Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]
it might be theoretically necessary to kill everyone in Gaza? yes it might. and if it happens it's still all blood lost because of radical muslim terror
I don't think it is actually necessary to "kill" anyone. I think it would be enough if we just stop letting our empathy to be weaponized against us, and to stop rewarding extreme antisocial behavior. This includes cutting off aid to places like (Houthi occupied) Yemen and Gaza if they continue to behave the way they do and not allowing radical mosques to operate within Western nations.
I really think a giant part of the problem is western largesse as far as providing incentive structures that actually facilitate violence and radicalism.
Western largesse in implanting a western friendly satellite state populated with Europeans and Americans in the largely Muslim Middle East.
Multiculturalism in existing countries yes of course, but implanting an 80% Jewish state into the Middle East isn’t multiculturalism.
Is this the best trolling you can do?
Multiculturalism in existing countries yes of course, but implanting an 80% Jewish state into the Middle East isn’t multiculturalism.
Is this the best trolling you can do?
there are more Muslims in London as a % of the population than Jews in the middle east.
why would the latter be wrong and the former be good?
immune, no. but it got reduced. but until it stops completely we have to accept that killing civilians, even in large numbers, can be necessary to stop violence.
I see. So you think that it may be necessary to kill large numbers of civilians of various religions until we reach your stated goal of 0% possibility of extremist religious violence. Is it only religious extremism, or do you feel this way about non-religious extremism as well -- that is, that we may need to kill large numbers of civilians to reduce the possibility of reoccurrence to 0%?
Just how many people do you want to kill?
this was known months ago but pointing it out got someone labeled an antisemite conspiracy theorist.
These days anyone who doesn't unilaterally and completely endorse everything Israel does is labeled 'antisemitic.'
addendum: Like in 2020 if you weren't unequivocally supporting BLM, you were branded a 'racist'.
Long-time Sacramento Kings announcer Grant Napier was fired from both his announcing gig and his own daily radio program for posting "ALL lives matter" on Twitter.
I see. So you think that it may be necessary to kill large numbers of civilians of various religions until we reach your stated goal of 0% possibility of extremist religious violence. Is it only religious extremism, or do you feel this way about non-religious extremism as well -- that is, that we may need to kill large numbers of civilians to reduce the possibility of reoccur
Yes it might. Say those germans that police recently arrested to attempt to overthrow the state had also been christian nationalists (not sure they were very explicitly, maybe they were?).
Say they had disseminated tens of apartments across various buildings in a german city with thousands of highly lethal weapons, and you knew the members of the organization included thousands more people you have not identified yet, and you knew the addresses for many of those apartments from various intelligence sources. It might be the case that killing all the people living in those buildings is necessary to avoid them fleeing if you give advanced notice of a raid there.
Or not but you shouldn't exclude the option and it might become necessary at SOME POINT. Now Hamas does infinitely worse than those hypothetical german nationalists to be clear, and it controlled many more areas.
Or take a real life example, the theater in Moscow with hundreds of hostages by radical muslim separatists from Chechnya. Raiding it accepting many civilians could die was absolutely correct and proper (also because of future games).
simply put the enemy should know that our morals explicitly put terminating the enemy as th emost important goal full stop and absolutely nothing moral would stop us from doing everything we physically can to achieve that. That should be the consistent message and actions should follow that message.
Many times you can achieve the goals with fewer civilian deaths and you should strive for that, but civilian deaths (even in LARGE NUMBERS), like anything else, should never be "too many" to take a course of action. The enemy cannot know that if he manages to get enough human shields then he is safe. The enemy should know he will never be safe and the overarching moral imperative above everything else is for us to exterminate him. At any cost.
That's the proper game theoretical framework. Everything else helps the enemy.
then you have the different problem of tradeoffs which doesn't have a clear answer. Ofc FOREIGN CIVILIANS are worth less than YOUR CIVILIANS, and ofc foreign civilians are worth less than YOUR SOLDIERs.
So if a plan of action kills 500 civilians expected and none of your soldiers (carpet bombing an area repeatedly), while the other kills 30 civilians and 5-10 of your soldiers (limited bombing and incursion), there is no "right answer" but i fully understand any country that counts one of its soldiers as being worth MANY foreign civilians. Opinions can differ for the exact ratio ofc.
Sure Saudi Arabia is supposedly responsible for the Yemeni famine because they are blockading Yemen and doing a military intervention. Estimated 90k children dead.
But just in general it’s not unusual for countries, US-backed or not, to do things that would offend Western sensibilities in the Middle East, and you kind of have to p
Should we be surprised there are resistance movements with unlimited morale coming after US interests in the Middle East?
The level of shortsightedness is staggering. The current policy of hit and run airstrikes and no boots on the ground further emboldens the enemy.
At this point it's a matter of saving face until the US suffers the same fate as the Brits. The only question is whether it happens in 5 years or 55.
Given the current fiscal trajectory, I'll take the under 30.
there are more Muslims in London as a % of the population than Jews in the middle east.
why would the latter be wrong and the former be good?
If London's muslims, most of whom were born here btw, were here because their ancestors were brought in by a malignant foreign country to give that country a strong foothold in the UK your hopeless analogy might be worth discussing.
If London's muslims, most of whom were born here btw, were here because their ancestors were brought in by a malignant foreign country to give that country a strong foothold in the UK your hopeless analogy might be worth discussing.
Ironically, there is a very large and rapidly growing contingent of white American and Europeans who consider Muslim immigration a hostile Jewish plot to ethnically replace the white race.
Well it seems that everyone in the west has become fearful of being replaced. Maybe if they were less insecure in their own usefulness and had a better sense of self worth this wouldn’t be so prevalent.
Societies have been breaking people with this extreme form of capitalism where workers are overworked and under rewarded and studying for a degree is going to put you in debt for $50,000. The choices facing young people have been absolute dogshite for decades, and you wonder why people are fearful of the future with climate change and AI taking their jobs just around d the corner?
These days anyone who doesn't unilaterally and completely endorse everything Israel does is labeled 'antisemitic.'
addendum: Like in 2020 if you weren't unequivocally supporting BLM, you were branded a 'racist'.
Long-time Sacramento Kings announcer Grant Napier was fired from both his announcing gig and his own daily radio program for posting "ALL lives matter" on Twitter.
right well "All lives matter" is a clear dog whistle to White Supremacy. sort of like how "Israel has a right to defend itself" is clear support of mass murder of Palestinian children.
If London's muslims, most of whom were born here btw, were here because their ancestors were brought in by a malignant foreign country to give that country a strong foothold in the UK your hopeless analogy might be worth discussing.
The vast majority of jews in Israel today are born there as well, yet you care to mention that they were "brought in" (as if they had no agency of their own and their ancestors didn't decide to move) from outside.
I don't understand why the fact that the malignant force that favoured mass immigration of people with alien cultures was domestic in the british case should make any difference.
If London's muslims, most of whom were born here btw, were here because their ancestors were brought in by a malignant foreign country to give that country a strong foothold in the UK your hopeless analogy might be worth discussing.
Wasn't this the argument Serbians used in the early 1990s when they attempted to remove Muslim populations who were brought in by the Ottomans (as they saw it at least)?
Ironically, there is a very large and rapidly growing contingent of white American and Europeans who consider Muslim immigration a hostile Jewish plot to ethnically replace the white race.
bro wut
--I actually stand corrected. Victor is just behind dishonest and dissembling. He knows exactly what the phrase means and has commented on it multiple times over the years, including this banger about 1 year ago.
you know the current Columbia president Shafik declined to kick that "Jews will not replace us" tiki torch guy out of school when she was at London School of Economics?
Anything is possible, but I would not be surprised if there was a civil war between Islamists and "natives" in Britain before anything similar in Israel.
Ironically, when it comes to extremism, the more tolerant you are the more the extremists push for more and more. And the nations which reign in religious extremism (including most Muslim nations and Israel) have better integrated Muslim populations.
In Iran, for all the narrative about the Shah being repressive; the truth is under the demands of Jimmy Carter he actually became much more tolerant and inclusive towards leftists and Islamists; and they took advantage of the space to do what they did. And the IRGC learned from his mistake and has spent the last 40 years as an authoritarian police state, crushing any leftist movements, not allowing potential reformers an inch to organize.
There’s surely a non 0% chance that Victor and Jalfrezi are Hasbara. Working from within to delegitimize the movement. Genius.
Anything is possible, but I would not be surprised if there was a civil war between Islamists and "natives" in Britain before anything similar in Israel.Ironically, when it comes to extremism, the more tolerant you are the more the extremists push for more and more. And the nations which reign in religious extremism (including most Muslim nations and Israel) have better integr
Stalin did a great job too. Maybe you're on to something and we should all support despotic mass murdering dictators to keep us from the fear and trembling.
Anything is possible, but I would not be surprised if there was a civil war between Islamists and "natives" in Britain... blah blah blah
stopped reading this stupidity here
