Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You got a Venn Diagram of NAMBLA and Libertarians you're hiding?

It's really not fair of him, a lot of Republicans involved in child rape that keep hitting the press are of the Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordon neo-fascist variety. Or do those guys claim to be libertarian?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I side with Israel 100% because they're an ally.

I don't really understand what it means to side with Israel 100%. Obviously, Hamas is a bunch of terrorists and does heinous things. I don't side with Hamas at all. But Hamas is in power in Gaza not because it has widespread support among Palestinians or won free and fair elections, but in large part because Israel has weakened the Palestinian Authority over the years in a divide-and-conquer approach. This is hardly a secret. Netanyahu and Hamas have each used the other for their own ends. (And you should be fault things that Israel has done without having that construed as support for Hamas. It's really depressing how many people turn their outrage and grief into nonproductive attacks against others for not virtue-signaling in the right way.) Just as the US did with 9/11, the Hamas attacks likely will prompt an overreaction by Israel which will leave many non-combatants dead. I don't know if Hamas will survive as an organization, but there will continue to be some outlet for Palestinian nationalism, and the use of excessive force strengthens the most militant on the other side. It's great that Israel is moving towards normalized relations with a lot of Arab governments, but let's not pretend that those governments have democratic legitimacy or that their populations are invested in peace with Israel. Siding with Israel as an ally does not necessarily mean supporting the specific policies of the Israeli government.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't really understand what it means to side with Israel 100%. Obviously, Hamas is a bunch of terrorists and does heinous things. I don't side with Hamas at all. But Hamas is in power in Gaza not because it has widespread support among Palestinians or won free and fair elections, but in large part because Israel has weakened the Palestinian Authority over the years in a divide-and-conquer approach. This is hardly a secret. Netanyahu and Hamas have each used the other for their own ends. (And you should be fault things that Israel has done without having that construed as support for Hamas. It's really depressing how many people turn their outrage and grief into nonproductive attacks against others for not virtue-signaling in the right way.) Just as the US did with 9/11, the Hamas attacks likely will prompt an overreaction by Israel which will leave many non-combatants dead. I don't know if Hamas will survive as an organization, but there will continue to be some outlet for Palestinian nationalism, and the use of excessive force strengthens the most militant on the other side. It's great that Israel is moving towards normalized relations with a lot of Arab governments, but let's not pretend that those governments have democratic legitimacy or that their populations are invested in peace with Israel. Siding with Israel as an ally does not necessarily mean supporting the specific policies of the Israeli government.

When I said I side with Israel 100% it meant in regard to this current attack by Hamas. A significant number of people have asserted this attack was somehow Israel's fault, or justified.

This position appears to have merit superficially, but falls apart rather quickly under even a moderately rigorous assessment of the facts.

1. The Palestinians have objectively not been treated well by Israel. (This is significantly their own fault, but that's another argument we needn't reach here.)

2. This would naturally cause some form of resistance by Palestinians. Had Hamas sent missiles into Israel, or skirmished with settlers near its borders, it'd be a not unexpected form of warfare.

3. However, the behavior of Hamas, in raping, murdering, molesting corpses, and threatening to execute hostages and broadcast it online, is not warfare. It's so far outside the Geneva Convention one can't even liken it to accepted forms of warfare. It is identical to the actions of ISIS - a pathological death cult.

One cannot excuse Hamas because Hamas didn't just go too far. Hamas trampled the line so badly the atrocities of the IRA are distant specks in the rear view mirror. The question of who is at fault for attacking the other in Colonel-Kurtz-meets-the-SS manner isn't up for debate. Whatever Israel's sins are in regard to the Palestinians, what Hamas did was something so vile it renders the argument "Israel is at fault, too" inapplicable. It's not. No country could ever deserve what those Israeli people received.

And if you doubt that, watch some of the uncensored videos on Reddit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So where do we find these mythical libertarians? Because the ones that keep getting in my face don't fit your description.

That's fair. True honest Libertarians are rare. Given Libertarianism rigidly compels one to allow those he doesn't like the same broad rights as he enjoys, most folks can't walk the purist walk required.

Also (and this is why I can't call myself a Libertarian), strict Libertarianism doesn't work. When you apply relativism to everything with the only limitation being all actions must be consensual, you eventually fall into anarchy. As a libertine, and a person who thinks morals and the rules stemming from them are too often hijacked by the officious and powerful for use as control mechanisms, I've spent decades wishing someone could make a pure "dowhatchalike" anything-goes society work. Ain't gonna happen.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Can we at least be at least a little uncomfortable about bombing civilians who are essentially trapped in an open air prison?

There are victims of Hamas on both sides of the border.

Yes, and we should be. I also 100% side with the notion that the Palestinians in Gaza who are not Hamas or Hamas supporters do not deserve what they're getting.

Your second point is most important, and isn't being stated nearly as often as it should. The responsibility for the deaths of innocent Palestinians in the Israeli siege lies exclusively with Hamas, who decided to go ISIS on a much stronger neighbor and desired - sought exactly - the violent response that resulted. And then, cowards they are, slunk back into Gaza and used the Palestinians they pretend to care about as human shields.

Hamas might as well have saved gasoline and massacred the innocent Palestinians of Gaza itself. Because that's exactly what it did when it decided to go medeival on Israel. And why did it do it? To protect itself. If Israel and SA inked that peace deal, Hamas was permanently marginalized. Hamas might minimally care about Palestinians, but what it really cares about most, with everything else a very distant second, is its own power and survival. It'd rather keep the Palestinians in squalor and stay in power than improve their lives and concede its power.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't really understand what it means to side with Israel 100%. Obviously, Hamas is a bunch of terrorists and does heinous things. I don't side with Hamas at all. But Hamas is in power in Gaza not because it has widespread support among Palestinians or won free and fair elections, but in large part because Israel has weakened the Palestinian Authority over the years in a divide-and-conquer approach. This is hardly a secret. Netanyahu and Hamas have each used the other for their own ends. (And you should be fault things that Israel has done without having that construed as support for Hamas. It's really depressing how many people turn their outrage and grief into nonproductive attacks against others for not virtue-signaling in the right way.) Just as the US did with 9/11, the Hamas attacks likely will prompt an overreaction by Israel which will leave many non-combatants dead. I don't know if Hamas will survive as an organization, but there will continue to be some outlet for Palestinian nationalism, and the use of excessive force strengthens the most militant on the other side. It's great that Israel is moving towards normalized relations with a lot of Arab governments, but let's not pretend that those governments have democratic legitimacy or that their populations are invested in peace with Israel. Siding with Israel as an ally does not necessarily mean supporting the specific policies of the Israeli government.

So, it must be horrible to be an innocent in Gaza.

But, the whole spiral started with an attempt to eliminate the Jews in Israel, maybe you’ll say it started with displacing people to create Israel? Whatever, you cannot claim there is not a goal to eliminate the country and its people, or do you?

So these monsters hide behind the innocents and every so often go do things that are so horrible I can’t bring myself to look at the photos, and I objected to you deleting the Beslam photos. What would you suggest Israel do if not invade?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When I said I side with Israel 100% it meant in regard to this current attack by Hamas. A significant number of people have asserted this attack was somehow Israel's fault, or justified.

This position appears to have merit superficially, but falls apart rather quickly under even a moderately rigorous assessment of the facts.

1. The Palestinians have objectively not been treated well by Israel. (This is significantly their own fault, but that's another argument we needn't reach here.)

2. This would naturally cause some form of resistance by Palestinians. Had Hamas sent missiles into Israel, or skirmished with settlers near its borders, it'd be a not unexpected form of warfare.

3. However, the behavior of Hamas, in raping, murdering, molesting corpses, and threatening to execute hostages and broadcast it online, is not warfare. It's so far outside the Geneva Convention one can't even liken it to accepted forms of warfare. It is identical to the actions of ISIS - a pathological death cult.

One cannot excuse Hamas because Hamas didn't just go too far. Hamas trampled the line so badly the atrocities of the IRA are distant specks in the rear view mirror. The question of who is at fault for attacking the other in Colonel-Kurtz-meets-the-SS manner isn't up for debate. Whatever Israel's sins are in regard to the Palestinians, what Hamas did was something so vile it renders the argument "Israel is at fault, too" inapplicable. It's not. No country could ever deserve what those Israeli people received.

And if you doubt that, watch some of the uncensored videos on Reddit.

Based on what I posted and you quoted, do I think I disagree?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The responsibility for the deaths of innocent Palestinians in the Israeli siege lies exclusively with Hamas, who decided to go ISIS on a much stronger neighbor and desired - sought exactly - the violent response that resulted.

Uh, no. Just like Hamas, Israel is responsible for its actions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Based on what I posted and you quoted, do I think I disagree?

No. Not at all. I wasn’t really writing to you. You asked an open question I thought deserved a more detailed explanation of what it means to be 100% in support of Israel here. I thought my earlier use of that phrasing was lazy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uh, no. Just like Hamas, Israel is responsible for its actions.

Not if it has no options. And I don’t see any options.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, it must be horrible to be an innocent in Gaza.

But, the whole spiral started with an attempt to eliminate the Jews in Israel, maybe you’ll say it started with displacing people to create Israel? Whatever, you cannot claim there is not a goal to eliminate the country and its people, or do you?

I'm not sure where you think "the whole spiral started," but most certainly it did not start last weekend.

I'm not super expert on the beliefs of people in Hamas, but it would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that most Hamas members would support the destruction of Israel and killing of all of its inhabitants.

I think it's a little odd that you would ask me that question, as if I suggested something to the contrary somewhere.

So these monsters hide behind the innocents and every so often go do things that are so horrible I can’t bring myself to look at the photos, and I objected to you deleting the Beslam photos. What would you suggest Israel do if not invade?

I'm not sure there's any immediate and realistic alternative to some kind of ground campaign in Gaza, but the point I was making above, which maybe you missed, is that it is no secret that Netanyahu has been building up Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been trying to create Palestinian bantustans, and this is where that led. The alternative would be to try to support a more moderate Palestinian government that can be a negotiating partner.

Predictably, someone will respond to this by saying, look at what Hamas did! You can't negotiate with these people. But the strategy should be to empower the people you can negotiate with, and to marginalize and weaken groups like Hamas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not if it has no options. And I don’t see any options.

That's using rhetoric instead of your brain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uh, no. Just like Hamas, Israel is responsible for its actions.

Yes. It has to be.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure where you think "the whole spiral started," but most certainly it did not start last weekend.

No shit. it started in at least 1967, maybe the 40s.

I think it's a little odd that you would ask me that question, as if I suggested something to the contrary somewhere.

Don't get your panties tight. I don't think you want dead Jews.

c.f. the gazillion people at the support Hamas rally a few days back 10 miles from my home.

I'm not sure there's any immediate and realistic alternative to some kind of ground campaign in Gaza, but the point I was making above, which maybe you missed, is that it is no secret that Netanyahu has been building up Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been trying to create Palestinian bantustans, and this is where that led. The alternative would be to try to support a more moderate Palestinian government that can be a negotiating partner.

Predictably, someone will respond to this by saying, look at what Hamas did! You can't negotiate with these people. But the strategy should be to empower the people you can negotiate with, and to marginalize and weaken groups like Hamas.

That sounds pretty to do! Given that Hamas has guns and rockets, how would you empower them effectively? Give them guns and maybe tanks?

And wasn't the PA behind the Munich Olympics massacre and other outrages?

There is no solution I can see.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No shit. it started in at least 1967, maybe the 40s.

Or go back to the Balfour Declaration. You can always find an earlier cause. The destruction of the Temple.

c.f. the gazillion people at the support Hamas rally a few days back 10 miles from my home.

Yep.

That sounds pretty to do! Given that Hamas has guns and rockets, how would you empower them effectively? Give them guns and maybe tanks?

Yes, it's a mess now. I think the answer has to do with figuring out what Israel can do to make Palestinians want to back someone more moderate than Hamas.

And wasn't the PA behind the Munich Olympics massacre and other outrages?

Look at Northern Ireland. There are a lot of key figures on both sides who were closely tied to terrorist acts at an earlier time. Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of politics by other means. Terrorism is too, no?