Occupying what? Gaza? Jerusalem? — BitconnectCarlos

https://bdsmovement.net/what-bds

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194

I take it that the demand is being pushed to the point that the families cannot even prove they owned such and such -- hopefully because the documents have been destroyed or the oral stories have been stamped out.

For my part I don't want to give Israel weapons to do the evil things they're doing now. Excuses either which way.

But even voicing the thought is met with cries of "anti-semitism" -- and many of the zionists follow along the same fascist scripts, in the darkest of ironies.

Regarding RoR:

That's asking for the destruction of Israel. It would be adding roughly 6 million Arab Muslims to the population of Israel, and it would throw the demographic balance off. Ethnic warfare would result. There would be fighting in the streets as the fundamental character of the state is brought into question. No one can demand that a state destroy itself and call it immoral for not doing so.

Also, why such selective enforcement? Where is the Jewish right of return to Iraq? Or Yemen? The Middle East has been cleansed of Jews besides Israel, but there is no demand for "right of return" there.

Ethnic warfare would result. — BitconnectCarlos

Would?

But we're engaging in talking points now....

Yes, that's what happens when people suddenly lose control of their political sovereignty/self-determination. Flood a nation of 5 million Muslims living under Sharia with 5 million Hindus and see what happens.

It would be like asking the US to absorb 200 million Muslims.

Yes, that's what happens when people suddenly lose control of their political sovereignty/self-determination. Flood a nation of 5 million Muslims living under Sharia with 5 million Hindus and see what happens.

It would be like asking the US to absorb 200 million Muslims. — BitconnectCarlos

"Would" -- it's already there. And what you describe is ironic given that this is what happened to the Palestinians -- imagine a group of people show up and then....

This assassination seems to whitewash what Kirk spread around, and it was not to spread love. He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them. This side has no political color. It just happens to be more common on the extreme right in this time in history.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

Arguing for the good side is arguing for the side that, with evidence in living standards and quality of life in the world, produces the best living conditions in a society.

Right now we're seeing a rise in the spread of hateful, polarizing rhetoric. Something that divides and makes enemies of neighbors. This rhetoric is eroding society and causing a lot of suffering and even deaths.

When speaking on a topic like this thread, I think it's important to be aware of which stance people holds in an argument. Which also means we can't ignore what someone like Kirk spread around. We can't whitewash what he did with spreading hate because he was the target of political violence, just as much as we can't ignore that the assassin acted out according to the bad side as well through his violence.

I think it's important not to get lost in these basic ideas about what is good and what is bad. The reality is that we can't justify the assassination, but we can't justify what Kirk stood for either.

And there we have it.

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us.

And there we have it. — NOS4A2

What do we have?

A charge of "spreading hate" -- but I'm the one who has used "evil", not @Christoffer, except this one time in quotes:

I think you are blinded by the idea that people defend the murderer, but explaining why this assassination happened is not the same as defending it. I think we are all much more intellectually capable than the shallow reporting of news, social media and officials. Otherwise you are just summerizing this by the measure of "good vs evil", which isn't very respectful of the complexities of reality. — Christoffer

So:

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, — NOS4A2

I can't note that anywhere other than your interpretation.

"Would" -- it's already there. And what you describe is ironic given that this is what happened to the Palestinians -- imagine a group of people show up and then.... — Moliere

What do you think would happen? Would Jews and Palestinian Muslims hold hands and sing Kumbaya under RoR? Hamas is a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist sect — the Palestinian vision. I can't avoid the fact that the Palestinians voted them into power.

What happened to the Palestinians is that the Arab world declared war on Israel in '47. Instead of wiping out the new Jewish state, the Palestinians lost and were put to flight as Israeli forces overran their annihilation attempt.

What do we have?

I explain in the following paragraphs.

A charge of "spreading hate" -- but I'm the one who has used "evil", not @Christoffer, except this one time in quotes:

I cited the words I was responding to in preceding paragraphs.

What do you think would happen? Would Jews and Palestinian Muslims hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

What happened to the Palestinians is that the Arab world declared war on Israel in '47. Instead of wiping out the new Jewish state, the Palestinians lost and were put to flight as Israeli forces overran their annihilation attempt. — BitconnectCarlos

What I think is that this is a right I agree with -- but what I think is happening is far worse than what you're imagining, given that we're witnessing a genocide.

I agree with the right -- if someone took my home I'd want it back no matter how long it took.

But things have progressed so far from there now. It's a worthy goal to remember, and since you asked that's where I stand.

But let's step back a bit now.

You mentioned Hamas.

I tend to think Hamas is a direct result of the failures of the PLO and representation. In a way it's "the bullet" in the question.

Oct 7th is horrifying.

And so is this world we see of Israeli fascists posting videos of themselves enjoying killing.

And so is the past prior to that one event -- sometimes an occupied territory decides to revolt.

Perhaps it could not have been occupied.

In another way a slave revolt is horrifying -- and it's a direct result of having been enslaved, and so is liberation.

It didn't make sense to me how what you said connected to @Christoffer

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us. — NOS4A2

Chris did not make a connection between the act of holding and espousing one's belief and being evil -- I'm the one using "evil" in this conversation, but I also didn't connect that to "Kirk's brain state..."

On one hand he divided, and on the other he was on the wrong side of the divide -- that's closer to my perspective than @Christoffer

I find it a strange wonder that the assassin accused Charlie Kirk so far -- and I'm confused about "not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion"; which premise? Who said it? Which conclusion?

That's basically an accusation of a non sequiter inference, but what is the set of premises that you're talking about?

I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that.

I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all. — NOS4A2

Eh, fair. I've been reading along and thinking here.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this. — NOS4A2

I think it's a "reader comprehension" issue on my part. I'm wondering what you mean because I felt what you said applied more to myself than Chris.

Not that he can't defend himself, of course -- I guess I just felt defensive because I thought you ought to be attacking me from what I read from you lol -- but I obviously could be wrong.

I've liked @Christoffer's contributions to this thread as a more hopeful perspective than I have.

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that. — NOS4A2

I feel like that's an optimistic way of putting what we should go towards.

Do you disagree?

And so is the past prior to that one event -- sometimes an occupied territory decides to revolt.

Perhaps it could not have been occupied. — Moliere

I like to read about the history of this region. 2000 years ago it was Jews living there occupied by Rome. Jewish kings would directly report to Roman authorities. The Romans had ultimate control. That is occupation. A clear chain of command; subordination. Yet neither the PLO or Hamas report to Israel. It's absurd to think entertain that they would. Perhaps we could say Israel occupies Gazan airspace, but in really it's just war given Hamas is a sworn enemy.

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence.

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence. — BitconnectCarlos

There's a sense in which complaining about its existence is like complaining about the United States' existence -- both are colony's that took other people's land. The US just has more years and more kills than Israel.

In this sense I complain about the United States' existence. It is a colonialist state with moral debts.

But that's where I live.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on.

If you're asking if I'm for the genocide of Israelis on behalf of Arabs then no I am not -- but I think this is a line of propaganda more than a reality.

My apologies for the confusion. I only read a couple posts on the last page. I wasn’t aware there was a longer conversation there.

I do disagree because I do not believe the good and the bad can be found in thoughts, only actions. For instance, the assassin may have had the most beautiful thoughts ever conceived. Perhaps they were so good that he opposed fascism and the spreading of hate. Kirk, on the other hand, wanted to bring back the death penalty, and probably believes you or I will go to heaven and hell. Those are bad thoughts, in my view. But from the stories of Kirk I’ve been reading the last couple days, he was very kind. As far as I know he never hurt anyone, and gave a platform to opposing views. The shooter, who apparently opposed fascism, murdered someone in cold blood. So who is good or bad?

In my view there is an increasing conflation between words and deeds in Western moral literature and it leads directly to these sorts of acts.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on. — Moliere

I simply don't see it as a genocide. Historically, genocidal groups don't hold back. The population of Gaza has stayed the same or grown since the start of the war. Israel has shown restraint. Genocidal states don't send in massive amounts of aid to the victim population or provide them with considerable amounts of medical care.

Obviously, if we move the goalposts and redefine the term, then anything can be genocide. Or we could hold that Israel really "intends" it as if states have minds where they secretly hold intentions. Really, the reason we know about the Nazi genocide was because we have the documents that clearly lay out the plan. Even in the beginning of the war, when thousands of Jews had been summarily executed, the fact hadn't been established.

I simply don't see it as a genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

What is a genocide, in your view?

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria.

I'd go with Merriam-Webster:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill.

Differentiate away. How is this not that?

What is a genocide, in your view? — Moliere

We can go by Merriam-Webster.

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria. — Moliere

Israel has complete air superiority over Gaza and is capable of inflicting much more damage. Israel possesses WMDs. Gaza has virtually no air defenses. Israel could do much more.

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill. — Moliere

Gaza is a region. "Palestine" you will find nowhere on a map. When you say "Palestine is an occupied territory," I'm not sure which geographic boundaries you have in mind. What is "Palestine" to you?

All war crimes should be prosecuted. They occur in virtually every war on all sides. Propaganda, distortions, and lies are also a part of war.

I've noticed that everyone around me is happy Kirk is dead, not happy that people are going around shooting each other, just happy one jackass is gone.

I've noticed that everyone around me is happy Kirk is dead, not happy that people are going around shooting each other, just happy one jackass is gone. — frank

The attitude from liberals I know is amusement over the irony of Kirk being one of the shooting deaths that are "worth it" to keep the 2nd amendment alive.

Sacrifices have to be made apparently.

Part of the absurdity I feel is the celebration I see. Not really people directly around me, but just generally on the internet and through the media and all that.

When the Healthcare CEO was gunned down I didn't feel so absurd -- he was directly responsible for many deaths. Anyone whose had someone live with chronic pain or die or any such travesty due to the cruelty of healthcare insurance company policies would naturally feel better in the sense of a kind of revenge-by-proxy.

Here the man spread hate, by all means. But it never feels right to me to outright jump for joy for the death of one random person that won't make a difference in how we live.

But then I could tell I didn't feel much care for him given what he said. And I said before when I saw him being lionized and the shooter shamed I couldn't help but think about how much death we already have on our hands -- on what basis do we condemn the shooter?

There's a sense in which all of this isn't even of concern -- there are sides and when your side "wins" one of these terrible games you celebrate, and vice versa. Which strikes me as a good way to lose our humanity in the process of feeling like we're winners.

Between these two extremes is where I felt, and further couldn't help but wish the kind of media given to his death was also given to the deaths we are still causing: it results in a numbly uncertain feeling about the world that I couldn't express easily.

Gaza is a region. "Palestine" you will find nowhere on a map. When you say "Palestine is an occupied territory," I'm not sure which geographic boundaries you have in mind. What is "Palestine" to you? — BitconnectCarlos

The wiki on Palestine defines this well enough for me. "Palestine, officially the State of Palestine, is a country in West Asia. Recognized by 147 of the UN's 193 member states, it encompasses the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the occupied Palestinian territories. "

The reason it wasn't on a map is because it was still controlled by a colonial government, not because the people didn't live there.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, despite having studied the history of the region, I've always wondered when the "Palestinians" arrived in Palestine. When does their history start? Or where can their coins be found? Or their artifacts? Hebrew/Jewish ones are abundant. Or are the modern "Palestinians" just the people (i.e., non-Jews) who have lived there since time immemorial, since it's in the name — and whoever claims the name "Palestinian" earns this eternal presence.

Anyway.

It's nice that you were able to describe Palestine, but Hamas has made it pretty clear that it considers all of Israel to be occupied, so the first step in the peace process — if there is to be one — would be removing Hamas.

so the first step in the peace process — if there is to be one — would be removing Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

But what would that do? I thought you said Hamas was democratically elected. Why wouldn't the same type of person or people with the same type of ideology not get elected again? Are you hoping the people are so psychologically battered to the point they will agree with anything they're told? Is that really a view you'd be proud parading around and being on your tombstone that those after you will read and remember you as?

Are you trying to remove their right to the democratic process? Or place arbitrary guidelines and "controlled opposition" candidates thus subverting the democratic process?

Why do they even call themselves "Hamas", where did that come from? What was wrong with "the democratically elected government?" Just seems necessary.

Frankly, I think it doesn't take much to imagine what happens in war that could explain why the people there today do not physically (or by DNA) resemble the people their before. Not very hard to put two and two together. Which is a very difficult humanitarian situation. What do you with people who genuinely believe they were the original "rightful" folks, yet the DNA says otherwise, and in a twist of irony, their presence is literally excelling the genocide that whatever past invading army who engaged in forced "relations" with the true rightful people tried to perform (and perhaps succeeded)?

The point is, we need more Internationally-recognized national parks, preserves, and protected areas, basically everywhere. Places any person can always visit but are not permitted to build a home or reside on permanently. If not as a buffer between two peoples who cannot or will not live in peace. Once someone plops out a kid (or worse, was forced to plop out a kid), they think that land is their home. As if engaging in the cheapest most automatic and low-level primal act any living being can perform (fornication) somehow elevates you socially and legally above someone who does not have children. All that does is lead to overpopulation, which leads to war, starvation, suffering, and just an all-around lowered quality of life for everyone alive. That's just not smart. That's just not how it is. But it's what they think. Ergo, we have a problem.

I'm not happy he's dead, but I'm not upset about it either. There's some reporting the shooter had a transgender partner. Trans people have been banned from the military and the DOJ is talking about restricting them from owning guns. How much abuse can a community take before someone snaps and takes out a particularly vile trans bully? Conservatives have this quaint idea that queers and liberals and liberal queers don't have guns and don't know how to use them.

How much abuse can a community take before someone snaps and takes out a particularly vile trans bully? Conservatives have this quaint idea that queers and liberals and liberal queers don't have guns and don't know how to use them. — RogueAI

You're falling into a false argument. Why do people cut off their genitals? Because they feel socially-ostracized. Have you ever been a child once in a modern day school with low-income people? Even having any sense of morality gets you called a "snitch" or a "girl", and basically physically harmed IF you're smaller than the person. It's a cycle of useless people fornicating because they have no self control, often the largest "Strongest" what they call alpha, despite having the brains of rocks and no real purpose since 800 B.C. when the lever and pulley was invented. They can't cope with society. They were made to be slaves. To work, to use their size to lift heavy rocks under the command of a king. They have no purpose in modern society. They don't know how to raise kids. They get pleasure from seeing people, anyone, random strangers, suffer. It gives them "purpose," The things that bring an intellect joy and a sense of harmony, give them anger. The things that give us a sense of disgust and horror, bring a smile to their face. They are incompatible with modern society.

Sorry, my point being, no person who was not bullied or exposed to the idea that "oh you might be a girl, since you act like one" has ever once considered the idea that they were not born into the right body. Not a single one. It's a psychological war humanity wages with itself. The strong taking (dignity and purpose) from the weak. What the very first law ever written, Hammurabi's Code was created to prevent. And it's time to end it before something ends us.

Just look around. Why are all the "transgenders" skinny, awkward people who just didn't fit in. It's not a coincidence. It's psychological bullying and deformation of the human mind by physical and emotional trauma. How can you not see that? How can anyone not see that?