusion he's drawing is that the African American slaves should have submitted and policed each other into submitting and never tried to resist or run away in order to minimize the number of unruly slaves the plantation owners reluctantly had to torture and kill to maintain the institution.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Keep in mind that hakimashou thinks that back when America was the sole nuclear power it would have been good for us to nuke most of Eurasia and poison half the world with radioactive fallout, this would have been righteous by definition because the people with the power to do it would have been the ones doing it. It's like arguing with Zorg from the fifth element, there's no way to come to an agreement because he's starting from a fundamentally incompatible moral premise totally alien to humanity. O'Brien from 1984 might be a more exact analogy actually, the ideal existence is a boot stomping on the face of humanity, forever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Interestingly the Nuremberg trials included charges against the Germans for waging aggressive war going back to the invasion of Poland in 1939, and since a settled maxim of the law is that you can't punish people for actions that weren't illegal until after they did them, the only logical solution, if you believe in the Nuremberg verdicts, is that waging war to acquire territory was already illegal in 1939. At any rate, it certainly was by 1945, or 1948 when al-Naqba happened. While he would agree with every sentence handed out at Nuremberg because he believes in victor's justice so anything the winner does to the vanquished is by definition moral, he would disagree with the charges because under his morality the only crime the Nazis committed was losing the war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
I'm sure there are better ways to debate Al-Saqr's assertions than attacking him for his racial heritage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Nothing I've said has indicated this, and I've indicated the direct opposite. Every state should have 100% open borders. In the interim, it's unfair to single out some countries for betraying this ideal paradigm and not others. I am in favor of open borders and open immigration in every country, but we have to #BuildTheWall and keep the Mexicans out because there's just too much gosh-darned ethnic strife when they're around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
It's not "necessary" for anyone because racism and ethnic supremacy are not only unnecessary but also wrong, evil, horrific, and counterproductive to goals of a prosperous and just society, hope that helps!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Colonialists never worry about that, hypocrisy is integral to their philosophy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Therefore the Geneva Conventions are a sham and ethnic cleansing is fine, actually. Thanks for the authoritarian take.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The Geneva Conventions relate to the treatment of the sick, wounded, shipwrecked, POWs, and civilians in war, and aren't relevant to whether a particular seizure of territory is justified. So because nobody wanted to attack a nuclear power that means conquest is morally okay now? In other words might makes right and the only crime the Nazis committed was losing the war, Coolio thanks for this fresh and new take that authoritarian dipshits haven't posted a thousand times before to justify apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The problem is it's not applied consistently, if you look at Russia in multiple cases, the most recent being Ukraine, Turkey in Cyprus, etc... Reducing the total amount of war and genocide is a good thing, you lunatic. If your reaction to Turkey mass murdering Cypriots is "well now it's only fair that we increase worldwide mass murder as much as possible so everyone gets another turn" then you are bad at reasoning and bad at morality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:
No it's not. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy for a reason. Only a psychopath would argue that because Duterte is murdering thousands of people it's only fair that you have a turn too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:They're only fallacies when they're not relevant (there are real slippery slopes all of the time for instance), not directly pertinent to the argument at hand. Actions by X don't make actions by Y ok. No there are no valid slippery slope arguments, by definition, because if you can logically show that an undesirable or contradictory conclusion can be deduced from a given set of premises then you have some type of valid argument (proof by contradiction, or reduction ad absurdum or something). Slippery slope refers to merely asserting the undesirable conclusion without any valid argument to back it up. You're bad at reasoning. Likewise there is no valid tu quoque, because the truth of a proposition doesn't change based on whether the person you're talking to is a hypocrite. Nor does any rigorous ethical theory say that morality changes based on who you happen to be talking to. It doesn't become okay for me to murder just because OJ Simpson is the one telling me not to do it and only a psychopath would argue otherwise. Kim Jong Il posted:Saying Y's actions make X's actions worse, or they should be called out equally, is not fallacious. That aint the argument you're making though, you are specifically making the argument that it is right for Israel to expand by conquest and ethnic cleansing right here in the very same post! Kim Jong Il posted:I don't think it's possible to reverse the majority of them, and the international consensus on the two state solution, including the Palestinian Authority, includes land swaps. Palestinians don't have leverage, so the choice is either go with the maps that Olmert was offering a decade ago, or receive increasingly less over time. Like you understand that I can read the whole post right. Like just because you quote someone else that doesn't turn it into a DM that I can't see, you know that yes? So there is no point trying to tell me you're just calling for more scrutiny on Turkey while you defend Israel's conquests to someone else, because I can see both so I know you are lying to me about what you believe because I can see you saying the exact opposite in the very next paragraph.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Crime will always exist, so why try to prevent it. Can't change human nature. Just grin and bear it everyone, just like the weather.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? I know that the Cubans supported communists in Angola and helped defeat the SA intervention, but did they actually support anti-apartheid forces within SA? With training and funding outside the country yes. Not with direct military intervention (or an air campaign) within South Africa itself like that guy was claiming, no. I've been reading the memories of one of the progressive party politicians from the era (Van Zyl Slabbert) and he does credit the defeat in Angola with playing a large part in convincing the military and security establishment that no "military solution" to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 15:10
|
|