American Politics

[xi0]

Yeah, as far as antisemitism goes. I'd even go as far as to say the vast majority of MAGAts are only racist in the sense that they promote racist policies, but don't think they're racist.

Christian conservatives might support Israel for eschatological reasons, but that's still pretty much antisemitic. Like the preacher who claimed the Holocaust happened so Israel could be founded, etc.

This tunnel looks exactly like the tunnel in that Vice News vid I posted. But hey, this is the IDF so take it with a grain of salt.

How about a boulder of salt?





The amount of outright lies and fabrications I've seen on twitter from the IDF, it's difficult to take anything they say seriously. And yeah, I know most governments will lie and propagandize, but they're exceptional.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2023, Original Post Date: Nov 20, 2023 ---

I mean, the mass execution part would be accurate here, if not forced labor. But anyway, point was, "concentration camp" isn't a phrase only exclusive to the Nazis and their victims, and McNuss and anyone who thinks that needs to... to put it politely, stop.

That wasn't your point in saying it's literally a concentration camp though. You believe people are making that argument but I've yet to see it really explained by anyone tbh.

I don't remember if he was reacting to that or just holocaust comparisons, but no, obviously concentration camps are not exclusive to the Holocaust, it'st just the most famous example of it.

 

[ninjabot]

Christian conservatives might support Israel for eschatological reasons, but that's still pretty much antisemitic. Like the preacher who claimed the Holocaust happened so Israel could be founded, etc.

Right, but that's in line with my "not really racist, but pro-racist policies" explanation. Intent matters, but maybe not that much.

How about a boulder of salt?

I don't think this proves what you think it does. The Hamas tunnels are already repurposed tunnels that were meant for delivering supplies to civilians. Why can't a water well be one too? Not to mention Israel supposedly has built a tunnel beneath Al Shifa already according to forums I've read and what M3J just posted.

I mean, most people that don't want to admit that Israel is the bad guy and Hamas isn't tend to respond like that.

Are you accusing me of not thinking Israel are the bad guys? Remember: of the two of us, I've denounced the evils of the side I'm "defending". You're the one who still hasn't denounced Hamas' actions. You don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to moral indignation.

The amount of outright lies and fabrications I've seen on twitter from the IDF, it's difficult to take anything they say seriously. And yeah, I know most governments will lie and propagandize, but they're exceptional.

So which one of your sources are correct?

You posted one that says the tunnel I posted wasn't actually a tunnel but a well (and that it's not at Al Shifa anyway). M3J posted one that says there IS a tunnel at Al Shifa, but it was built by Israel (which honestly would mean that Israel was correct and by proxy, so am I).

EDIT: Also, to be clear, Israel being responsible for the tunnel doesn't make Hamas less culpable for putting civilians in danger there because:

1: You can't convince me Hamas didn't know the tunnel was there and that they weren't using it since before my old ass was born.
2: They're resourceful enough to just NOT use their hospital as an HQ, I think. It's the biggest one sure, and it was originally a British army barracks... but it doesn't need to be used that way.

 

[hblock]

EDIT: Also, to be clear, Israel being responsible for the tunnel doesn't make Hamas less culpable for putting civilians in danger there because:

What would you do if you have to chose between a hellish life and a riskng your life to gain your rights.

 

[M3J]

That wasn't your point in saying it's literally a concentration camp though. You believe people are making that argument but I've yet to see it really explained by anyone tbh.

I don't remember if he was reacting to that or just holocaust comparisons, but no, obviously concentration camps are not exclusive to the Holocaust, it'st just the most famous example of it.

Exactly what I'm saying, though I don't remember if I compared it to the Holocaust. But he seems to be reacting to Gaza being called a concentration camp.

Are you accusing me of not thinking Israel are the bad guys? Remember: of the two of us, I've denounced the evils of the side I'm "defending". You're the one who still hasn't denounced Hamas' actions. You don't have a single leg to stand on when it comes to moral indignation.

No, I'm accusing you of thinking of Hamas as the bad guys and ignoring the fact that they've been scapegoated to justify genocide/IDF bombing so many places. I've already explained, I'm not going to denounce Hamas's actions when they've been blamed for things they haven't done, and when they were created, according to a Zionist website, in response to Israel's violence against Palestinians.

The fact that Israel keeps saying Hamas's base is there and then after bombing it, says it's elsewhere, reveals a lot. While I denounce Hamas's attack (as far as I know, they haven't denied that), I think Israel confessed they caused the deaths of innocent people. And if Hamas is as bad as made out to be, then once again why would their own hostages be friendly with them? Shake their hands? Why wouldn't Hamas just hurt the hostages to try and get Israel to do what they want?

2: They're resourceful enough to just NOT use their hospital as an HQ, I think. It's the biggest one sure, and it was originally a British army barracks... but it doesn't need to be used that way.

But if Hamas wanted to use civilians as human shields, surely a hospital would be a great way to do that, right? If Israel and the West were good people, then they surely would not attempt to or condone bombing a place full of sick and dying people, right?

 

[ninjabot]

What would you do if you have to chose between a hellish life and a riskng your life to gain your rights.

Depends on if it's impossible for me to gain those rights. I'm not gonna fight, die, and put other civilians in danger trying to win a fight that's impossible to win. It just extends how long the violence lasts.

I swear to non-existent God everyone in here has forgotten the civil rights movement and how it was only possible through non-violence.

No, I'm accusing you of thinking of Hamas as the bad guys and ignoring the fact that they've been scapegoated to justify genocide/IDF bombing so many places. I've already explained, I'm not going to denounce Hamas's actions when they've been blamed for things they haven't done, and when they were created, according to a Zionist website, in response to Israel's violence against Palestinians.

Then you ignored everything I stated multiple times, highlighted in red to make it impossible for you to miss, and there's no point continuing the discussion. I've condemned every heinous act Israel has committed. I don't know why the hell you're pretending I haven't, and at this point, we've gone in circles far too many times for me to care.

 

[ninjabot]

The notion of danger is only relevant when you've something to lose.
Especially against a bloodthursty foe who only knows force.

Do you mean something to lose like their life? And the lives of their loved ones?

 

[hblock]

Do you mean something to lose like their life? And the lives of their loved ones?

Themselves and their loved ones are living in hell, no hope, no life, nothing. There is only one "possible" way to make things better.

 

[ninjabot]

Themselves and their loved ones are living in hell, no hope, no life, nothing. There is only one "possible" way to make things better.

And what would that be?

 

[xi0]

So which one of your sources are correct?

You posted one that says the tunnel I posted wasn't actually a tunnel but a well (and that it's not at Al Shifa anyway). M3J posted one that says there IS a tunnel at Al Shifa, but it was built by Israel (which honestly would mean that Israel was correct and by proxy, so am I).

EDIT: Also, to be clear, Israel being responsible for the tunnel doesn't make Hamas less culpable for putting civilians in danger there because:

1: You can't convince me Hamas didn't know the tunnel was there and that they weren't using it since before my old ass was born.
2: They're resourceful enough to just NOT use their hospital as an HQ, I think. It's the biggest one sure, and it was originally a British army barracks... but it doesn't need to be used that way.

I wasn't putting forth those things as unequivocal necessarily, just that I've seen enough over the past month to not trust anything the IDF says

I'm not well versed enough in the geography there to state if it's being used that way or not. My stance has always been, regardless of whether you think Hamas is using human shields or not, it doesn't justify destroying important infrastructure, much less hospitals. Is that why Hamas would use it in the first place? Perhaps. Is it endangering civilians? Perhaps. Is Israel justified in calling Hamas' bluff and destroying a hospital because Hamas might be in tunnels underneath it? No. Whether Hamas is inhumane or fighting "cowardly" or however anyone wants to describe it, it doesn't change the cost.

I mean, I would say enough of the people calling shots there know that it isn't justifiable unless you reduce their actions to that of trying to preserve demographics. This is where the "mowing the grass" phrase came from, not the claim that it's just about militants.

 

[hblock]

And what would that be?

Gaining enough military might and intelligence throughout unorthodox methods to bait the warmonger ennemy and expose what it truly is while making him look like a fool, exposing his weaknesses as much as possible.
There's no peaceful resolution against an entity whose main principles revolve arround blood and money.

 

[ninjabot]

I'm not well versed enough in the geography there to state if it's being used that way or not. My stance has always been, regardless of whether you think Hamas is using human shields or not, it doesn't justify destroying important infrastructure, much less hospitals. Is that why Hamas would use it in the first place? Perhaps. Is it endangering civilians? Perhaps. Is Israel justified in calling Hamas' bluff and destroying a hospital because Hamas might be in tunnels underneath it? No. Whether Hamas is inhumane or fighting "cowardly" or however anyone wants to describe it, it doesn't change the cost.

With the exception of the bolded being worded in a way that implies we know less about how Hamas has worked in the past than we actually do, I don't disagree with any of this. I just wanted to see if it was as difficult for you as it is for everyone else in here to acknowledge that Hamas getting their own civilians killed is bad. I personally believe they deserve less sympathy than they're getting since they can't even sympathize/empathize with their own people, or else they'd operate in less civilian-populated areas. It's not about cowardice, it's about justification for their actions.

I don't think there is justification for Israel bombing the hospital. I also don't think there is justification for using the hospital as an HQ.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2023, Original Post Date: Nov 20, 2023 ---

Gaining enough military might and intelligence throughout unorthodox methods to bait the warmonger ennemy and expose what it truly is while making him look like a fool, exposing his weaknesses as much as possible.
There's no peaceful resolution against an entity whose main principles revolve arround blood and money.

Military might? From where? With what money? With what soldiers? How much military might will they need to offset the funds, munitions, and global allies that Israel has?

Is there a second America somewhere with great investment in the thriving of Palestine?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2023 ---

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-establishes-special-force-to-prevent-rocket-fire/

 

[M3J]

Then you ignored everything I stated multiple times, highlighted in red to make it impossible for you to miss, and there's no point continuing the discussion. I've condemned every heinous act Israel has committed. I don't know why the hell you're pretending I haven't, and at this point, we've gone in circles far too many times for me to care.

Condemning Israel is not the same as understanding Hamas are not the bad guys and trying to understand Hamas. Focus is on Hamas, not Israel, as you keep talking about condemning Hamas. You're expecting me to condemn Hamas, but that's difficult to do given why they were created and what they're trying to do, on top of them being scapegoated by Israel and the west to justify genocide.

Claiming they're using humans as shields does not justify genocide. Hamas is not the problem here, other than maybe October 7th, but even then.

 

[xi0]

With the exception of the bolded being worded in a way that implies we know less about how Hamas has worked in the past than we actually do, I don't disagree with any of this. I just wanted to see if it was as difficult for you as it is for everyone else in here to acknowledge that Hamas getting their own civilians killed is bad. I personally believe they deserve less sympathy than they're getting since they can't even sympathize/empathize with their own people, or else they'd operate in less civilian-populated areas. It's not about cowardice, it's about justification for their actions.

I don't think there is justification for Israel bombing the hospital. I also don't think there is justification for using the hospital as an HQ.

"Hamas getting their own civilians killed is bad" - this happened the moment the attack happened on October 7th. Granted, people prefer to paint it as an act with purely evil motivations rather than an obvious attempt to take hostages to exchange for captives that Israelis have, but I digress.

However, if Israel is to be held up as the "only Democracy in the Middle East", then the onus is on them to act like it. Whether Hamas has bases under hospitals or schools or what, there's no way to really know how integral those things are to their operations, especially when their leadership isn't even in Gaza in the first place. Like I said before, I definitely won't take the IDF's word for it when it comes to their justification for nuking hospitals and schools, and I still don't think it's justified even if you could find weapons there either.

Hamas remains an excuse to exact collective punishment upon Palestinians. Even if they could bomb hospitals and schools and eliminate Hamas that way, Hamas 2.0 will just replace it. They know this.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 22, 2023, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2023 ---

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 23, 2023 ---

 

[M3J]

Crazy how despite Hamas being so evil and whatnot, their hostages usually say good things about them or leave amicably while Israeli hostages are often abused and sexually assaulted, despite supposedly being the good guys.

Hamas are not the problem here, as I said before, they're just scapegoats used by Israel to justify genocide.

 

[ninjabot]

 

[xi0]

It's a more cogent point then most crybullying Hillary supporters or stunted gremlins like this write -


But I think the cycle of GOP gets elected, it's mostly horrible, then Democrat gets elected and it's mostly whatever has to come to a screeching halt at some point. Democrats simply do not care about supporting progressive causes until it's convenient for them electorally, and not a second beforehand.

 

[ninjabot]

Lol he may be saying it in the shittiest way possible, but damned if he isn't right. I'd even argue saying "clueless" is using kid gloves considering what he calls people usually. If he were saying this on stream they wouldn't be called clueless. They'd be called "retarded fucking children". Especially if he were talking to Qorantos, resident Muslim orbiter of the stream.

But I think the cycle of GOP gets elected, it's mostly horrible, then Democrat gets elected and it's mostly whatever has to come to a screeching halt at some point. Democrats simply do not care about supporting progressive causes until it's convenient for them electorally, and not a second beforehand.

Not until ranked choice voting is instrumented everywhere in America, will there ever be a real possibility of us getting something that's not either the current representative Democrat or Republican politicians.

IMO.

Really though, has there ever been a point in history where forfeiting an election/elections paid off in the long run when trying to change how your own party works? Or is this just what people think will work? To me it sounds like it'd work just as much as boycotting a product does. That is to say: not at all.

 

[xi0]

Lol he may be saying it in the shittiest way possible, but damned if he isn't right. I'd even argue saying "clueless" is using kid gloves considering what he calls people usually. If he were saying this on stream they wouldn't be called clueless. They'd be called "retarded fucking children". Especially if he were talking to Qorantos, resident Muslim orbiter of the stream.

I'm curious what he actually thinks what people are being "clueless" about. There's countless examples of both parties being dogshit when it comes to this issue. The orange shitstain being proud of his xenophobic rhetoric doesn't erase that.

Really though, has there ever been a point in history where forfeiting an election/elections paid off in the long run when trying to change how your own party works? Or is this just what people think will work? To me it sounds like it'd work just as much as boycotting a product does. That is to say: not at all.

I don't think it's a strategy so much as it's a "fuck you, represent the ideals you claim to represent" -move. It's still a lot of talk so no way to know what the outcome is, but I feel like if Biden was a choice most Democrats were enthusiastic about, this outcry wouldn't exist in the same way.

 

[ninjabot]

I'm curious what he actually thinks what people are being "clueless" about. There's countless examples of both parties being dogshit when it comes to this issue.

Basically, the same thing I argued about for like 2 pages recently. The idea that you don't get to a better life by spiting the only people interested in giving you a better life in favor of the people that want to make your life worse.

I don't think it's a strategy so much as it's a "fuck you, represent the ideals you claim to represent" -move.

UGH.

I hope beyond all hope that I never let my "ideals" become more important to me than the lives and well-being of the people I'm advocating for.

It's still a lot of talk so no way to know what the outcome is, but I feel like if Biden was a choice most Democrats were enthusiastic about, this outcry wouldn't exist in the same way.

I'm not enthusiastic about Biden. I'm less enthusiastic about someone further left than him getting the nom. I don't even know who the fuck that'd be.

 

[xi0]

I'm not enthusiastic about Biden. I'm less enthusiastic about someone further left than him getting the nom. I don't even know who the fuck that'd be.

Why exactly would you be less enthusiastic about that, though?